FCC Web Documents citing 1.724

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.pdf
  • to Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, from Kathy Baker and Keith Liljestrand, representatives of Pulsar, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 15, 2009) (``Pulsar Memorandum''). Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 22, 2009) (``January 22 Letter''). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720, 1.724, 1.728. January 22 Letter at 2. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 27, 2009) (``January 27 Letter''). January 27 Letter at 3. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2191A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2191A1.pdf
  • WITH PREJUDICE as to defendants Network Management, Inc. and USP Communications, Inc., and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-007 (filed August 13, 2008) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. § 208. 47 U.S.C. § 201, 276; 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1310, 1320. See Commission rule 1.724(a), 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(a); Second Notice of Formal Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-007 (dated October 8, 2008). Withdrawal of Formal Complaint as to Matrix Management, Inc. and ZCom Networks, Inc., File No. EB-08-MD-007 (filed July 1, 2009) (``Motion'') at 1 (seeking ``leave...to dismiss the [C]omplaint with prejudice'' as to Matrix and ZCom). APCC did not seek to dismiss defendants USP or
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.pdf
  • be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is...unlawful.'' 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). Complaint at S.A.; Consumer.net, LLC, et al v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al, Answer, File No. EB-05-TC-F-0022, 14 (May 26, 2005) (``Answer''). Complaint at S.A. Id. Answer at Ex. 4. Answer at 5. Id. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(b) (stating that the answer shall advise the complainant and the Commission fully and completely of the nature of any defense). Complaint at S.A. Answer at 5. Answer at Ex. 4. Id. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e)(2)(iii), (current version, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3), amended Oct. 1, 2003). Complaint at S.A. Complaint at Ex. 3. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3). See supra, n.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-187A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-187A1.pdf
  • ``reasonably available'' at the intercept access point, even though the carrier may not use the digits for call processing purposes, without significantly modifying a carrier's network by installing additional tone decoders. For voice over packet (a technology used to provide most or all broadband telephony services), post-connection DDE is not required to be isolated and provided to LEAs under T1.678, T1.724, J-STD-025-B, or PKT-SP-ESP-I03-040113. A VoIP caller may also connect to an IXC, and the post-connection dialed digits may also identify the 'origin, direction, destination or termination' of the communications. We seek comment on whether DDE in packet networks is call-identifying information for the same reasons that we have previously concluded that it is in circuit-switched networks. Are there differences in
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf
  • includes its own text for surveillance of Internet access services using cdma2000(R) technology, which is used by many commercial wireless service providers. Second, it references in the current trial use standard to 3rd Generation Partnership Project (``3GPP'') specifications for surveillance of both Internet access and voice over packet using UMTS wireless technology. The 3GPP specifications are aligned with ATIS standard T1.724, and it is expected that the final version of J-STD-025-B will refer directly to T1.724 instead of the 3GPP specifications. In January 2004, ANSI approved ATIS standard T1.724-2004, UMTS Handover Interface for Lawful Interception. T1.724 supports surveillance of both Internet access services and Session Initiation Protocol (``SIP'')-based multimedia (including voice) over packet services using UMTS or General Packet Radio Service
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.pdf
  • North County AFR at 8 n.30. MetroPCS did not make the assertion until its Response. See Metro Response at 4-5. Indeed, MetroPCS's Application refers to the traffic at issue as intrastate several times. See MetroPCS AFR at ii, 1, 17. Rule 1.720(c) provides: ``Facts must be supported by relevant documentation or affidavit.'' 47 C.F.R.§ 1.720(c). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.721(a)(5), 1.724(g), 1.726(e), 1.732(b) (all requiring that factual assertions in formal complaint proceedings be supported by declarations and/or documents). Given the parties' failure to preserve or support their claim that there is any interstate traffic at issue here, we have no occasion in this adjudicatory proceeding to address whether it would be appropriate for the state commission to determine a rate for
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.pdf
  • Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Seventh Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 9923 (2001) (``CLEC Access Charge Reform Order''), recon. denied CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, 19 FCC Rcd 9108 (collectively, ``CLEC Access Charge Orders''). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(c)(1)-(2), (b)(2)(ii). See also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.724(b) and (c) (requiring answer and legal analysis to fully and completely respond specifically to all material allegations and arguments raised in a formal complaint). See Reply at 2-3 (Northern Valley justifies the Petition merely by asserting that the merits of its new arguments warrant reconsideration of the Order). See, e.g., Complaint, Exhibit A (Legal Analysis in Support of Qwest Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1126A1.txt
  • No. E-95-26 ) DialBack USA, Inc., ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: May 19, 2000 Released: May 22, 2000 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On October 14, 1997, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) filed the above-captioned supplemental complaint for damages against DialBack USA, Inc. (DialBack). Prior to that, on August 13, 1997, pursuant to sections 1.724(b) and (d) of the Commission's rules, the Common Carrier Bureau found DialBack to be in default in the liability phase of this proceeding. 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(b), (d). See Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. DialBack USA, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd. 12,010 (1997). The Common Carrier Bureau also found that DialBack had violated, among other things, sections 203 and 214
