FCC Web Documents citing 1.726

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.pdf
  • therein). That tariff has yet to be approved by the Pennsylvania Public Service Commission, however, and Comcast's 16 other Competitive Carriers lack such tariffs. See, e.g., Comcast's Supplemental Statement at 4-5, 12 n.41, 14-15 (and attachments referenced therein). Moreover, Comcast did not submit this evidence with the Complaint or the Reply, as it should have. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.721(a)(5), 1.726(e); Complainants' Reply to Defendant's Answer and Separate Statement, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 29, 2008) (``Reply''). Therefore, we accord little significance to this evidence. See generally Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14901, � 90 (2005) (subsequent history omitted) (holding that wireline broadband
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.pdf
  • customer base, and the ``self-certification'' as common carriers - were suggested by the Complaint itself, and are not complex. Thus, Verizon has had an adequate opportunity to respond. Accordingly, to the extent that our rules require those facts to be alleged more clearly in the Complaint, we waive those rules for good cause shown. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.3, 1.721, 1.726. See NARUC I, 525 F.2d at 608. As mentioned previously, ``[o]ne may be a common carrier though the nature of the service rendered is sufficiently specialized as to be of possible use to only a fraction of the total population.'' NARUC I, 525 F.2d at 608. This undermines the probative value of the fact that the Comcast and Bright House
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.pdf
  • 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 any
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.pdf
  • a ``declar[ation] that any claim by [FeatureGroup IP] for compensation under quantum meruit, quasi-contract, constructive contract, or any other theory is preempted by the Communications Act.'' Complaint at 19. AT&T Texas provided no facts or legal analysis to support that request, however, so we need not and do not consider it. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720(a), (c), (d); 1.721(a)(5)-(6), 1.726(c). (continued...) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-19 � � � � � 1 = = P � � � � � � � � � � � � �� �� �� 0 � � �� �� �� = �r"
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-411A1.txt
  • the proposed transmitter does not overlap the service contour of any protected co-channel transmitter controlled by a carrier other than the applicant, unless that carrier has agreed in writing to accept any interference that may result from operation of the proposed transmitter.'' The distance to the service area contour of the incumbent stations is calculated using the following equation: d =1.726 x h0.35 x p0.18, where d is the radial distance in kilometers, h is the radial antenna HAAT in meters, and p is the radial ERP in watts. For stations with HAAT of less than 150 meters, the distance to the interference contour of the proposed station is calculated using the formula d = 9.471 x h0.23 x p0.15. In
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1132A1.txt
  • will serve the public interest by promoting the development of a complete record in this proceeding, without harming any of the parties involved. We therefore set out the following modified procedural schedule and instructions to the parties: The Complainant shall, on or before April 18, 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 18, 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 interrogatories, if any. 47 C.F.R. � 1.729. The Complainant shall, on or before April 18, 2003, file and serve its Opposition to Defendant
• 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
  • 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 interrogatories, if any. 47 C.F.R. �1.729. The defendants shall, on or before April 18, 2003, file any opposition and objections to the complainants'
• 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
  • 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 may sign
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.txt
  • therein). That tariff has yet to be approved by the Pennsylvania Public Service Commission, however, and Comcast's 16 other Competitive Carriers lack such tariffs. See, e.g., Comcast's Supplemental Statement at 4-5, 12 n.41, 14-15 (and attachments referenced therein). Moreover, Comcast did not submit this evidence with the Complaint or the Reply, as it should have. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.721(a)(5), 1.726(e); Complainants' Reply to Defendant's Answer and Separate Statement, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 29, 2008) (``Reply''). Therefore, we accord little significance to this evidence. See generally Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14901, � 90 (2005) (subsequent history omitted) (holding that wireline broadband
