FCC Web Documents citing 1.729

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-74A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-74A1.pdf
  • at § 1721(a)(6), supported by ``relevant documentation or affidavit,'' § 1720(c). 10. In addition, Staton's contention that the lack of live examination of witnesses in this proceeding was due to the actions of the Bureau is misplaced. It is incumbent upon the Complainant to request such an examination and Staton never filed a motion requesting a deposition pursuant to section 1.729(h) of our rules. Although the FCC has indicated that depositions will rarely be necessary in complaint cases, the Commission has noted that staff can ``consider and modify or otherwise relax the discovery procedures in particular cases (including possible document production, depositions, and additional interrogatories).'' While it had the opportunity to do so, Staton never pursued the option of requesting depositions,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1829A1.txt
  • whether and to what extent the hearings should be consolidated (e.g., consolidated for all purposes, including the hearing, or consolidated for only certain purposes, such as discovery or briefing). Discovery Discovery shall be conducted in accordance with sections 1.311-1.325 of the Commission's rules. We note that the parties already have each served discovery requests and objections in accordance with section 1.729 of the Commission's rules. We have not ruled on these pending discovery requests and leave to the discretion of the ALJ the manner and extent of discovery. Bureau Participation The Enforcement Bureau shall be a party to the proceedings before the ALJ and, subject to specific requests from the ALJ, will determine its level of participation as to each issue
• 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
  • 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 Audiovox's Motion to Dismiss filed on April 2, 2003. We note that defendant Audiovox has waived any timeliness objections to Complainant's filing of its Opposition on April 18, 2003. The Defendants shall, on or before April 25, 2003, file any opposition and objections to
• 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
  • Motion 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: 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
• 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
  • 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, and the
• 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
  • 22528, ¶ 67; 47 C.F.R. § 1.47(h). 47 C.F.R. § 1.735(d) (emphasis added). ACTA Petition for Reconsideration at 5. See Bell Atlantic Comments at 5. ACTA Petition for Reconsideration at 5. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.721(a)(8). First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22541, ¶100. BellSouth AD Petition at 2-5; SBC AD Comments at 2-3. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.729(i), 1.724(k)(5). TRA AD Comments at 3. Second Report & Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 17045-50, ¶¶ 48-58. BellSouth AD Petition at 8; SBC AD Comments at 4. BellSouth AD Petition at 8. Id. at 8-9. TRA AD Comments at 5. BellSouth AD Petition at 7-8; SBC AD Comments at 3. Second Report & Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 17037, ¶
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-112A1.txt
  • to such an attestation is unclear. Similarly, as we have noted above, information supported by sworn verification may be ``necessary'' for purposes of 47 U.S.C. § 218. See supra ¶ 7. See NAL Response at 16 (citing FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 138 (1940)). 47 U.S.C. § 208(a). 47 C.F.R. § 1.732(g) (emphasis added). 47 C.F.R. § 1.729(e) (emphasis added). Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 33(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 409(e) (emphasis added). See infra n.46. 47 U.S.C. § 409. 47 U.S.C. § 409(m). LOI at 2, 4. See, e.g., Peninsula Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 16124 (2001) (ordering broadcast licensee to ``submit an affidavit informing [the Commission] whether [it] has ceased
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-182A1.txt
  • Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1806, ¶ 8 (1988). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.721(a)(11). We note that, in contrast to the formal complaint rules, the informal complaint rules place a lesser burden on the complainant with regard to what must be contained in his or her slamming complaint. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.719. See id. § 1.729(a). 47 U.S.C. § 258. Pursuant to these procedures, carriers had to (1) obtain the subscriber's written authorization; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free number provided exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders electronically; (3) utilize an independent third party to verify the subscriber's order; or (4) send an information package with a postpaid card to deny, cancel,
• 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
