FCC Web Documents citing 1.727

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf
  • 20-21, ¶¶ 42-44; 31, ¶ 71. MAP argues that we should dismiss the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss because the Motion does not comply with certain procedural rules. MAP Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 2, ¶¶ 1-2. Specifically, MAP asserts that the Motion fails to include proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by 47 C.F.R. § 1.727(b), and to include a table of contents and summary, as required by 47 C.F.R. § 1.49. As to the latter, we decline to dismiss the Motion at this stage of the proceeding for such minor noncompliance with the rules. As to the former, we note that Defendants did provide, in compliance with 47 C.F.R. § 1.727(c), a proposed order that
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.pdf
  • Expedited Decision, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (filed Apr. 10, 2009) at 1 (``Motion for Extension''). Id. at 2 & n.3 (appending a copy of the informal complaint filed against Teleconnection). Motion for Extension at 2. Under the Commission's rules, oppositions to motions filed in formal complaint proceedings must be filed within five business days of the motion's filing. 47 C.F.R. § 1.727(e). Id. at 1. 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 (Apr. 13, 2009). 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
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.pdf
  • in which the billed call was made. Thus, we accept the interest calculation offered by APCC in Exhibit 5 of its Request for Resolution. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 209, and sections 1.727 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.727, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111 and 0.311, that the Request for Resolution on the Pleadings IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-306A1.txt
  • Bureau: 1. On February 6,1997, MCI TelecommunicationsCorporation ("MCI") filed the above-captioned formal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission against Pacific Bell ("PacBelT). 2. Subsequent to the filing of the above-referencedcomplaint, the parties to this proceeding reached an agreement, the provisions of which fully and finally settled all of the disputes which underlie this litigation. 3. Accordingly, and pursuant to Section 1.727 of the Commission'srules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.727, MCI requested, by a motion dated February 14,2000, that the Commission dismiss the above-captioned proceeding, with prejudice. MCI represented in its motion, among other things, that PacBell does not oppose the motion. 4. On the basis of the representationsmade in MCI's motion, we believe that the dismissal of this complaint will serve the
• 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
  • TRMR, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd. 17081, 17087 ¶ 10 (1996). See Western Telecommunications, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd. 6405, 6406 ¶ 12 (1988) (Character Policy Statement used to evaluate microwave radio licensees); A.S.D. Answer Service, Inc., 1 FCC Rcd. 753, 754 ¶ 12 (1986) (Character Policy Statement applied to domestic public radio service application). Emergency Motion at 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.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-558A1.txt
  • of record by telephone. The attorney stated that Voice Networks had terminated his services, but that he had forward the staff's letter of December 18 to his former client. 4. By motion filed on January 19, 2001, US West Wireless argues that, in light of these circumstances, the Commission should dismiss Voice Networks complaint for failure to prosecute. Under section 1.727(e) of our rules, Voice Networks had five business days in which to respond to U S West Wireless'motion to dismiss. To date, Voice Networks has not filed an opposition or any other response to U S West Wireless' motion. 5. We agree with U S West Wireless that it is apparent that Voice Networks has abandoned the prosecution of its
• 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
  • and Com. Car. Bur., 1999). Complaint at Attachment 2. APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Letter from Douglas R. Hirsch, counsel for TS Interactive, to Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, File No. EB-02-MD-012 (May 15, 2002). See, e.g., July 10 Letter at 2-3. Motion for Default Judgment at 5. We note that section 1.727(e) of the Commission's rules provides that a ``[f]ailure to oppose any motion may constitute grounds for granting of the motion.'' 47 C.F.R. § 1.727(e). Here, TS Interactive failed to respond to Complainants' motion for default judgment. This failure provides further support for our decision to grant the Complainants' motion. 47 C.F.R. § 1.722. In particular, Complainants should discuss why an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1916A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1916A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1916A1.txt
  • the efficient use of the Commission's formal complaint process, and may eliminate the need for further litigation and expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and section 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.727, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that Complainant's Motion to Dismiss the Proceeding Without Prejudice IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2101A1.txt