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.txt
  • 125 $45.20 0.752 Pre-wired residence 125 $33.12 0.857 125 $32.79 0.821 Service reconnection 125 $30.30 0.727 125 $30.21 0.675 CableCARD, existing customer 125 $19.72 1.155 125 $19.47 1.157 CableCARD, new customer 125 $22.59 1.507 125 $22.76 1.502 Wireless MVPD subgroup Unwired residence 31 $49.72 1.077 31 $48.52 1.315 Pre-wired residence 31 $31.29 1.481 31 $32.09 1.552 Service reconnection 31 $29.45 1.726 31 $29.49 1.725 CableCARD, existing customer 31 $16.57 3.612 31 $15.94 3.647 CableCARD, new customer 31 $16.57 3.612 31 $15.94 3.647 Low penetration test subgroup Unwired residence 56 $50.18 1.863 56 $49.29 1.864 Pre-wired residence 56 $35.54 1.709 56 $35.05 1.660 Service reconnection 56 $28.79 0.965 56 $28.89 0.954 CableCARD, existing customer 56 $16.34 2.172 56 $13.77 1.612 CableCARD, new
• 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
  • the development of a complete and substantial record on which the Commission can resolve the dispute. 2. The Rule Governing Replies Is Modified. We further believe that amending our rule regarding replies is necessary to ensure that complainants can file complete and detailed replies that address all of the grounds asserted by defendants to support an answer's affirmative defenses. Section 1.726(a) of our rules currently permits a complainant to include in a reply only ``statements of relevant, material facts that shall be responsive to only those specific factual allegations made by the defendant in support of its affirmative defenses.'' Based on our experience, we no longer believe that limiting the reply to factual assertions is the best approach. Instead, we find
• 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
  • 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 & n.51. Reconsideration
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-13A1.txt
  • rectify the inadvertent inclusion of incorrect references in an administrative orders. See Application of DCT Communications, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 15543 (WTB/PSWD 2000) (correction of a license to delete the inadvertent inclusion of three channels). 16 FCC Rcd at 16503, para. 8. Id. at 16504, para. 11. Id. at 16502, para. 4. Albertson, 182 F.2d at 399 (citing F.C.C. Rule 1.726(c)). See Albertson. Verizon appears to assert that the Hobbs Act in some way operates as a substantive constraint on the agency's ability to correct the error in this case. See Verizon Reply at 3-4 (citing 28 U.S.C. � 2344). We disagree. The 60-day Hobbs Act period sets forth the time period within which a party may seek judicial review of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.txt
  • customer base, and the ``self-certification'' as common carriers - were suggested by the Complaint itself, and are not complex. Thus, Verizon has had an adequate opportunity to respond. Accordingly, to the extent that our rules require those facts to be alleged more clearly in the Complaint, we waive those rules for good cause shown. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.3, 1.721, 1.726. See NARUC I, 525 F.2d at 608. As mentioned previously, ``[o]ne may be a common carrier though the nature of the service rendered is sufficiently specialized as to be of possible use to only a fraction of the total population.'' NARUC I, 525 F.2d at 608. This undermines the probative value of the fact that the Comcast and Bright House
• 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
  • 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 any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.txt
  • a ``declar[ation] that any claim by [FeatureGroup IP] for compensation under quantum meruit, quasi-contract, constructive contract, or any other theory is preempted by the Communications Act.'' Complaint at 19. AT&T Texas provided no facts or legal analysis to support that request, however, so we need not and do not consider it. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720(a), (c), (d); 1.721(a)(5)-(6), 1.726(c). (continued...) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-19 � � � � � 1 = = P � � � � � � � � � � � � �� �� �� 0 � � �� �� �� = �r"
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1_Rcd.pdf
  • a "declar[ation] that any claim by [FeatureGroup IP] for compensation under quantum meruit, quasi-contract, constructive contract, or any other theory is preempted by the Communications Act." Complaint at 19. AT&T Texas provided no facts or legal analysis to support that request, however, so we need not and do not consider it. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720(a), (c), (d); 1.721(a)(5)-(6), 1.726(c). 1744
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/209968-1.pdf