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3547A1.txt
  • could result in a dismissal for failure to prosecute. This date was later extended to September 6, 2002. Accordingly, on September 6, 2002, Complainants filed a Motion for Default Judgment on the issue of liability. Consistent with its failure to file an answer, TS Interactive also failed to file an opposition to Complainants' Motion for Default Judgment. III. DISCUSSION Section 1.724(a) of the Commission's rules requires a defendant in a formal complaint proceeding to file an answer within twenty days of service of the formal complaint, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. Furthermore, section 1.724(d) of the Commission's rules states that ``[a]verments in a complaint . . . are deemed to be admitted when not denied in the answer.'' The Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-767A1.txt
  • involved. We therefore set out the following modified procedural schedule and instructions to the parties: On or before April 1, 2003, the defendants shall file and serve their request for Interrogatories, if any, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §1.729. The defendants shall, on or before April 1, 2003, file and serve an answer to the complaint that complies with 47 C.F.R. §1.724. The complainant shall, on or before April 11, 2003, file and serve a reply to the answer that complies with 47 C.F.R. §1.726. The complainant shall, on or before April 11, 2003, file and serve its request for up to fifteen (15) interrogatories upon each of the Defendants, and file and serve any opposition and objections to defendants' request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1682A1.txt
  • on October 3, 2003 and October 9, 2003. TS Interactive has failed to participate in any way in the damages phase of this proceeding. III. DISCUSSION A. Standard for Default Judgment As in the liability stage of this proceeding, we must examine whether a default judgment for damages is appropriate here. As the Bureau stated in the Liability Order, section 1.724(a) of the Commission's rules requires a defendant in a formal complaint proceeding to file an answer within twenty days of service of the formal complaint, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. Furthermore, section 1.724(d) of the Commission's rules states that ``[a]verments in a complaint . . . are deemed to be admitted when not denied in the answer.'' Although the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-259A1.txt
  • into the Record Now will Prejudice Core, Waste Commission Resources, and Undermine the Integrity of this Proceeding. Applying the foregoing to the facts here, we deny Verizon's request to allow the Documents into the record. As previously stated, Verizon admits that it should have produced these Documents during the liability phase of this proceeding, either as required by Commission rule 1.724 or in response to Core's discovery requests. Moreover, our review of the Documents appended to the Supplemental Complaint reveals that most, if not all, of these Documents also should have been produced in response to Commission staff orders. Further, Verizon's failure to produce the Documents stemmed from its own negligence. As Verizon concedes, the Documents were in Verizon's possession, custody,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.txt
  • to prosecute and/or defend a formal complaint filed against a common carrier pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 208) alleging a violation of the Communications Act. Need: These rules result in the effective, efficient, and timely resolution of formal complaints. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(u)(j), 208, 303(r). Section Number and Title: 1.720 General pleading requirements. 1.724 Answers. 1.726 Replies. 1.727 Motions. 1.729 Interrogatories to parties. 1.731 Confidentiality of information produced through discovery. 1.732 Other required written submissions. 1.733 Status conference. 1.734 Specification as to pleadings, briefs, and other documents; subscription. 1.735 Copies; service; separate filings against multiple defendants. Brief Description: Directions on how to file applications, including the place of filing, the amount of fees, who
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-674A1.txt
  • the relationship of complainant to that entity and documents sufficient to prove complainant's right to sue on behalf of the entity that paid the EUCL charge. Further, the complaint must state the date on which the complainant filed an informal complaint with the Commission, and attach a copy of such informal complaint. In addition, we waive the requirements of sections 1.724(c), (f), (i), (j), and (k) of the Commission's rules with regard to answers. Finally, we waive the requirements of section 1.735(d) of the Commission's rules to the extent it requires service by hand delivery and permit complainants to serve defendants by overnight mail. All other rules relating to formal complaints apply in their entirety, including sections 1.725-1.736 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.txt
  • to Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, from Kathy Baker and Keith Liljestrand, representatives of Pulsar, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 15, 2009) (``Pulsar Memorandum''). Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 22, 2009) (``January 22 Letter''). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720, 1.724, 1.728. January 22 Letter at 2. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 27, 2009) (``January 27 Letter''). January 27 Letter at 3. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2191A1.txt
  • WITH PREJUDICE as to defendants Network Management, Inc. and USP Communications, Inc., and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-007 (filed August 13, 2008) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. § 208. 47 U.S.C. § 201, 276; 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1310, 1320. See Commission rule 1.724(a), 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(a); Second Notice of Formal Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-007 (dated October 8, 2008). Withdrawal of Formal Complaint as to Matrix Management, Inc. and ZCom Networks, Inc., File No. EB-08-MD-007 (filed July 1, 2009) (``Motion'') at 1 (seeking ``leave...to dismiss the [C]omplaint with prejudice'' as to Matrix and ZCom). APCC did not seek to dismiss defendants USP or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.txt