  • Motion''). Mills Complaint at 5, 6; FDVS Complaint at 4, 5. Mills Motion at 2-3. See FDVS Motion at 1. See FDVS Motion, Affidavit of Teri Ring, at 2. Id. Mills Motion at 3-7. See Id., Exhibit A. Mills Complaint at 12. Id. at 7. See Staton's Opposition to Motion for Dismissal, filed March 25, 2003 (``Mills Opposition''). Under Section 1.727(e) of the Commission's rules, an opposition to a motion must be filed within five business days of the filing of the motion. 47 C.F.R. § 1.727(e). Therefore, Staton's Opposition was not timely filed. Under the circumstances here, however, we will nonetheless consider Staton's Opposition. Mills Opposition at 2. See Letter from Robert J. Miller, counsel for Staton Holdings, Inc., to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4116A1.txt
  • and expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and the Commission. Hence, we find that the parties have shown good cause for us to dismiss O'Day's formal complaint with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and section 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.727, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint with Prejudice filed by the parties to this proceeding IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2682A1.txt
  • expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and the Commission. Hence, we find that the parties have shown good cause for us to dismiss the Burbanks' formal complaint with prejudice. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 208, and section 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.727, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint with Prejudice filed by the parties to this proceeding IS GRANTED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2870A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2870A1.txt
  • further litigation and expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and the Commission. Hence, we find that the parties have shown good cause for us to dismiss O'Day's formal complaint with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 208, section 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.727, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint with Prejudice filed by the parties to this proceeding IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2912A1.txt
  • to the Commission's confidentiality rules) - as opposed to an adverse ruling on the merits of the case - will result in the purported harm it has identified. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.727, that Defendants' Request for Stay is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau Defendants' Request for Stay, File No. EB-04-MD-006 (filed Aug. 31, 2004) (``Request for Stay''). Complainant EarthLink, Inc. opposes the Request for Stay. See EarthLink Opposition to SBC Stay Request, File No. EB-04-MD-006 (filed Sept.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3569A1.txt
  • the mandate of the New York Order and proceed to arbitration. We also convert the Complaint into an informal complaint for internal administrative purposes only. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727, Verizon's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Defer, is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-1.736
• 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
  • 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 the application,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.txt
  • Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp., Complainants, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-03-MD-011 ) Network IP, LLC, and ) Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, ) ) Defendants. ) order Adopted: October 26, 2005 Released: October 27, 2005 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: Introduction In this Order, pursuant to sections 1.3 and 1.727 of the Commission's rules, we grant in substantial part a motion filed by Complainants (collectively, ``APCC'') for waiver of the six-month filing deadline set forth in section 1.718 of the Commission's rules. For statute of limitations purposes, rule 1.718 allows the filing date of a formal complaint to ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint regarding
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.txt
  • 20-21, ¶¶ 42-44; 31, ¶ 71. MAP argues that we should dismiss the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss because the Motion does not comply with certain procedural rules. MAP Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 2, ¶¶ 1-2. Specifically, MAP asserts that the Motion fails to include proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by 47 C.F.R. § 1.727(b), and to include a table of contents and summary, as required by 47 C.F.R. § 1.49. As to the latter, we decline to dismiss the Motion at this stage of the proceeding for such minor noncompliance with the rules. As to the former, we note that Defendants did provide, in compliance with 47 C.F.R. § 1.727(c), a proposed order that
• 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
  • Expedited Decision, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (filed Apr. 10, 2009) at 1 (``Motion for Extension''). Id. at 2 & n.3 (appending a copy of the informal complaint filed against Teleconnection). Motion for Extension at 2. Under the Commission's rules, oppositions to motions filed in formal complaint proceedings must be filed within five business days of the motion's filing. 47 C.F.R. § 1.727(e). Id. at 1. 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 (Apr. 13, 2009). 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.txt
