FCC Web Documents citing 1.733

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.pdf
  • 32-34. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Reply, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed June 12, 2009) (``Reply'') at 5, ¶ 11. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320. Reply at 5-6, ¶ 13. Reply at 6, ¶ 13, 13, ¶ 32 (citing APCC v. Radiant, 23 FCC Rcd at 6971-72, ¶ 30). Joint Statement. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Joint Statement at 3, ¶ 16, 4, ¶¶ 17, 20. Joint Statement at 4, ¶¶ 18-19. CCI Communications, LLC's Responses to Complainant's (1) Initial Interrogatories and Requests for Production and (2) Second Set of Interrogatories, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed Jan. 19, 2010) (``CCI's Interrogatory Responses'') at 10. In addition to providing the number of calls at a 30-second proxy,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.pdf
  • VII-X and XIV from AT&T Corp.'s Formal Complaint, File No. EB-10-MD-005 (filed Dec. 20, 2010) (``Motion to Sever'')). With YMax's consent, Commission staff also granted AT&T's request to sever, from Counts XI and XII respectively, the allegations made in the Complaint at paragraphs 144 and 151. See Status Conference Order at 2 (citing Joint Statement Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv), File No. EB-10-MD-005 (filed Dec. 16, 2010) (``Joint Statement on Discovery and Scheduling'') at 2 n.1). The record consists primarily of the pleadings and documents listed below, all of which were filed in File No. EB-10-MD-005: Complaint; Legal Analysis in Support of AT&T Corp.'s Formal Complaint (``Complaint Legal Analysis''); Answer of YMax Communications Corp. (filed Nov. 29, 2010) (``Answer''); Legal
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.pdf
  • express any view regarding the issues raised in AT&T v. All American. Complaint at 24-25. Complaint at 25. . Reply and Legal Analysis in Support of Formal Complaint and/or Request for Declaratory Ruling of All American Telephone Co., Inc., e-Pinnacle Communications, Inc., and Chasecom, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 6, 2010) (``Reply''). ; Joint Statement Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv), File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 16, 2010). Letter to Jonathan E. Canis, counsel for the CLECs, and James F. Bendernagel, counsel for AT&T, from Lisa B. Griffin, Deputy Chief, EB/MDRD, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 28, 2010). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 1.732(c) (``In cases in which discovery is not conducted, absent an order by the Commission that briefs be
• 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
  • 1-800-AMERITECH Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 23189-90, ¶ 10. AT&T is free to file a separate complaint on this matter. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.201- 1.364. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 1.732(g). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.243(f). 47 C.F.R §§ 1.311-1.325. 47 C.F.R. § 1.729. 47 C.F.R. § 1.47(c). Joint Statement of the Parties Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.733, File No. E-97-28s (May 25, 2001) (``AT&T and U S WEST Joint Statement'') at 6; Joint Statement of Complainant and Defendant, File No. E-97-40s (May 25, 2001) at 4. Although the parties articulate numerous other specific issues in their Joint Statements, the specific issues are largely, if not completely, subsumed within the broader issue set forth above. See, e.g., AT&T
• 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
  • in this proceeding has been scheduled for May 1, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in the Third Floor North Conference Room (Room 3-B112) of the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. After reaching the 3rd Floor-North elevator lobby, the parties should call Amy Goodman at 418-1549 to be escorted to the conference room. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.733. Counsel should be prepared to spend at least two hours in conference. The parties shall meet prior to attending the initial status conference. One purpose of that meeting is to resolve or narrow as many issues as possible prior to the conference. The parties shall discuss matters including, but not limited to, settlement prospects, discovery, factual and legal issues in
• 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
  • conference in this proceeding has been scheduled for April 22, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in the Third Floor North Conference Room (Room 3-B142) of the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. After reaching the 3rd Floor-North elevator lobby, the parties should call Amy Goodman at 418-1549 to be escorted to the conference room. See 47 C.F.R. §1.733. Counsel should be prepared to spend at least two hours in conference. The parties shall meet prior to attending the initial status conference. One purpose of that meeting is to resolve or narrow as many issues as possible prior to the conference. The parties shall discuss matters including, but not limited to, settlement prospects, discovery, factual and legal issues in
• 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
  • 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 number of copies required. Need: These rules provide general directions on where to file applications, the
• 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