  • 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 concerns in mind, SBC proposes that the Commission require that a complainant show that he either is someone who is prevented from accessing or using the respondent's product or service, or is an association or individual
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210090-3.pdf
  • problems caused by the equipment and inaccessibility problems caused by the service illustrate the point. A company that answers a complaint should be required to make as an affirmative defense any claim that the accessibility problem is the responsibility of another company, and the rules should provide for joinder of any company so identified. The Reply process contemplated in Section 1.726 establishes a strict standard for responses to affirmative defenses. Since complainants are not likely to be in a position within three days of the answer to respond to affirmative defenses, (given the complexity of the "readily achievable" standard). Indeed, no response should be required to affirmative defenses. Rather, the validity of the affirmative defenses should be resolved through the complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1132A1.html
  • will serve the public interest by promoting the development of a complete record in this proceeding, without harming any of the parties involved. We therefore set out the following modified procedural schedule and instructions to the parties: 1) The Complainant shall, on or before April 18, 2003, file and serve a reply to the answer that complies with 47 C.F.R. 1.726. 2) The Complainant shall, on or before April 18, 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 interrogatories, if any. 47 C.F.R. 1.729. 3) The Complainant shall, on or before April 18, 2003, file and serve its Opposition to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-767A1.html
  • 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' request for interrogatories, if any. 47 C.F.R. 1.729. 5) The defendants shall, on or before April 18, 2003, file any opposition and objections to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-1A1.html
  • 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. 28 Reconsideration
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-860A1.html
  • therein). That tariff has yet to be approved by the Pennsylvania Public Service Commission, however, and Comcast's 16 other Competitive Carriers lack such tariffs. See, e.g., Comcast's Supplemental Statement at 4-5, 12 n.41, 14-15 (and attachments referenced therein). Moreover, Comcast did not submit this evidence with the Complaint or the Reply, as it should have. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.721(a)(5), 1.726(e); Complainants' Reply to Defendant's Answer and Separate Statement, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 29, 2008) ("Reply"). Therefore, we accord little significance to this evidence. See generally Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14901, P: 90 (2005) (subsequent history omitted) (holding that wireline broadband
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-159A1.html
  • customer base, and the "self-certification" as common carriers - were suggested by the Complaint itself, and are not complex. Thus, Verizon has had an adequate opportunity to respond. Accordingly, to the extent that our rules require those facts to be alleged more clearly in the Complaint, we waive those rules for good cause shown. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.3, 1.721, 1.726. See NARUC I, 525 F.2d at 608. As mentioned previously, "[o]ne may be a common carrier though the nature of the service rendered is sufficiently specialized as to be of possible use to only a fraction of the total population." NARUC I, 525 F.2d at 608. This undermines the probative value of the fact that the Comcast and Bright House
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • 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 any
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-19A1.html
  • a "declar[ation] that any claim by [FeatureGroup IP] for compensation under quantum meruit, quasi-contract, constructive contract, or any other theory is preempted by the Communications Act." Complaint at 19. AT&T Texas provided no facts or legal analysis to support that request, however, so we need not and do not consider it. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720(a), (c), (d); 1.721(a)(5)-(6), 1.726(c). (Continued from previous page) (continued...) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-19 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-19 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.doc
• http://transition.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-c.pdf