  • be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is...unlawful.'' 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). Complaint at S.A.; Consumer.net, LLC, et al v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al, Answer, File No. EB-05-TC-F-0022, 14 (May 26, 2005) (``Answer''). Complaint at S.A. Id. Answer at Ex. 4. Answer at 5. Id. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(b) (stating that the answer shall advise the complainant and the Commission fully and completely of the nature of any defense). Complaint at S.A. Answer at 5. Answer at Ex. 4. Id. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e)(2)(iii), (current version, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3), amended Oct. 1, 2003). Complaint at S.A. Complaint at Ex. 3. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3). See supra, n.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-185A1.txt
  • legal theory, however. BTI Initial Brief at 14. BTI also contends that ACC charges AT&T the competing ILEC access rate rather than the tariffed rate. BTI Amended Answer to AT&T Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 26. In any event, BTI's attempt to plead an estoppel defense in its Amended Answer does not comply with the Commission's rules, see 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.724(b), 1.720(b), because BTI failed to cite any legal authority supporting the affirmative defense and failed to allege and provide evidentiary support for facts which, if true, would establish an estoppel defense. See BTI Amended Answer to AT&T Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 70-71. See Bell Atlantic Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPS, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC No. 00-383, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-78A1.txt
  • on reconsideration on our own motion, that a few additional modifications to the rules are appropriate to promote further the expedited resolution of formal complaints. The Rule Governing Answers Is Modified. We believe that amending our rule regarding answers is necessary to ensure that defendants file complete and detailed answers that address each allegation and averment contained in complaints. Section 1.724(d) of our rules currently states that ``averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damages, are deemed to be admitted when not denied in this responsive pleading.'' Based on our experience, we no longer believe that exempting damage averments from the response requirement is the best approach. Instead, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-1A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-1A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-1A1.txt
  • Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7603, ¶ 8 & n.22. Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7603-04, ¶ 8 & nn. 24, 25. Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608, ¶ 18. Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608 n.52 (emphasis added). Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7605-06, ¶ 13. Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7605-06, ¶ 13. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.721, 1.724, and 1.726. Letter from David A. Strickland, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Eric Fishman, counsel for Marpin, and Robert L. Pettit, counsel for CW USA and CW plc, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (rel. Sept. 25, 2001) (``Status Conference Order'') at 2, ¶¶ III.3, III.4; at 4, ¶¶ V.12, V.14. Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608, ¶ 18 &
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-278A1.txt
  • phase of this proceeding provided sufficient notice to Verizon South of Starpower's intent to collect compensation for virtual NXX calls that Verizon South should have raised its virtual NXX defense in its answer in the liability phase. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720(a) (``[a]ll matters concerning a . . . defense . . . should be pleaded fully and with specificity''); 1.724(b) (the defendant's answer ``shall advise the complainant and the Commission fully and completely of the nature of any defense, and shall respond specifically to all material allegations of the complaint''); Starpower's Reply to Verizon South's Answer, File No. EB-00-MD-19 (filed July 2, 2002) (``Starpower Reply'') at 4-9; Opening Brief of Starpower Communications, LLC, File No. EB-00-MD-19 (filed Sept. 27, 2002)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-187A1.txt
  • ``reasonably available'' at the intercept access point, even though the carrier may not use the digits for call processing purposes, without significantly modifying a carrier's network by installing additional tone decoders. For voice over packet (a technology used to provide most or all broadband telephony services), post-connection DDE is not required to be isolated and provided to LEAs under T1.678, T1.724, J-STD-025-B, or PKT-SP-ESP-I03-040113. A VoIP caller may also connect to an IXC, and the post-connection dialed digits may also identify the 'origin, direction, destination or termination' of the communications. We seek comment on whether DDE in packet networks is call-identifying information for the same reasons that we have previously concluded that it is in circuit-switched networks. Are there differences in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.txt
  • includes its own text for surveillance of Internet access services using cdma2000(R) technology, which is used by many commercial wireless service providers. Second, it references in the current trial use standard to 3rd Generation Partnership Project (``3GPP'') specifications for surveillance of both Internet access and voice over packet using UMTS wireless technology. The 3GPP specifications are aligned with ATIS standard T1.724, and it is expected that the final version of J-STD-025-B will refer directly to T1.724 instead of the 3GPP specifications. In January 2004, ANSI approved ATIS standard T1.724-2004, UMTS Handover Interface for Lawful Interception. T1.724 supports surveillance of both Internet access services and Session Initiation Protocol (``SIP'')-based multimedia (including voice) over packet services using UMTS or General Packet Radio Service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.txt