  • in which the billed call was made. Thus, we accept the interest calculation offered by APCC in Exhibit 5 of its Request for Resolution. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 209, and sections 1.727 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.727, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111 and 0.311, that the Request for Resolution on the Pleadings IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-732A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-732A2.txt
  • 157.416 16.587 16.476 16.582 7.852 8.102 8.377 5.863 5.936 6.54 635.21 640.938 749.263 0.446 0.452 0.45 5.017 5.063 5.065 12.775 13.341 15.019 424.333 449.555 472.674 5.349 5.703 5.959 25.444 29.224 33.024 0.877 0.868 0.872 1.582 1.617 1.652 7.31 7.527 7.9 236.325 243.953 249.474 76.734 72.682 85.491 9.944 9.457 9.813 0.33 0.25 0.282 24.315 28.99 31.552 0.586 0.589 0.604 1.662 1.605 1.727 2,496.062,470.442,547.18 1.505 1.523 1.573 23.304 23.681 24.228 1.901 1.952 1.959 0.702 0.696 0.7 3.445 2.79 3.131 1.893 1.953 2.021 18.127 18.317 20.015 238.305 261.998 269.53 1.348 1.467 1.45 8,920.6710,408.7911,790.44 3.053 2.373 2.671 270.39 265.398 266.293 34.135 36.102 37.968 4.623 5.603 5.502 1,361.831,420.911,609.49 1.062 1.056 1.04 0.563 0.551 0.548 0.625 0.639 0.637 3.264 3.496 3.529 4.469 4.745 4.991 0.779 0.776 0.776
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.txt
  • 536,946,639 1,709,510 314.09 0 0.000 DELAWARE 173,162,339 444,456 389.61 0 0.000 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 90,000,153 668,803 134.57 0 0.000 FLORIDA 3,133,732,395 8,422,504 372.07 19,434,393 1.824 GEORGIA 1,586,347,940 3,875,280 409.35 27,277,900 2.560 GUAM 27,624,383 62,004 445.53 206,128 0.019 HAWAII 179,431,196 543,734 330.00 15,368,425 1.442 IDAHO 233,994,281 632,849 369.75 15,593,020 1.463 ILLINOIS 1,507,796,694 6,000,648 251.27 16,069,171 1.508 INDIANA 915,363,754 2,854,564 320.67 18,404,628 1.727 IOWA 400,504,425 1,291,940 310.00 16,862,424 1.582 KANSAS 536,658,014 1,104,052 486.08 76,751,006 7.203 KENTUCKY 658,692,525 1,667,945 394.91 22,994,013 2.158 LOUISIANA 777,697,143 1,802,351 431.49 51,813,544 4.862 MAINE 232,403,806 675,014 344.29 3,159,719 0.297 MARYLAND 854,444,679 3,040,460 281.02 237,398 0.022 MASSACHUSETTS 808,135,386 2,969,742 272.12 23,112 0.002 MICHIGAN 1,353,905,188 4,154,613 325.88 17,398,631 1.633 MINNESOTA 695,411,638 2,258,483 307.91 26,571,947 2.494 MISSISSIPPI 541,356,431 1,117,195 484.57 24,914,045 2.338
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.txt
  • 536,946,639 1,709,510 314.09 0 0.000 DELAWARE 173,162,339 444,456 389.61 0 0.000 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 90,000,153 668,803 134.57 0 0.000 FLORIDA 3,133,732,395 8,422,504 372.07 19,434,393 1.824 GEORGIA 1,586,347,940 3,875,280 409.35 27,277,900 2.560 GUAM 27,624,383 62,004 445.53 206,128 0.019 HAWAII 179,431,196 543,734 330.00 15,368,425 1.442 IDAHO 233,994,281 632,849 369.75 15,593,020 1.463 ILLINOIS 1,507,796,694 6,000,648 251.27 16,069,171 1.508 INDIANA 915,363,754 2,854,564 320.67 18,404,628 1.727 IOWA 400,504,425 1,291,940 310.00 16,862,424 1.582 KANSAS 536,658,014 1,104,052 486.08 76,751,006 7.203 KENTUCKY 658,692,525 1,667,945 394.91 22,994,013 2.158 LOUISIANA 777,697,143 1,802,351 431.49 51,813,544 4.862 MAINE 232,403,806 675,014 344.29 3,159,719 0.297 MARYLAND 854,444,679 3,040,460 281.02 237,398 0.022 MASSACHUSETTS 808,135,386 2,969,742 272.12 23,112 0.002 MICHIGAN 1,353,905,188 4,154,613 325.88 17,398,631 1.633 MINNESOTA 695,411,638 2,258,483 307.91 26,571,947 2.494 MISSISSIPPI 541,356,431 1,117,195 484.57 24,914,045 2.338
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-285A1.txt
  • ex parte purposes. Thus, the authorities cited by Petitioners do not indicate that the public interest requires changing the applicable ex parte rules in this case. Accordingly, Petitioners' Motion is denied. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 1.727 and 1.1200-1.1216 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.727, 1.1200-1.1216, that Petitioners' Joint Motion to Change [the] Ex Parte Status of [this] Proceeding IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary 47 U.S.C. § 208. Advamtel LLC, et al. v. AT&T Corp., 105 F. Supp.2d 507 (E.D. Va. 2000); Advamtel LLC, et al. v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P.,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-380A1.txt
  • Supplemental Complaint, File No. E-94-41 (filed Nov. 6, 1997); Third Supplemental Complaint, File No. E-94-41 (filed Dec. 21, 1998). Motion to Strike the Second Supplemental Complaint of Graphnet, Inc., File No. E-94-41 (filed Dec. 8, 1997) at 2-3; Motion to Strike the Third Supplemental Complaint of Graphnet, Inc., File No. E-94-41 (filed Jan. 19, 1999) at 3-4. 47 C.F.R. § 1.727(h). Graphnet Opposition to AT&T Motion to Strike, File No. E-94-41 (filed Dec. 18, 1997) at 7-11; Motion for Partial Default Judgment, File No. E-94-41 (filed Jan. 26, 1999). Verified Answer of AT&T Corp. to Supplemental Complaint of Graphnet, Inc., File No. E-94-41 (filed Mar. 1, 1996); Motion to Strike the Second Supplemental Complaint of Graphnet, Inc., File No. E-94-41 (filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-186A1.txt