  • 32-34. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Reply, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed June 12, 2009) (``Reply'') at 5, ¶ 11. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320. Reply at 5-6, ¶ 13. Reply at 6, ¶ 13, 13, ¶ 32 (citing APCC v. Radiant, 23 FCC Rcd at 6971-72, ¶ 30). Joint Statement. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Joint Statement at 3, ¶ 16, 4, ¶¶ 17, 20. Joint Statement at 4, ¶¶ 18-19. CCI Communications, LLC's Responses to Complainant's (1) Initial Interrogatories and Requests for Production and (2) Second Set of Interrogatories, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed Jan. 19, 2010) (``CCI's Interrogatory Responses'') at 10. In addition to providing the number of calls at a 30-second proxy,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.txt
  • (``All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust and unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.''). See Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) (``Joint Statement'') at 2 (``Bell Atlantic and Global NAPs ... have interconnection agreements in the states of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. The parties do not agree on the legal status of their physical interconnection in
• 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
  • Commission's rules. Motion of AT&T Corp. to Accept Late Filed Answer, File No. E-94-41 (filed Mar. 1, 1996) at 2-3. See Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 20823, 20856, ¶ 71 (1996). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.733(a) (1995) (``In any complaint proceeding, the Commission may in its discretion direct the attorneys and/or the parties to appear before it for a conference ....''). Section 201(b) states, in pertinent part, that ``[a]ll charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with ... communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that
• 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
  • at § 1.721(e)(ii). See Appendix A, at § 1.721(e)(iii). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(b)(2)(ii). See First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22529-35, ¶¶ 72-85; 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720, 1.721, 1.722, 1.724, 1.726. 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(b) (emphasis added). See First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22534-35, ¶ 83. 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(g). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.732(h); 1.733(b)(1), (2). See also First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22559-60, ¶ 145; 22602-03, ¶¶ 258-60. First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22602, ¶ 258. First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22603, ¶ 260. To the extent that parties cannot agree on all of the relevant facts and legal issues, they should include in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-127A1.txt
  • Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 1, 2000) (Verizon Formal Complaint) at Attachment J. Compare Rooney Affidavit at ¶¶ 5-6, 13-15 with Chronology of Events, Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed Aug. 11, 1999), and Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) at 1-13. Global NAPs also argues that we should reconsider the Order because its underlying policy preference favoring interconnection agreements as the context in which to address compensation for ISP-bound traffic was rejected in the Commission's subsequent ISP Remand Order. See Global NAPs Supplemental Brief
• 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
  • 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 Petition at 1, 9-13; Reconsideration Reply at 2-5. Reconsideration Petition at 11. Reconsideration Reply at 3. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.733(a)(5); 1.720 (a); 1.732 (c), (d). See Status Conference Order. Reconsideration Petition at 10-11; Reconsideration Reply at 4. Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 22547, ¶ 115 (1997) (``Formal Complaints Order''). Formal Complaints Order, 12 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.txt
  • VII-X and XIV from AT&T Corp.'s Formal Complaint, File No. EB-10-MD-005 (filed Dec. 20, 2010) (``Motion to Sever'')). With YMax's consent, Commission staff also granted AT&T's request to sever, from Counts XI and XII respectively, the allegations made in the Complaint at paragraphs 144 and 151. See Status Conference Order at 2 (citing Joint Statement Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv), File No. EB-10-MD-005 (filed Dec. 16, 2010) (``Joint Statement on Discovery and Scheduling'') at 2 n.1). The record consists primarily of the pleadings and documents listed below, all of which were filed in File No. EB-10-MD-005: Complaint; Legal Analysis in Support of AT&T Corp.'s Formal Complaint (``Complaint Legal Analysis''); Answer of YMax Communications Corp. (filed Nov. 29, 2010) (``Answer''); Legal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.txt
  • express any view regarding the issues raised in AT&T v. All American. Complaint at 24-25. Complaint at 25. . Reply and Legal Analysis in Support of Formal Complaint and/or Request for Declaratory Ruling of All American Telephone Co., Inc., e-Pinnacle Communications, Inc., and Chasecom, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 6, 2010) (``Reply''). ; Joint Statement Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv), File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 16, 2010). Letter to Jonathan E. Canis, counsel for the CLECs, and James F. Bendernagel, counsel for AT&T, from Lisa B. Griffin, Deputy Chief, EB/MDRD, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 28, 2010). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 1.732(c) (``In cases in which discovery is not conducted, absent an order by the Commission that briefs be