  • North County AFR at 8 n.30. MetroPCS did not make the assertion until its Response. See Metro Response at 4-5. Indeed, MetroPCS's Application refers to the traffic at issue as intrastate several times. See MetroPCS AFR at ii, 1, 17. Rule 1.720(c) provides: ``Facts must be supported by relevant documentation or affidavit.'' 47 C.F.R.§ 1.720(c). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.721(a)(5), 1.724(g), 1.726(e), 1.732(b) (all requiring that factual assertions in formal complaint proceedings be supported by declarations and/or documents). Given the parties' failure to preserve or support their claim that there is any interstate traffic at issue here, we have no occasion in this adjudicatory proceeding to address whether it would be appropriate for the state commission to determine a rate for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.txt
  • Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Seventh Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 9923 (2001) (``CLEC Access Charge Reform Order''), recon. denied CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, 19 FCC Rcd 9108 (collectively, ``CLEC Access Charge Orders''). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(c)(1)-(2), (b)(2)(ii). See also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.724(b) and (c) (requiring answer and legal analysis to fully and completely respond specifically to all material allegations and arguments raised in a formal complaint). See Reply at 2-3 (Northern Valley justifies the Petition merely by asserting that the merits of its new arguments warrant reconsideration of the Order). See, e.g., Complaint, Exhibit A (Legal Analysis in Support of Qwest Communications
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.wp
  • any of his representatives appeared at the prehearing held on July 15, 1997. Accordingly, by Order released July 17, 1997, Administrative Law Judge Joseph Chachkin terminated the proceeding and certified the case to the Commission,33 for the Commission to determine whether, on the Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-76 ______________________________________________________________________________ 34 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.92(c). 35 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(d). 36 Section 10 of the 1996 Act provides the Commission with authority to forbear from applying the provisions of Title II, including the tariffing provisions, subject to certain, limited exceptions. On October 31, 1996, the Commission released the Tariff Forbearance Order, which adopted a complete detariffing policy for the domestic interstate, interexchange services of nondominant, interexchange carriers, pending a nine-month
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/209956-1.pdf
  • impose a standing requirement will create additional difficulties for manufacturers of business equipment. By allowing employees of manufacturer's customers to contact directly manufacturers with workplace accessibility complaints, the Commission will place manufacturers directly in between their customers (the employers) and the complainants (employees).A manufacturer 23 Notice at para.136. u Respondents have 30 days to answer formal complaints. 47 C.F.R. $ 1.724(a). 2s A manufacturing competitor could use the Section 255 process to hinder the efforts of its competitors or to try to obtain sensitive product information.Groups or individuals that oppose unrelated policies of manufacturers could file unwarranted Section 255 complaints to harass manufacturers. 11 should not be placed in a position that jeopardizes its relationship with its customers, which in the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/209968-1.pdf
  • FCC's general authority to investigate alleged violations of Section 255. Cf. id. ¶ 140 (even if "the complainant's access problem [is] satisfactorily resolved," the FCC will continue its investigation if "there is an indication of an underlying compliance problem"). 15A respondent will also have thirty days to answer a formal Section 255 complaint. See NPRM ¶ 154; 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(a). Strangely, however, the FCC seems tentatively to allow fifteen days for a complainant to reply in an informal proceeding, NPRM ¶ 154, while allowing only ten days in a formal one, id.; 47 C.F.R. § 1.726. SBC Communications Inc.: June 30, 1998 Page 21 providers, thereby leaving less resources to devote to proper complaints by "individuals with disabilities." With these
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210031-1.pdf
  • 21 Given the administrative and judicial penalties facing manufacturers and service providers to resolve these complaints, PCIA believes that such a requirement is unnecessary, will result in more work for the subject business and the Commission, and will further delay the process of resolving complaints. 22 A 30-day limit on the length of the fast-track period is consistent with Section 1.724(a) of the Commission's Rules which requires common carriers to answer complaints within 30 days of service of the pleading to which the answer is made unless otherwise directed by the Commission. SW 47 U.S.C. 4 1.724(a). 14 C. The FCC's Fast-Track Determination Should Be Final If the Commission determines that the fast-track determination should be closed, complainants should not be
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/213326-1.pdf
  • the Commission, via written correspondence, whether or not the complainant has been provided the access sought.If a complaint remains unresolved, the respondent company should be required to submit an informal report to both the complainant and the Commission explaining why the accessibility has not been 28 A 30-day limit on the length of the fast-track period is consistent with Section 1.724(a) of the Commission's Rules which requires common carriers to answer complaints within 30 days of service of the pleading to which the answer is made unless otherwise directed by the Commission. See 47 U.S.C. Q 1.724(a); See also SBC at 22; CEMA at 22; NCD at 29 (commenting that a five day complaint period is not long enough). 11 provided.Finally,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.html
  • legal theory, however. BTI Initial Brief at 14. BTI also contends that ACC charges AT&T the competing ILEC access rate rather than the tariffed rate. BTI Amended Answer to AT&T Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 26. In any event, BTI's attempt to plead an estoppel defense in its Amended Answer does not comply with the Commission's rules, see 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.724(b), 1.720(b), because BTI failed to cite any legal authority supporting the affirmative defense and failed to allege and provide evidentiary support for facts which, if true, would establish an estoppel defense. See BTI Amended Answer to AT&T Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 70-71. See Bell Atlantic Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPS, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC No. 00-383, 2000