  • 35 Non-Hispanic Population 1824.05 1827.58 Hispanic Population 443.26 503.75 36 Table 3: Direct Evidence of Preference Externalities, 1997 All Listening Non- Black Listening Black Listening Non-Hisp. Listening Hispanic Listening All Listening Non- Black Listening Black Listening Non-Hisp. Listening Hispanic Listening Dep. Var. = AQH*100 Dep. Var.= ln(AQH/(1-AQH)) Constant 15.569* (0.082) 15.150* (0.145) 17.401* (0.229) 15.467* (0.103) 17.161* (0.309) -1.693* (0.006) -1.726* (0.011) -1.564* (0.0167 -1.700* (0.012) -1.580* (0.022) Population 0.3030* (0.053) 0.022* (0.004) Non-Black Population 0.403* (0.162) -0.090 (0.256) 0.031* (0.013) 0.006 (0.018) Black Population -0.436 (0.846) 3.002* (1.335) -0.034 (0.065) 0.202* (0.096) Non-Hisp. Population 0.390* (0.103) -0.011 (0.193) 0.029* (0.008) 0.0002 (0.014) Hispanic Population -0.489 (0.345) 1.067** (0.649) -0.035 (0.026) 0.071 (0.046) R-sq 0.1184 0.1735 0.1591 0.2887 0.1121 0.1134 0.1674
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/26/releases/pagebp_g.pdf
  • formula in paragraph (d) of this section with actual HAAT and ERP data for the inter-station radial and additional radials above and below the inter-station radial at 2.5� intervals. (e) UHF service contour. For base stations transmitting on the UHF channels, the radial distance from the transmitting antenna to the service contour along each cardinal radial is calculated as follows: d=1.726xh0.35 xp0.18 where: d is the radial distance in kilometers h is the radial antenna HAAT in meters p is the radial ERP in Watts (1) Whenever the actual HAAT is less than 30 meters (98 feet), 30 must be used as the value for h in the above formula. (2) The value used for p in the above formula must
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-98.pdf
  • 0.1 21,941,64335.5 2.621.924.515.5 Seychelles $414,712 4.5 3.6 8.411.472.0 $11,33313.9 0.0 3.6 0.082.5 $2,10697.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 490,694 3.2 3.6 5.7 5.382.3 Sierra Leone $19,913,05449.5 0.415.1 1.233.9 $1,005,40099.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 $4,929,18899.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 42,882,43528.2 0.2 9.1 0.462.1 Somalia $7,021,60811.2 3.165.4 2.917.4 $524,92324.0 0.069.8 0.0 6.2 $1,495,203100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6,916,25211.2 5.241.5 1.440.7 South Africa $88,355,51748.5 1.726.719.3 3.7 $15,218,86137.9 0.038.621.0 2.5 $830,20486.7 0.0 4.5 0.3 8.4 167,263,10334.6 2.632.324.0 6.5 Sudan $7,094,99874.5 0.815.5 2.4 6.8 $354,56979.5 0.0 8.6 0.011.9 $2,628,19389.9 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.4 3,989,62744.4 3.717.9 3.230.8 Swaziland $657,90755.519.7 2.2 0.022.6 $88,50099.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 $190,718100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,788,07730.421.5 1.0 0.047.2 Tanzania $5,132,16971.3 2.718.4 4.6 3.1 $620,94550.8 0.044.5 0.0 4.7 $159,909 2.9 0.082.0 0.015.1 6,115,35960.8
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-f00.pdf
  • 0.076.8 $0 $763,368 0.046.7 4.7 0.0 48.6 $0 Spain 454 0.062.8 3.7 0.732.8 $0 $2,229,374 0.048.819.6 0.3 31.3 $0 Sweden 124 0.0 8.972.6 1.616.9 $0 $4,414,662 0.0 5.1 9.1 82.5 3.2 $0 Switzerland 396 0.073.0 4.319.9 2.8 $0 $2,487,795 0.080.511.8 4.3 3.4 $0 Turkey 1,17582.711.8 2.7 0.9 1.9 $0 $8,144,88980.5 9.0 6.7 2.0 1.8 $0 United Kingdom 65,200 0.769.2 2.2 1.726.2 $0 $139,126,979 2.363.9 9.5 3.1 21.2 $264,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Western Europe 137,160 1.247.9 3.7 5.341.8 $368,430 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $236,914,339 4.952.916.7 8.2 17.3 $1,666,016 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Algeria 24 0.0 0.012.5 0.087.5 $0 $303,964 0.0 0.053.1 0.0 46.9 $0 Angola 12100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $164,674100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 Benin 7100.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-f02.pdf
  • Honduras $108,026,70936.324.4 3.930.6 4.9 $4,369,66619.333.1 0.047.6 0.0 $311,391 4.325.163.8 6.8 0.0 357,057,62816.025.2 4.748.9 5.2 Mexico $1,328,503,65167.0 2.3 2.126.3 2.3 $126,135,14633.2 9.2 0.057.4 0.2 $2,345,11159.6 1.1 4.810.124.4 6,367,812,06130.3 2.9 5.156.5 5.2 Nicaragua $25,207,43549.821.0 0.925.5 2.9 $1,468,99725.517.1 0.056.8 0.6 $710,64192.5 2.4 4.4 0.8 0.0 65,462,23431.130.8 2.130.3 5.7 Panama $46,583,03277.4 8.1 0.612.0 1.8 $2,122,86453.9 9.3 0.033.2 3.6 $274,60668.022.8 1.5 7.7 0.0 105,418,80458.8 9.2 1.726.5 3.8 Saint Pierre and Miquelon $90,796 1.019.8 0.6 6.771.8 $0 $93 0.0 0.0100.0 0.0 0.0 347,065 0.2 6.8 1.2 6.485.4 Alaska $18,876 0.0 0.0 0.010.389.7 $1,095 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $0 118,781 0.0 0.0 0.011.888.2 United States (conterminous) $3,142,370 0.0 0.0 0.031.368.7 $7,199,422 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.296.8 $56,537 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 0.0 137,910,524 0.0 0.0 0.018.781.3 North and Central America