  • v. FCC, 180 F.3d 314 (1999). In so ruling, the Commission determined that Beehive's rate of return on switching alone was 12.2% in 1994, 111% in 1995, and 65% in 1996. Refund Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 2741, ¶ 13. Aman & Mayton, Administrative Law § 8.4.8 at 232 (West 1993). See 5 U.S.C. § 556(e); 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.361, 1.727(b); Fed. R. Evid. 201. See, e.g., Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C. v. GTE Wireless of the South, Inc., Order on Review, 16 FCC Rcd 4967, 4968-69, ¶ 5 (2001); In Re Applications of Chesapeake and Potomac Company of Virginia, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 98 F.C.C. 2d 238, 239 n.4 (1984); Revision of the Processing Policies for Waivers of the Telephone Company-Cable Television ``Cross
• 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
  • Section III.C., infra. See discussion infra at ¶¶ 17-21. Reconsideration Petition at 6. See Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7607 n.48. Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7607 n.48 (citing cases in which the Commission declined to address issues raised for the first time in briefs). 47 C.F.R § 1.721(a)(4). 47 C.F.R § 1.721(a)(5). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720; 1.721(a)(6); 1.727(h) (``Amendments or supplements to complaints to add new claims or requests for relief are prohibited.''). Reconsideration Petition at 6. See Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7604, ¶ 10; at 7606, ¶ 13. Reconsideration Petition at 6. See, e.g., Reconsideration Petition at 13 (arguing that the Commission erred in ``refusing to take action against Defendants on the basis of the anticompetitive
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-207A1.txt
  • FCC Rcd 13243, 13253-54, ¶¶ 17-18 (Com. Car. Bur. 1997) (``MCI v. Pac Tel''); 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-1.718. See, e.g., MCI v. Pac Tel, 12 FCC Rcd at 13,253, ¶ 17. See April 1998 Letter; Formal Complaint Exhibit 3 (Comments of Oncor Communications, Inc.). See Interim Request; Supplement Request. One submission contains a single footnote citation to 47 C.F.R. § 1.727. See Supplement Request at 2. See Joint Statement Exhibit JS-21. We recognize that, when a letter is submitted to the Commission by pro se ``consumers who have little, if any, familiarity with Commission's rules or practices,'' the Commission may construe the rules more liberally. MCI v. Pac Tel, 12 FCC Rcd at 13253, n.67. However, such an approach has no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-56A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-56A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-56A1.txt
  • precise); California PUC Comments at 5-6 (favoring notice of the relief sought and full opportunity to evaluate evidence). By contrast, in a rulemaking proceeding the Commission will consider all relevant comments and material of record before taking final action. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.425. Verizon Comments at 32 (filing requirements likely to provoke distracting procedural disputes). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.727(b) (dispositive motions regarding formal complaints). See AT&T Comments at 16-17 (arguing against needless repetition when reasons for forbearance overlap); Verizon Comments at 34 (arguing that requiring petitioners to address all three prongs is not consistent with precedent recognizing that the criteria are interrelated). See Verizon Comments at 34. See Verizon Comments at 33-34 (contending that requiring petitioners to argue all
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01285.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01285.pdf
  • ex parte purposes. Thus, the authorities cited by Petitioners do not indicate that the public interest requires changing the applicable ex parte rules in this case. Accordingly, Petitioners' Motion is denied. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 1.727 and 1.1200-1.1216 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.727, 1.1200-1.1216, that Petitioners' Joint Motion to Change [the] Ex Parte Status of [this] Proceeding IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 Advamtel LLC, et al. v. AT&T Corp., 105 F. Supp.2d 507 (E.D. Va. 2000); Advamtel LLC, et al. v. Sprint Communications Company,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3547A1.html
  • 25 Complaint at Attachment 2. 26 APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Letter from Douglas R. Hirsch, counsel for TS Interactive, to Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, File No. EB-02-MD-012 (May 15, 2002). 27 See, e.g., July 10 Letter at 2-3. 28 Motion for Default Judgment at 5. 29 We note that section 1.727(e) of the Commission's rules provides that a ``[f]ailure to oppose any motion may constitute grounds for granting of the motion.'' 47 C.F.R. 1.727(e). Here, TS Interactive failed to respond to Complainants' motion for default judgment. This failure provides further support for our decision to grant the Complainants' motion. 30 47 C.F.R. 1.722. 31 In particular, Complainants should discuss why an
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-01-380A1.html