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3547A1.html
  • result in a dismissal for failure to prosecute.12 This date was later extended to September 6, 2002.13 Accordingly, on September 6, 2002, Complainants filed a Motion for Default Judgment on the issue of liability.14 Consistent with its failure to file an answer, TS Interactive also failed to file an opposition to Complainants' Motion for Default Judgment. III. DISCUSSION 5. Section 1.724(a) of the Commission's rules requires a defendant in a formal complaint proceeding to file an answer within twenty days of service of the formal complaint, unless otherwise directed by the Commission.15 Furthermore, section 1.724(d) of the Commission's rules states that ``[a]verments in a complaint . . . are deemed to be admitted when not denied in the answer.''16 6. The
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-767A1.html
  • therefore set out the following modified procedural schedule and instructions to the parties: 1) On or before April 1, 2003, the defendants shall file and serve their request for Interrogatories, if any, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.729. 2) The defendants shall, on or before April 1, 2003, file and serve an answer to the complaint that complies with 47 C.F.R. 1.724. 3) The complainant shall, on or before April 11, 2003, file and serve a reply to the answer that complies with 47 C.F.R. 1.726. 4) The complainant shall, on or before April 11, 2003, file and serve its request for up to fifteen (15) interrogatories upon each of the Defendants, and file and serve any opposition and objections to defendants'
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-1A1.html
  • Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7603, 8 & n.22. 20 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7603-04, 8 & nn. 24, 25. 21 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608, 18. 22 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608 n.52 (emphasis added). 23 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7605-06, 13. 24 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7605-06, 13. 25 See 47 C.F.R. 1.721, 1.724, and 1.726. 26 Letter from David A. Strickland, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Eric Fishman, counsel for Marpin, and Robert L. Pettit, counsel for CW USA and CW plc, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (rel. Sept. 25, 2001) (``Status Conference Order'') at 2, III.3, III.4; at 4, V.12, V.14. 27 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608, 18 & n.51.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-278A1.html
  • liability phase of this proceeding provided sufficient notice to Verizon South of Starpower's intent to collect compensation for virtual NXX calls that Verizon South should have raised its virtual NXX defense in its answer in the liability phase. See 47 C.F.R. 1.720(a) (``[a]ll matters concerning a . . . defense . . . should be pleaded fully and with specificity''); 1.724(b) (the defendant's answer ``shall advise the complainant and the Commission fully and completely of the nature of any defense, and shall respond specifically to all material allegations of the complaint''); Starpower's Reply to Verizon South's Answer, File No. EB-00-MD-19 (filed July 2, 2002) (``Starpower Reply'') at 4-9; Opening Brief of Starpower Communications, LLC, File No. EB-00-MD-19 (filed Sept. 27, 2002)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1682A1.html
  • October 3, 2003 and October 9, 2003.28 TS Interactive has failed to participate in any way in the damages phase of this proceeding. III. DISCUSSION A. Standard for Default Judgment 8. As in the liability stage of this proceeding, we must examine whether a default judgment for damages is appropriate here. As the Bureau stated in the Liability Order, section 1.724(a) of the Commission's rules requires a defendant in a formal complaint proceeding to file an answer within twenty days of service of the formal complaint, unless otherwise directed by the Commission.29 Furthermore, section 1.724(d) of the Commission's rules states that ``[a]verments in a complaint . . . are deemed to be admitted when not denied in the answer.''30 Although the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-259A1.html
  • the Record Now will Prejudice Core, Waste Commission Resources, and Undermine the Integrity of this Proceeding. 10. Applying the foregoing to the facts here, we deny Verizon's request to allow the Documents into the record. As previously stated, Verizon admits that it should have produced these Documents during the liability phase of this proceeding, either as required by Commission rule 1.724 or in response to Core's discovery requests.33 Moreover, our review of the Documents appended to the Supplemental Complaint reveals that most, if not all, of these Documents also should have been produced in response to Commission staff orders.34 Further, Verizon's failure to produce the Documents stemmed from its own negligence. As Verizon concedes, the Documents were in Verizon's possession, custody,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-674A1.html
  • relationship of complainant to that entity and documents sufficient to prove complainant's right to sue on behalf of the entity that paid the EUCL charge. Further, the complaint must state the date on which the complainant filed an informal complaint with the Commission, and attach a copy of such informal complaint. 22. In addition, we waive the requirements of sections 1.724(c), (f), (i), (j), and (k) of the Commission's rules29 with regard to answers. 23. Finally, we waive the requirements of section 1.735(d) of the Commission's rules30 to the extent it requires service by hand delivery and permit complainants to serve defendants by overnight mail. 24. All other rules relating to formal complaints apply in their entirety, including sections 1.725- 1.736
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2040A1.html
  • to Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, from Kathy Baker and Keith Liljestrand, representatives of Pulsar, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 15, 2009) ("Pulsar Memorandum"). Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 22, 2009) ("January 22 Letter"). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720, 1.724, 1.728. January 22 Letter at 2. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 27, 2009) ("January 27 Letter"). January 27 Letter at 3. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2191A1.html