  • if) the Commission grants AT&T's claims that Beehive's access revenue-sharing arrangement was unlawful, then the Commission must also grant Beehive's claims that certain of AT&T's billing arrangements with customers violated sections 201(b), 203, and 228 (the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act (``TDDRA'')) of the Act for precisely the same reasons. Beehive also alleges that AT&T violated sections 1.17 and 1.729(b) of the Commission's rules by failing to disclose certain information in the AT&T Complaint proceeding. Because we deny AT&T's claims that Beehive's access revenue-sharing arrangement was unlawful, the condition precedent pled by Beehive has not been satisfied, and thus we dismiss Beehive's claims under sections 201(b), 203, and 228 of the Act. In addition, we deny Beehive's claims under sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-169A1.txt
  • C.F.R. § 76.1003(e). See First Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 3389-90, ¶ 75. See 47 C.F. R. § 76.8. See infra ¶¶ 95, 98. See AT&T Comments at 30-32; CA2C Comments at 22-24. See USTelecom Comments at 20. See id. See RCN Comments at 20. See id. See EchoStar Comments at 27. See id. (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.729). See CA2C Comments at 23. See id. (citing 47 C.F.R. § 76.9); BSPA Comments at 7. See CA2C Comments at 24; BSPA Comments at 7. See AT&T Comments at 30 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.70, et seq.). See id. at 30-32. See Consumer Groups Reply Comments at 8. See Comcast Reply Comments at 36; NCTA Reply Comments at 10, Time
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-74A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-74A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-74A1.txt
  • at § 1721(a)(6), supported by ``relevant documentation or affidavit,'' § 1720(c). 10. In addition, Staton's contention that the lack of live examination of witnesses in this proceeding was due to the actions of the Bureau is misplaced. It is incumbent upon the Complainant to request such an examination and Staton never filed a motion requesting a deposition pursuant to section 1.729(h) of our rules. Although the FCC has indicated that depositions will rarely be necessary in complaint cases, the Commission has noted that staff can ``consider and modify or otherwise relax the discovery procedures in particular cases (including possible document production, depositions, and additional interrogatories).'' While it had the opportunity to do so, Staton never pursued the option of requesting depositions,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-37A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-37A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-37A1.txt
  • Report at 9 (noting that in those instances where consumer and wireless devices have a relatively short life cycle in the marketplace, ``the Committee does not expect the Commission to require retrofitting of such equipment that is already in the market''). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720 - 1.736. See also 47 C.F.R. § 6.21. 47 C.F.R. § 1.721. 47 C.F.R. § 1.729. 47 C.F.R. § 1.730. These modifications include deleting references to provisions that are not relevant to consumer-filed complaints in the accessibility context (e.g., provisions relating to complaints filed under Section 271 of the Act), as well as to ``rocket docket'' procedures. Because the CVAA requires the Commission to address informal complaints within 180 days of filing, and because our accelerated
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-112A1.html
  • to such an attestation is unclear. 30 Similarly, as we have noted above, information supported by sworn verification may be ``necessary'' for purposes of 47 U.S.C. 218. See supra 7. 31 See NAL Response at 16 (citing FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 138 (1940)). 32 47 U.S.C. 208(a). 33 47 C.F.R. 1.732(g) (emphasis added). 34 47 C.F.R. 1.729(e) (emphasis added). 35 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 33(b)(1). 36 47 U.S.C. 409(e) (emphasis added). 37 See infra n.46. 38 47 U.S.C. 409. 39 47 U.S.C. 409(m). 40 LOI at 2, 4. 41 See, e.g., Peninsula Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 16124 (2001) (ordering broadcast licensee to ``submit an affidavit informing [the Commission]
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-182A1.html
  • Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1806, 8 (1988). 18 See 47 C.F.R. 1.721(a)(11). We note that, in contrast to the formal complaint rules, the informal complaint rules place a lesser burden on the complainant with regard to what must be contained in his or her slamming complaint. See 47 C.F.R. 1.719. 19 See id. 1.729(a). 20 47 U.S.C. 258. 21 Pursuant to these procedures, carriers had to (1) obtain the subscriber's written authorization; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free number provided exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders electronically; (3) utilize an independent third party to verify the subscriber's order; or (4) send an information package with a postpaid card to deny,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-186A1.html