  • Complaint, File No. E-94-41 (filed Nov. 6, 1997); Third Supplemental Complaint, File No. E-94-41 (filed Dec. 21, 1998). 104 Motion to Strike the Second Supplemental Complaint of Graphnet, Inc., File No. E-94-41 (filed Dec. 8, 1997) at 2-3; Motion to Strike the Third Supplemental Complaint of Graphnet, Inc., File No. E-94-41 (filed Jan. 19, 1999) at 3-4. 105 47 C.F.R. 1.727(h). 106 Graphnet Opposition to AT&T Motion to Strike, File No. E-94- 41 (filed Dec. 18, 1997) at 7-11; Motion for Partial Default Judgment, File No. E-94-41 (filed Jan. 26, 1999). 107 Verified Answer of AT&T Corp. to Supplemental Complaint of Graphnet, Inc., File No. E-94-41 (filed Mar. 1, 1996); Motion to Strike the Second Supplemental Complaint of Graphnet, Inc., File
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-186A1.html
  • Telephone Co., Inc. v. FCC, 180 F.3d 314 (1999). In so ruling, the Commission determined that Beehive's rate of return on switching alone was 12.2% in 1994, 111% in 1995, and 65% in 1996. Refund Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 2741, 13. 70 Aman & Mayton, Administrative Law 8.4.8 at 232 (West 1993). See 5 U.S.C. 556(e); 47 C.F.R. 1.361, 1.727(b); Fed. R. Evid. 201. 71 See, e.g., Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C. v. GTE Wireless of the South, Inc., Order on Review, 16 FCC Rcd 4967, 4968-69, 5 (2001); In Re Applications of Chesapeake and Potomac Company of Virginia, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 98 F.C.C. 2d 238, 239 n.4 (1984); Revision of the Processing Policies for Waivers of the Telephone Company-Cable Television ``Cross
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1916A1.html
  • the efficient use of the Commission's formal complaint process, and may eliminate the need for further litigation and expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission.33 III. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and section 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.727, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Complainant's Motion to Dismiss the Proceeding Without Prejudice IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2101A1.html
  • 4, 5. 7 Mills Motion at 2-3. 8 See FDVS Motion at 1. 9 See FDVS Motion, Affidavit of Teri Ring, at 2. 10 Id. 11 Mills Motion at 3-7. 12 See Id., Exhibit A. 13 Mills Complaint at 12. 14 Id. at 7. 15 See Staton's Opposition to Motion for Dismissal, filed March 25, 2003 (``Mills Opposition''). Under Section 1.727(e) of the Commission's rules, an opposition to a motion must be filed within five business days of the filing of the motion. 47 C.F.R. 1.727(e). Therefore, Staton's Opposition was not timely filed. Under the circumstances here, however, we will nonetheless consider Staton's Opposition. 16 Mills Opposition at 2. 17 See Letter from Robert J. Miller, counsel for Staton Holdings, Inc.,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4116A1.html
  • and expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and the Commission. Hence, we find that the parties have shown good cause for us to dismiss O'Day's formal complaint with prejudice. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and section 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.727, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint with Prejudice filed by the parties to this proceeding IS GRANTED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-1A1.html
  • III.C., infra. 57 See discussion infra at 17-21. 58 Reconsideration Petition at 6. See Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7607 n.48. 59 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7607 n.48 (citing cases in which the Commission declined to address issues raised for the first time in briefs). 60 47 C.F.R 1.721(a)(4). 61 47 C.F.R 1.721(a)(5). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.720; 1.721(a)(6); 1.727(h) (``Amendments or supplements to complaints to add new claims or requests for relief are prohibited.''). 62 Reconsideration Petition at 6. See Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7604, 10; at 7606, 13. 63 Reconsideration Petition at 6. 64 See, e.g., Reconsideration Petition at 13 (arguing that the Commission erred in ``refusing to take action against Defendants on the basis of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2682A1.html
  • and expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and the Commission. Hence, we find that the parties have shown good cause for us to dismiss the Burbanks' formal complaint with prejudice. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 208, and section 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.727, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint with Prejudice filed by the parties to this proceeding IS GRANTED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2870A1.html
  • further litigation and expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and the Commission. Hence, we find that the parties have shown good cause for us to dismiss O'Day's formal complaint with prejudice. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 208, section 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.727, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint with Prejudice filed by the parties to this proceeding IS GRANTED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2912A1.html
  • to the Commission's confidentiality rules) - as opposed to an adverse ruling on the merits of the case - will result in the purported harm it has identified.9 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.727, that Defendants' Request for Stay is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Defendants' Request for Stay, File No. EB-04-MD-006 (filed Aug. 31, 2004) (``Request for Stay''). Complainant EarthLink, Inc. opposes the Request for Stay. See EarthLink Opposition to SBC Stay Request, File No. EB-04-MD-006 (filed