  • WITH PREJUDICE as to defendants Network Management, Inc. and USP Communications, Inc., and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-007 (filed August 13, 2008) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. S: 208. 47 U.S.C. S: 201, 276; 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1310, 1320. See Commission rule 1.724(a), 47 C.F.R. S: 1.724(a); Second Notice of Formal Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-007 (dated October 8, 2008). Withdrawal of Formal Complaint as to Matrix Management, Inc. and ZCom Networks, Inc., File No. EB-08-MD-007 (filed July 1, 2009) ("Motion") at 1 (seeking "leave...to dismiss the [C]omplaint with prejudice" as to Matrix and ZCom). APCC did not seek to dismiss defendants USP or
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • North County AFR at 8 n.30. MetroPCS did not make the assertion until its Response. See Metro Response at 4-5. Indeed, MetroPCS's Application refers to the traffic at issue as intrastate several times. See MetroPCS AFR at ii, 1, 17. Rule 1.720(c) provides: "Facts must be supported by relevant documentation or affidavit." 47 C.F.R.S: 1.720(c). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.721(a)(5), 1.724(g), 1.726(e), 1.732(b) (all requiring that factual assertions in formal complaint proceedings be supported by declarations and/or documents). Given the parties' failure to preserve or support their claim that there is any interstate traffic at issue here, we have no occasion in this adjudicatory proceeding to address whether it would be appropriate for the state commission to determine a rate for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-477A1.html
  • be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is...unlawful." 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). Complaint at S.A.; Consumer.net, LLC, et al v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al, Answer, File No. EB-05-TC-F-0022, 14 (May 26, 2005) ("Answer"). Complaint at S.A. Id. Answer at Ex. 4. Answer at 5. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.724(b) (stating that the answer shall advise the complainant and the Commission fully and completely of the nature of any defense). Complaint at S.A. Answer at 5. Answer at Ex. 4. Id. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(e)(2)(iii), (current version, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d)(3), amended Oct. 1, 2003). Complaint at S.A. Complaint at Ex. 3. See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d)(3). See supra, n.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-148A1.html
  • Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Seventh Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 9923 (2001) ("CLEC Access Charge Reform Order"), recon. denied CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, 19 FCC Rcd 9108 (collectively, "CLEC Access Charge Orders"). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.106(c)(1)-(2), (b)(2)(ii). See also 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.724(b) and (c) (requiring answer and legal analysis to fully and completely respond specifically to all material allegations and arguments raised in a formal complaint). See Reply at 2-3 (Northern Valley justifies the Petition merely by asserting that the merits of its new arguments warrant reconsideration of the Order). See, e.g., Complaint, Exhibit A (Legal Analysis in Support of Qwest Communications
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/rules/1730.html
  • Chief of the Enforcement Bureau's Market Disputes Resolution Division, a request seeking inclusion of its proceeding on the Accelerated Docket. Such a defendant contemporaneously shall transmit, in the same manner, a copy of its request to all parties to the proceeding. A defendant submitting such a request shall file and serve its answer in compliance with the requirements of Sec. 1.724(k), except that the defendant shall not be required to serve with its answer the automatic document production required by Secs. 1.724(k)(7) and 1.729(i)(1). In proceedings accepted onto the Accelerated Docket at a defendant's request, the Commission staff will conduct supervised settlement discussions as appropriate. After accepting such a proceeding onto the Accelerated Docket, Commission staff will establish a schedule for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.wp
  • any of his representatives appeared at the prehearing held on July 15, 1997. Accordingly, by Order released July 17, 1997, Administrative Law Judge Joseph Chachkin terminated the proceeding and certified the case to the Commission,33 for the Commission to determine whether, on the Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-76 ______________________________________________________________________________ 34 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.92(c). 35 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(d). 36 Section 10 of the 1996 Act provides the Commission with authority to forbear from applying the provisions of Title II, including the tariffing provisions, subject to certain, limited exceptions. On October 31, 1996, the Commission released the Tariff Forbearance Order, which adopted a complete detariffing policy for the domestic interstate, interexchange services of nondominant, interexchange carriers, pending a nine-month
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001126.doc
  • No. E-95-26 ) DialBack USA, Inc., ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: May 19, 2000 Released: May 22, 2000 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On October 14, 1997, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) filed the above-captioned supplemental complaint for damages against DialBack USA, Inc. (DialBack). Prior to that, on August 13, 1997, pursuant to sections 1.724(b) and (d) of the Commission's rules, the Common Carrier Bureau found DialBack to be in default in the liability phase of this proceeding. 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(b), (d). See Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. DialBack USA, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd. 12,010 (1997). The Common Carrier Bureau also found that DialBack had violated, among other things, sections 203 and 214
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/209956-1.pdf