  • if) the Commission grants AT&T's claims that Beehive's access revenue-sharing arrangement was unlawful, then the Commission must also grant Beehive's claims that certain of AT&T's billing arrangements with customers violated sections 201(b), 203, and 228 (the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act (``TDDRA'')) of the Act for precisely the same reasons.10 Beehive also alleges that AT&T violated sections 1.1711 and 1.729(b)12 of the Commission's rules by failing to disclose certain information in the AT&T Complaint proceeding.13 Because we deny AT&T's claims that Beehive's access revenue-sharing arrangement was unlawful, the condition precedent pled by Beehive has not been satisfied, and thus we dismiss Beehive's claims under sections 201(b), 203, and 228 of the Act. In addition, we deny Beehive's claims under sections
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1132A1.html
  • 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 Defendant Audiovox's Motion to Dismiss filed on April 2, 2003. We note that defendant Audiovox has waived any timeliness objections to Complainant's filing of its Opposition on April 18, 2003. 4) The Defendants shall, on or before April 25, 2003, file any opposition and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-767A1.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) 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
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1604A1.html
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 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), and 208, sections 1.720-1.729 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720- 1.729, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-74A1.html
  • at S: 1721(a)(6), supported by "relevant documentation or affidavit," S: 1720(c). 10. In addition, Staton's contention that the lack of live examination of witnesses in this proceeding was due to the actions of the Bureau is misplaced. It is incumbent upon the Complainant to request such an examination and Staton never filed a motion requesting a deposition pursuant to section 1.729(h) of our rules. Although the FCC has indicated that depositions will rarely be necessary in complaint cases, the Commission has noted that staff can "consider and modify or otherwise relax the discovery procedures in particular cases (including possible document production, depositions, and additional interrogatories)." While it had the opportunity to do so, Staton never pursued the option of requesting depositions,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/rules/1730.html
  • 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 the remainder of the proceeding, including the parties' Sec. 1.729(i)(1) automatic production of documents. (d) During the thirty days following the effective date
• http://transition.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-b.pdf
  • .3794 .1386 47 Table 12: Who Benefits Whom, by Age? Young Listening Middle Aged Listening Older Listening coef s.e. coef s.e. coef s.e. Constant 10.464 1.032 14.862 0.935 11.378 1.379 Young Population 0.682 3.111 2.112 2.818 -6.345 4.156 Middle Aged Population -0.890 1.328 -2.514 1.203 1.478 1.774 Older Population 2.005 1.244 4.468 1.127 3.318 1.662 Northeast 0.292 0.307 0.682 0.278 1.729 0.410 North Central -0.579 0.310 0.280 0.281 1.124 0.414 South 0.119 0.292 0.053 0.264 -0.512 0.390 Percent Driving 6.627 2.456 3.908 2.224 5.337 3.280 Percent Black 3.902 0.984 2.806 0.892 3.767 1.315 Percent Hispanic 4.346 0.779 3.335 0.705 4.295 1.040 N 162 162 162 R-squared .3533 .2756 .4091
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992033.doc
  • an opposition thereto on May 21, 1997. Although the submission of a motion for summary decision is not specifically contemplated in the Commission's procedural rules governing formal complaints, we will accept this pleading and defendants' opposition thereto as in the nature of "other written submissions" permitted by Section 1.732 of the Commission's Rules. On March 10, 1997, pursuant to Section 1.729 of the Commission's Rules, defendants served interrogatories on complainants. Complainants did not submit their responses or objections thereto in a timely manner, and on April 18, 1997 defendants filed a "Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, or in the Alternative, to Compel a Response to Interrogatories." Complainants also did not file a timely response to this motion. At the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-112A1.html
  • to such an attestation is unclear. 30 Similarly, as we have noted above, information supported by sworn verification may be ``necessary'' for purposes of 47 U.S.C. 218. See supra 7. 31 See NAL Response at 16 (citing FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 138 (1940)). 32 47 U.S.C. 208(a). 33 47 C.F.R. 1.732(g) (emphasis added). 34 47 C.F.R. 1.729(e) (emphasis added). 35 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 33(b)(1). 36 47 U.S.C. 409(e) (emphasis added). 37 See infra n.46. 38 47 U.S.C. 409. 39 47 U.S.C. 409(m). 40 LOI at 2, 4. 41 See, e.g., Peninsula Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 16124 (2001) (ordering broadcast licensee to ``submit an affidavit informing [the Commission]
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-182A1.html
  • Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1806, 8 (1988). 18 See 47 C.F.R. 1.721(a)(11). We note that, in contrast to the formal complaint rules, the informal complaint rules place a lesser burden on the complainant with regard to what must be contained in his or her slamming complaint. See 47 C.F.R. 1.719. 19 See id. 1.729(a). 20 47 U.S.C. 258. 21 Pursuant to these procedures, carriers had to (1) obtain the subscriber's written authorization; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free number provided exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders electronically; (3) utilize an independent third party to verify the subscriber's order; or (4) send an information package with a postpaid card to deny,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-186A1.html
  • if) the Commission grants AT&T's claims that Beehive's access revenue-sharing arrangement was unlawful, then the Commission must also grant Beehive's claims that certain of AT&T's billing arrangements with customers violated sections 201(b), 203, and 228 (the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act (``TDDRA'')) of the Act for precisely the same reasons.10 Beehive also alleges that AT&T violated sections 1.1711 and 1.729(b)12 of the Commission's rules by failing to disclose certain information in the AT&T Complaint proceeding.13 Because we deny AT&T's claims that Beehive's access revenue-sharing arrangement was unlawful, the condition precedent pled by Beehive has not been satisfied, and thus we dismiss Beehive's claims under sections 201(b), 203, and 228 of the Act. In addition, we deny Beehive's claims under sections
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1132A1.html
  • 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 Defendant Audiovox's Motion to Dismiss filed on April 2, 2003. We note that defendant Audiovox has waived any timeliness objections to Complainant's filing of its Opposition on April 18, 2003. 4) The Defendants shall, on or before April 25, 2003, file any opposition and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-767A1.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) 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1604A1.html
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 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), and 208, sections 1.720-1.729 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720- 1.729, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-74A1.html
  • at S: 1721(a)(6), supported by "relevant documentation or affidavit," S: 1720(c). 10. In addition, Staton's contention that the lack of live examination of witnesses in this proceeding was due to the actions of the Bureau is misplaced. It is incumbent upon the Complainant to request such an examination and Staton never filed a motion requesting a deposition pursuant to section 1.729(h) of our rules. Although the FCC has indicated that depositions will rarely be necessary in complaint cases, the Commission has noted that staff can "consider and modify or otherwise relax the discovery procedures in particular cases (including possible document production, depositions, and additional interrogatories)." While it had the opportunity to do so, Staton never pursued the option of requesting depositions,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/rules/1730.html
  • 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 the remainder of the proceeding, including the parties' Sec. 1.729(i)(1) automatic production of documents. (d) During the thirty days following the effective date
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/99-1220.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/99-1220.html
  • F.2d 1383, 1387-88 (9th Cir. 1984); Armstrong, Jones & Co. v. SEC, 421 F.2d 359, 364 (6th Cir. 1970); NLRB v. Gala-Mo Arts, Inc., 232 F.2d 102, 106 (8th Cir. 1956). FCC regulations permit complainants to file requests for interrogatories, but leave it to Commission staff to "determine the interrogatories, if any, to which parties shall respond." 47 C.F.R. § 1.729(d). The regulations also authorize the Commission, in its discretion, to allow additional discovery, including depositions. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.729(h). But see Krauss, 14 F.C.C.R. 2770, 2774 (1999) (finding it inappropriate to determine carrier's liability for injuries to other subscribers, as that "would, in effect, transform this section 208 complaint proceeding into a class action suit, a result neither contemplated
• http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-b.pdf
  • .3794 .1386 47 Table 12: Who Benefits Whom, by Age? Young Listening Middle Aged Listening Older Listening coef s.e. coef s.e. coef s.e. Constant 10.464 1.032 14.862 0.935 11.378 1.379 Young Population 0.682 3.111 2.112 2.818 -6.345 4.156 Middle Aged Population -0.890 1.328 -2.514 1.203 1.478 1.774 Older Population 2.005 1.244 4.468 1.127 3.318 1.662 Northeast 0.292 0.307 0.682 0.278 1.729 0.410 North Central -0.579 0.310 0.280 0.281 1.124 0.414 South 0.119 0.292 0.053 0.264 -0.512 0.390 Percent Driving 6.627 2.456 3.908 2.224 5.337 3.280 Percent Black 3.902 0.984 2.806 0.892 3.767 1.315 Percent Hispanic 4.346 0.779 3.335 0.705 4.295 1.040 N 162 162 162 R-squared .3533 .2756 .4091