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3569A1.html
  • the mandate of the New York Order and proceed to arbitration. We also convert the Complaint into an informal complaint for internal administrative purposes only. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727, Verizon's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Defer, is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-1.736 of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2819A1.html
  • File No. EB-03-MD-011 Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific ) Telemanagement ) Services, and ) Intera Communications Corp., ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) Network IP, LLC, and ) Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Adopted: October 26, 2005Released: October 27, 2005 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, pursuant to sections 1.3 and 1.727 of the Commission's rules,1 we grant in substantial part a motion2 filed by Complainants (collectively, ``APCC'') for waiver of the six-month filing deadline set forth in section 1.718 of the Commission's rules.3 For statute of limitations purposes, rule 1.718 allows the filing date of a formal complaint to ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint regarding
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-207A1.html
  • Order, 12 FCC Rcd 13243, 13253-54, 17-18 (Com. Car. Bur. 1997) (``MCI v. Pac Tel''); 47 C.F.R. 1.716-1.718. 68 See, e.g., MCI v. Pac Tel, 12 FCC Rcd at 13,253, 17. See April 1998 Letter; Formal Complaint Exhibit 3 (Comments of Oncor Communications, Inc.). 69 See Interim Request; Supplement Request. One submission contains a single footnote citation to 47 C.F.R. 1.727. See Supplement Request at 2. 70 See Joint Statement Exhibit JS-21. 71 We recognize that, when a letter is submitted to the Commission by pro se ``consumers who have little, if any, familiarity with Commission's rules or practices,'' the Commission may construe the rules more liberally. MCI v. Pac Tel, 12 FCC Rcd at 13253, n.67. However, such an approach
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1065A1.html
  • 20-21, P:P: 42-44; 31, P: 71. MAP argues that we should dismiss the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss because the Motion does not comply with certain procedural rules. MAP Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 2, P:P: 1-2. Specifically, MAP asserts that the Motion fails to include proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by 47 C.F.R. S: 1.727(b), and to include a table of contents and summary, as required by 47 C.F.R. S: 1.49. As to the latter, we decline to dismiss the Motion at this stage of the proceeding for such minor noncompliance with the rules. As to the former, we note that Defendants did provide, in compliance with 47 C.F.R. S: 1.727(c), a proposed order that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2040A1.html
  • Expedited Decision, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (filed Apr. 10, 2009) at 1 ("Motion for Extension"). Id. at 2 & n.3 (appending a copy of the informal complaint filed against Teleconnection). Motion for Extension at 2. Under the Commission's rules, oppositions to motions filed in formal complaint proceedings must be filed within five business days of the motion's filing. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.727(e). Id. at 1. 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 (Apr. 13, 2009). 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
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1192A1.html
  • the billed call was made. Thus, we accept the interest calculation offered by APCC in Exhibit 5 of its Request for Resolution. IV. ordering clauses 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 209, and sections 1.727 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.727, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111 and 0.311, that the Request for Resolution on the Pleadings IS GRANTED. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 209 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-b.pdf
  • 1.002 North Central 1.256 0.608 -0.314 1.171 1.737 1.044 1.008 1.933 South 0.617 0.607 0.372 1.168 -0.236 0.372 0.048 0.659 Percent Driving 3.024 2.385 3.464 4.592 4.056 3.740 8.556 6.614 R-Squared .4754 .1874 .3339 .1799 N 100 100 51 52 White Listening Black Listening Non-Hisp. Listening Hisp. Listening IV Estimates coef s.e. coef s.e. Coef s.e. coef s.e. Constant 9.240 1.727 9.073 3.852 13.444 2.421 11.394 4.533 White-Targeted Stations 0.154 0.041 0.187 0.091 Black-Targeted Stations 0.119 0.133 0.784 0.297 Non-Hisp.-Targeted Stations 0.102 0.063 0.163 0.124 Hispanic-Targeted Stations -0.020 0.106 0.166 0.199 Northeast 1.284 0.630 1.520 1.405 0.809 0.951 -0.547 1.852 North Central 1.645 0.746 0.723 1.665 0.920 1.332 -0.662 2.607 South 1.132 0.877 1.556 1.956 0.657 0.645 1.764 1.196 Percent Driving
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000474.doc
  • TRMR, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd. 17081, 17087 ¶ 10 (1996). See Western Telecommunications, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd. 6405, 6406 ¶ 12 (1988) (Character Policy Statement used to evaluate microwave radio licensees); A.S.D. Answer Service, Inc., 1 FCC Rcd. 753, 754 ¶ 12 (1986) (Character Policy Statement applied to domestic public radio service application). Emergency Motion at 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.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01285.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01285.pdf