  • impose a standing requirement will create additional difficulties for manufacturers of business equipment. By allowing employees of manufacturer's customers to contact directly manufacturers with workplace accessibility complaints, the Commission will place manufacturers directly in between their customers (the employers) and the complainants (employees).A manufacturer 23 Notice at para.136. u Respondents have 30 days to answer formal complaints. 47 C.F.R. $ 1.724(a). 2s A manufacturing competitor could use the Section 255 process to hinder the efforts of its competitors or to try to obtain sensitive product information.Groups or individuals that oppose unrelated policies of manufacturers could file unwarranted Section 255 complaints to harass manufacturers. 11 should not be placed in a position that jeopardizes its relationship with its customers, which in the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/209968-1.pdf
  • FCC's general authority to investigate alleged violations of Section 255. Cf. id. ¶ 140 (even if "the complainant's access problem [is] satisfactorily resolved," the FCC will continue its investigation if "there is an indication of an underlying compliance problem"). 15A respondent will also have thirty days to answer a formal Section 255 complaint. See NPRM ¶ 154; 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(a). Strangely, however, the FCC seems tentatively to allow fifteen days for a complainant to reply in an informal proceeding, NPRM ¶ 154, while allowing only ten days in a formal one, id.; 47 C.F.R. § 1.726. SBC Communications Inc.: June 30, 1998 Page 21 providers, thereby leaving less resources to devote to proper complaints by "individuals with disabilities." With these
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210031-1.pdf
  • 21 Given the administrative and judicial penalties facing manufacturers and service providers to resolve these complaints, PCIA believes that such a requirement is unnecessary, will result in more work for the subject business and the Commission, and will further delay the process of resolving complaints. 22 A 30-day limit on the length of the fast-track period is consistent with Section 1.724(a) of the Commission's Rules which requires common carriers to answer complaints within 30 days of service of the pleading to which the answer is made unless otherwise directed by the Commission. SW 47 U.S.C. 4 1.724(a). 14 C. The FCC's Fast-Track Determination Should Be Final If the Commission determines that the fast-track determination should be closed, complainants should not be
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/213326-1.pdf
  • the Commission, via written correspondence, whether or not the complainant has been provided the access sought.If a complaint remains unresolved, the respondent company should be required to submit an informal report to both the complainant and the Commission explaining why the accessibility has not been 28 A 30-day limit on the length of the fast-track period is consistent with Section 1.724(a) of the Commission's Rules which requires common carriers to answer complaints within 30 days of service of the pleading to which the answer is made unless otherwise directed by the Commission. See 47 U.S.C. Q 1.724(a); See also SBC at 22; CEMA at 22; NCD at 29 (commenting that a five day complaint period is not long enough). 11 provided.Finally,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.html
  • legal theory, however. BTI Initial Brief at 14. BTI also contends that ACC charges AT&T the competing ILEC access rate rather than the tariffed rate. BTI Amended Answer to AT&T Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 26. In any event, BTI's attempt to plead an estoppel defense in its Amended Answer does not comply with the Commission's rules, see 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.724(b), 1.720(b), because BTI failed to cite any legal authority supporting the affirmative defense and failed to allege and provide evidentiary support for facts which, if true, would establish an estoppel defense. See BTI Amended Answer to AT&T Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 70-71. See Bell Atlantic Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPS, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC No. 00-383, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3547A1.html
  • result in a dismissal for failure to prosecute.12 This date was later extended to September 6, 2002.13 Accordingly, on September 6, 2002, Complainants filed a Motion for Default Judgment on the issue of liability.14 Consistent with its failure to file an answer, TS Interactive also failed to file an opposition to Complainants' Motion for Default Judgment. III. DISCUSSION 5. Section 1.724(a) of the Commission's rules requires a defendant in a formal complaint proceeding to file an answer within twenty days of service of the formal complaint, unless otherwise directed by the Commission.15 Furthermore, section 1.724(d) of the Commission's rules states that ``[a]verments in a complaint . . . are deemed to be admitted when not denied in the answer.''16 6. The
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-767A1.html
  • therefore set out the following modified procedural schedule and instructions to the parties: 1) On or before April 1, 2003, the defendants shall file and serve their request for Interrogatories, if any, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.729. 2) The defendants shall, on or before April 1, 2003, file and serve an answer to the complaint that complies with 47 C.F.R. 1.724. 3) The complainant shall, on or before April 11, 2003, file and serve a reply to the answer that complies with 47 C.F.R. 1.726. 4) The complainant shall, on or before April 11, 2003, file and serve its request for up to fifteen (15) interrogatories upon each of the Defendants, and file and serve any opposition and objections to defendants'
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-1A1.html
  • Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7603, 8 & n.22. 20 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7603-04, 8 & nn. 24, 25. 21 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608, 18. 22 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608 n.52 (emphasis added). 23 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7605-06, 13. 24 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7605-06, 13. 25 See 47 C.F.R. 1.721, 1.724, and 1.726. 26 Letter from David A. Strickland, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Eric Fishman, counsel for Marpin, and Robert L. Pettit, counsel for CW USA and CW plc, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (rel. Sept. 25, 2001) (``Status Conference Order'') at 2, III.3, III.4; at 4, V.12, V.14. 27 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608, 18 & n.51.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-278A1.html