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/209968-1.pdf
  • 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 concerns in mind, SBC proposes that the Commission require that a complainant show that he either is someone who is prevented from accessing or using the respondent's product or service, or is an association or individual
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210090-3.pdf
  • problems caused by the equipment and inaccessibility problems caused by the service illustrate the point. A company that answers a complaint should be required to make as an affirmative defense any claim that the accessibility problem is the responsibility of another company, and the rules should provide for joinder of any company so identified. The Reply process contemplated in Section 1.726 establishes a strict standard for responses to affirmative defenses. Since complainants are not likely to be in a position within three days of the answer to respond to affirmative defenses, (given the complexity of the "readily achievable" standard). Indeed, no response should be required to affirmative defenses. Rather, the validity of the affirmative defenses should be resolved through the complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1132A1.html
  • will serve the public interest by promoting the development of a complete record in this proceeding, without harming any of the parties involved. We therefore set out the following modified procedural schedule and instructions to the parties: 1) The Complainant shall, on or before April 18, 2003, file and serve a reply to the answer that complies with 47 C.F.R. 1.726. 2) The Complainant shall, on or before April 18, 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 interrogatories, if any. 47 C.F.R. 1.729. 3) The Complainant shall, on or before April 18, 2003, file and serve its Opposition to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-767A1.html
  • 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' request for interrogatories, if any. 47 C.F.R. 1.729. 5) The defendants shall, on or before April 18, 2003, file any opposition and objections to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-1A1.html
  • 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. 28 Reconsideration
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-860A1.html
  • therein). That tariff has yet to be approved by the Pennsylvania Public Service Commission, however, and Comcast's 16 other Competitive Carriers lack such tariffs. See, e.g., Comcast's Supplemental Statement at 4-5, 12 n.41, 14-15 (and attachments referenced therein). Moreover, Comcast did not submit this evidence with the Complaint or the Reply, as it should have. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.721(a)(5), 1.726(e); Complainants' Reply to Defendant's Answer and Separate Statement, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 29, 2008) ("Reply"). Therefore, we accord little significance to this evidence. See generally Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14901, P: 90 (2005) (subsequent history omitted) (holding that wireline broadband
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • 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 any
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-19A1.html
  • a "declar[ation] that any claim by [FeatureGroup IP] for compensation under quantum meruit, quasi-contract, constructive contract, or any other theory is preempted by the Communications Act." Complaint at 19. AT&T Texas provided no facts or legal analysis to support that request, however, so we need not and do not consider it. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720(a), (c), (d); 1.721(a)(5)-(6), 1.726(c). (Continued from previous page) (continued...) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-19 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-19 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-c.pdf
  • 35 Non-Hispanic Population 1824.05 1827.58 Hispanic Population 443.26 503.75 36 Table 3: Direct Evidence of Preference Externalities, 1997 All Listening Non- Black Listening Black Listening Non-Hisp. Listening Hispanic Listening All Listening Non- Black Listening Black Listening Non-Hisp. Listening Hispanic Listening Dep. Var. = AQH*100 Dep. Var.= ln(AQH/(1-AQH)) Constant 15.569* (0.082) 15.150* (0.145) 17.401* (0.229) 15.467* (0.103) 17.161* (0.309) -1.693* (0.006) -1.726* (0.011) -1.564* (0.0167 -1.700* (0.012) -1.580* (0.022) Population 0.3030* (0.053) 0.022* (0.004) Non-Black Population 0.403* (0.162) -0.090 (0.256) 0.031* (0.013) 0.006 (0.018) Black Population -0.436 (0.846) 3.002* (1.335) -0.034 (0.065) 0.202* (0.096) Non-Hisp. Population 0.390* (0.103) -0.011 (0.193) 0.029* (0.008) 0.0002 (0.014) Hispanic Population -0.489 (0.345) 1.067** (0.649) -0.035 (0.026) 0.071 (0.046) R-sq 0.1184 0.1735 0.1591 0.2887 0.1121 0.1134 0.1674