  • ex parte purposes. Thus, the authorities cited by Petitioners do not indicate that the public interest requires changing the applicable ex parte rules in this case. Accordingly, Petitioners' Motion is denied. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 1.727 and 1.1200-1.1216 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.727, 1.1200-1.1216, that Petitioners' Joint Motion to Change [the] Ex Parte Status of [this] Proceeding IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 Advamtel LLC, et al. v. AT&T Corp., 105 F. Supp.2d 507 (E.D. Va. 2000); Advamtel LLC, et al. v. Sprint Communications Company,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3547A1.html
  • 25 Complaint at Attachment 2. 26 APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Letter from Douglas R. Hirsch, counsel for TS Interactive, to Warren Firschein, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, File No. EB-02-MD-012 (May 15, 2002). 27 See, e.g., July 10 Letter at 2-3. 28 Motion for Default Judgment at 5. 29 We note that section 1.727(e) of the Commission's rules provides that a ``[f]ailure to oppose any motion may constitute grounds for granting of the motion.'' 47 C.F.R. 1.727(e). Here, TS Interactive failed to respond to Complainants' motion for default judgment. This failure provides further support for our decision to grant the Complainants' motion. 30 47 C.F.R. 1.722. 31 In particular, Complainants should discuss why an
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-01-380A1.html
  • Complaint, File No. E-94-41 (filed Nov. 6, 1997); Third Supplemental Complaint, File No. E-94-41 (filed Dec. 21, 1998). 104 Motion to Strike the Second Supplemental Complaint of Graphnet, Inc., File No. E-94-41 (filed Dec. 8, 1997) at 2-3; Motion to Strike the Third Supplemental Complaint of Graphnet, Inc., File No. E-94-41 (filed Jan. 19, 1999) at 3-4. 105 47 C.F.R. 1.727(h). 106 Graphnet Opposition to AT&T Motion to Strike, File No. E-94- 41 (filed Dec. 18, 1997) at 7-11; Motion for Partial Default Judgment, File No. E-94-41 (filed Jan. 26, 1999). 107 Verified Answer of AT&T Corp. to Supplemental Complaint of Graphnet, Inc., File No. E-94-41 (filed Mar. 1, 1996); Motion to Strike the Second Supplemental Complaint of Graphnet, Inc., File
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-186A1.html
  • Telephone Co., Inc. v. FCC, 180 F.3d 314 (1999). In so ruling, the Commission determined that Beehive's rate of return on switching alone was 12.2% in 1994, 111% in 1995, and 65% in 1996. Refund Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 2741, 13. 70 Aman & Mayton, Administrative Law 8.4.8 at 232 (West 1993). See 5 U.S.C. 556(e); 47 C.F.R. 1.361, 1.727(b); Fed. R. Evid. 201. 71 See, e.g., Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C. v. GTE Wireless of the South, Inc., Order on Review, 16 FCC Rcd 4967, 4968-69, 5 (2001); In Re Applications of Chesapeake and Potomac Company of Virginia, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 98 F.C.C. 2d 238, 239 n.4 (1984); Revision of the Processing Policies for Waivers of the Telephone Company-Cable Television ``Cross
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1916A1.html
  • the efficient use of the Commission's formal complaint process, and may eliminate the need for further litigation and expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and this Commission.33 III. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and section 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.727, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Complainant's Motion to Dismiss the Proceeding Without Prejudice IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2101A1.html
  • 4, 5. 7 Mills Motion at 2-3. 8 See FDVS Motion at 1. 9 See FDVS Motion, Affidavit of Teri Ring, at 2. 10 Id. 11 Mills Motion at 3-7. 12 See Id., Exhibit A. 13 Mills Complaint at 12. 14 Id. at 7. 15 See Staton's Opposition to Motion for Dismissal, filed March 25, 2003 (``Mills Opposition''). Under Section 1.727(e) of the Commission's rules, an opposition to a motion must be filed within five business days of the filing of the motion. 47 C.F.R. 1.727(e). Therefore, Staton's Opposition was not timely filed. Under the circumstances here, however, we will nonetheless consider Staton's Opposition. 16 Mills Opposition at 2. 17 See Letter from Robert J. Miller, counsel for Staton Holdings, Inc.,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4116A1.html
  • and expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and the Commission. Hence, we find that the parties have shown good cause for us to dismiss O'Day's formal complaint with prejudice. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and section 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.727, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint with Prejudice filed by the parties to this proceeding IS GRANTED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-1A1.html
  • III.C., infra. 57 See discussion infra at 17-21. 58 Reconsideration Petition at 6. See Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7607 n.48. 59 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7607 n.48 (citing cases in which the Commission declined to address issues raised for the first time in briefs). 60 47 C.F.R 1.721(a)(4). 61 47 C.F.R 1.721(a)(5). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.720; 1.721(a)(6); 1.727(h) (``Amendments or supplements to complaints to add new claims or requests for relief are prohibited.''). 62 Reconsideration Petition at 6. See Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7604, 10; at 7606, 13. 63 Reconsideration Petition at 6. 64 See, e.g., Reconsideration Petition at 13 (arguing that the Commission erred in ``refusing to take action against Defendants on the basis of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2682A1.html