  • liability phase of this proceeding provided sufficient notice to Verizon South of Starpower's intent to collect compensation for virtual NXX calls that Verizon South should have raised its virtual NXX defense in its answer in the liability phase. See 47 C.F.R. 1.720(a) (``[a]ll matters concerning a . . . defense . . . should be pleaded fully and with specificity''); 1.724(b) (the defendant's answer ``shall advise the complainant and the Commission fully and completely of the nature of any defense, and shall respond specifically to all material allegations of the complaint''); Starpower's Reply to Verizon South's Answer, File No. EB-00-MD-19 (filed July 2, 2002) (``Starpower Reply'') at 4-9; Opening Brief of Starpower Communications, LLC, File No. EB-00-MD-19 (filed Sept. 27, 2002)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1682A1.html
  • October 3, 2003 and October 9, 2003.28 TS Interactive has failed to participate in any way in the damages phase of this proceeding. III. DISCUSSION A. Standard for Default Judgment 8. As in the liability stage of this proceeding, we must examine whether a default judgment for damages is appropriate here. As the Bureau stated in the Liability Order, section 1.724(a) of the Commission's rules requires a defendant in a formal complaint proceeding to file an answer within twenty days of service of the formal complaint, unless otherwise directed by the Commission.29 Furthermore, section 1.724(d) of the Commission's rules states that ``[a]verments in a complaint . . . are deemed to be admitted when not denied in the answer.''30 Although the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-259A1.html
  • the Record Now will Prejudice Core, Waste Commission Resources, and Undermine the Integrity of this Proceeding. 10. Applying the foregoing to the facts here, we deny Verizon's request to allow the Documents into the record. As previously stated, Verizon admits that it should have produced these Documents during the liability phase of this proceeding, either as required by Commission rule 1.724 or in response to Core's discovery requests.33 Moreover, our review of the Documents appended to the Supplemental Complaint reveals that most, if not all, of these Documents also should have been produced in response to Commission staff orders.34 Further, Verizon's failure to produce the Documents stemmed from its own negligence. As Verizon concedes, the Documents were in Verizon's possession, custody,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-674A1.html
  • relationship of complainant to that entity and documents sufficient to prove complainant's right to sue on behalf of the entity that paid the EUCL charge. Further, the complaint must state the date on which the complainant filed an informal complaint with the Commission, and attach a copy of such informal complaint. 22. In addition, we waive the requirements of sections 1.724(c), (f), (i), (j), and (k) of the Commission's rules29 with regard to answers. 23. Finally, we waive the requirements of section 1.735(d) of the Commission's rules30 to the extent it requires service by hand delivery and permit complainants to serve defendants by overnight mail. 24. All other rules relating to formal complaints apply in their entirety, including sections 1.725- 1.736
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • North County AFR at 8 n.30. MetroPCS did not make the assertion until its Response. See Metro Response at 4-5. Indeed, MetroPCS's Application refers to the traffic at issue as intrastate several times. See MetroPCS AFR at ii, 1, 17. Rule 1.720(c) provides: "Facts must be supported by relevant documentation or affidavit." 47 C.F.R.S: 1.720(c). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.721(a)(5), 1.724(g), 1.726(e), 1.732(b) (all requiring that factual assertions in formal complaint proceedings be supported by declarations and/or documents). Given the parties' failure to preserve or support their claim that there is any interstate traffic at issue here, we have no occasion in this adjudicatory proceeding to address whether it would be appropriate for the state commission to determine a rate for
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-477A1.html
  • be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is...unlawful." 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). Complaint at S.A.; Consumer.net, LLC, et al v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al, Answer, File No. EB-05-TC-F-0022, 14 (May 26, 2005) ("Answer"). Complaint at S.A. Id. Answer at Ex. 4. Answer at 5. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.724(b) (stating that the answer shall advise the complainant and the Commission fully and completely of the nature of any defense). Complaint at S.A. Answer at 5. Answer at Ex. 4. Id. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(e)(2)(iii), (current version, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d)(3), amended Oct. 1, 2003). Complaint at S.A. Complaint at Ex. 3. See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d)(3). See supra, n.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-148A1.html
  • Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Seventh Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 9923 (2001) ("CLEC Access Charge Reform Order"), recon. denied CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, 19 FCC Rcd 9108 (collectively, "CLEC Access Charge Orders"). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.106(c)(1)-(2), (b)(2)(ii). See also 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.724(b) and (c) (requiring answer and legal analysis to fully and completely respond specifically to all material allegations and arguments raised in a formal complaint). See Reply at 2-3 (Northern Valley justifies the Petition merely by asserting that the merits of its new arguments warrant reconsideration of the Order). See, e.g., Complaint, Exhibit A (Legal Analysis in Support of Qwest Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/rules/1730.html
  • Chief of the Enforcement Bureau's Market Disputes Resolution Division, a request seeking inclusion of its proceeding on the Accelerated Docket. Such a defendant contemporaneously shall transmit, in the same manner, a copy of its request to all parties to the proceeding. A defendant submitting such a request shall file and serve its answer in compliance with the requirements of Sec. 1.724(k), except that the defendant shall not be required to serve with its answer the automatic document production required by Secs. 1.724(k)(7) and 1.729(i)(1). In proceedings accepted onto the Accelerated Docket at a defendant's request, the Commission staff will conduct supervised settlement discussions as appropriate. After accepting such a proceeding onto the Accelerated Docket, Commission staff will establish a schedule for