  • and expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and the Commission. Hence, we find that the parties have shown good cause for us to dismiss the Burbanks' formal complaint with prejudice. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 208, and section 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.727, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint with Prejudice filed by the parties to this proceeding IS GRANTED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2870A1.html
  • further litigation and expenditure of additional time and resources of the parties and the Commission. Hence, we find that the parties have shown good cause for us to dismiss O'Day's formal complaint with prejudice. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 208, section 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.727, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint with Prejudice filed by the parties to this proceeding IS GRANTED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2912A1.html
  • to the Commission's confidentiality rules) - as opposed to an adverse ruling on the merits of the case - will result in the purported harm it has identified.9 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.727, that Defendants' Request for Stay is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Defendants' Request for Stay, File No. EB-04-MD-006 (filed Aug. 31, 2004) (``Request for Stay''). Complainant EarthLink, Inc. opposes the Request for Stay. See EarthLink Opposition to SBC Stay Request, File No. EB-04-MD-006 (filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3569A1.html
  • the mandate of the New York Order and proceed to arbitration. We also convert the Complaint into an informal complaint for internal administrative purposes only. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.727, Verizon's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Defer, is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.3, 1.716-1.718, and 1.720-1.736 of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2819A1.html
  • File No. EB-03-MD-011 Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific ) Telemanagement ) Services, and ) Intera Communications Corp., ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) Network IP, LLC, and ) Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Adopted: October 26, 2005Released: October 27, 2005 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, pursuant to sections 1.3 and 1.727 of the Commission's rules,1 we grant in substantial part a motion2 filed by Complainants (collectively, ``APCC'') for waiver of the six-month filing deadline set forth in section 1.718 of the Commission's rules.3 For statute of limitations purposes, rule 1.718 allows the filing date of a formal complaint to ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint regarding
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-207A1.html
  • Order, 12 FCC Rcd 13243, 13253-54, 17-18 (Com. Car. Bur. 1997) (``MCI v. Pac Tel''); 47 C.F.R. 1.716-1.718. 68 See, e.g., MCI v. Pac Tel, 12 FCC Rcd at 13,253, 17. See April 1998 Letter; Formal Complaint Exhibit 3 (Comments of Oncor Communications, Inc.). 69 See Interim Request; Supplement Request. One submission contains a single footnote citation to 47 C.F.R. 1.727. See Supplement Request at 2. 70 See Joint Statement Exhibit JS-21. 71 We recognize that, when a letter is submitted to the Commission by pro se ``consumers who have little, if any, familiarity with Commission's rules or practices,'' the Commission may construe the rules more liberally. MCI v. Pac Tel, 12 FCC Rcd at 13253, n.67. However, such an approach
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1192A1.html
  • the billed call was made. Thus, we accept the interest calculation offered by APCC in Exhibit 5 of its Request for Resolution. IV. ordering clauses 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 209, and sections 1.727 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.727, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111 and 0.311, that the Request for Resolution on the Pleadings IS GRANTED. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 209 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-b.pdf
  • 1.002 North Central 1.256 0.608 -0.314 1.171 1.737 1.044 1.008 1.933 South 0.617 0.607 0.372 1.168 -0.236 0.372 0.048 0.659 Percent Driving 3.024 2.385 3.464 4.592 4.056 3.740 8.556 6.614 R-Squared .4754 .1874 .3339 .1799 N 100 100 51 52 White Listening Black Listening Non-Hisp. Listening Hisp. Listening IV Estimates coef s.e. coef s.e. Coef s.e. coef s.e. Constant 9.240 1.727 9.073 3.852 13.444 2.421 11.394 4.533 White-Targeted Stations 0.154 0.041 0.187 0.091 Black-Targeted Stations 0.119 0.133 0.784 0.297 Non-Hisp.-Targeted Stations 0.102 0.063 0.163 0.124 Hispanic-Targeted Stations -0.020 0.106 0.166 0.199 Northeast 1.284 0.630 1.520 1.405 0.809 0.951 -0.547 1.852 North Central 1.645 0.746 0.723 1.665 0.920 1.332 -0.662 2.607 South 1.132 0.877 1.556 1.956 0.657 0.645 1.764 1.196 Percent Driving