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210090-3.pdf
  • should be required to affirmative defenses. Rather, the validity of the affirmative defenses should be resolved through the complaint proceeding itself. As suggested above, records must be maintained and produced if the complaint process is to work. Section 1.730(h) should make it clear that complainants have an absolute right to such documentary materials in the Section 255 process. Finally, Section 1.733 rules need to be modified so that they do not place an unreasonable burden on disabled individuals, and so that the critical transcripts and recordings are themselves accessible. IV. CONCLUSION. AFR's Comments have focused on areas where it believes that the regulations proposed by the NPRM require improvement. Generally, however, the Commission is to be applauded for recognizing that the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-01-380A1.html
  • 72 Motion of AT&T Corp. to Accept Late Filed Answer, File No. E- 94-41 (filed Mar. 1, 1996) at 2-3. 73 See Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 20823, 20856, 71 (1996). 74 See 47 C.F.R. 1.733(a) (1995) (``In any complaint proceeding, the Commission may in its discretion direct the attorneys and/or the parties to appear before it for a conference ....''). 75 Section 201(b) states, in pertinent part, that ``[a]ll charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with ... communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-127A1.html
  • Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 1, 2000) (Verizon Formal Complaint) at Attachment J. 47 Compare Rooney Affidavit at 5-6, 13-15 with Chronology of Events, Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed Aug. 11, 1999), and Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB- 00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) at 1-13. 48 Global NAPs also argues that we should reconsider the Order because its underlying policy preference favoring interconnection agreements as the context in which to address compensation for ISP-bound traffic was rejected in the Commission's subsequent ISP Remand Order. See Global NAPs
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1132A1.html
  • conference in this proceeding has been scheduled for May 1, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in the Third Floor North Conference Room (Room 3-B112) of the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. After reaching the 3rd Floor-North elevator lobby, the parties should call Amy Goodman at 418-1549 to be escorted to the conference room. See 47 C.F.R. 1.733. Counsel should be prepared to spend at least two hours in conference. 7) The parties shall meet prior to attending the initial status conference. One purpose of that meeting is to resolve or narrow as many issues as possible prior to the conference. The parties shall discuss matters including, but not limited to, settlement prospects, discovery, factual and legal issues
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-767A1.html
  • conference in this proceeding has been scheduled for April 22, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in the Third Floor North Conference Room (Room 3-B142) of the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. After reaching the 3rd Floor-North elevator lobby, the parties should call Amy Goodman at 418-1549 to be escorted to the conference room. See 47 C.F.R. 1.733. Counsel should be prepared to spend at least two hours in conference. 7) The parties shall meet prior to attending the initial status conference. One purpose of that meeting is to resolve or narrow as many issues as possible prior to the conference. The parties shall discuss matters including, but not limited to, settlement prospects, discovery, factual and legal issues
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-1A1.html
  • 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 Petition at 1, 9-13; Reconsideration Reply at 2-5. 29 Reconsideration Petition at 11. 30 Reconsideration Reply at 3. 31 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.733(a)(5); 1.720 (a); 1.732 (c), (d). 32 See Status Conference Order. 33 Reconsideration Petition at 10-11; Reconsideration Reply at 4. 34 Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 22547, 115 (1997) (``Formal Complaints Order''). 35 Formal Complaints Order,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1192A1.html
  • 32-34. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Reply, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed June 12, 2009) ("Reply") at 5, P: 11. See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1320. Reply at 5-6, P: 13. Reply at 6, P: 13, 13, P: 32 (citing APCC v. Radiant, 23 FCC Rcd at 6971-72, P: 30). Joint Statement. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Joint Statement at 3, P: 16, 4, P:P: 17, 20. Joint Statement at 4, P:P: 18-19. CCI Communications, LLC's Responses to Complainant's (1) Initial Interrogatories and Requests for Production and (2) Second Set of Interrogatories, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed Jan. 19, 2010) ("CCI's Interrogatory Responses") at 10. In addition to providing the number of calls at a 30-second proxy,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-59A1.html
  • VII-X and XIV from AT&T Corp.'s Formal Complaint, File No. EB-10-MD-005 (filed Dec. 20, 2010) ("Motion to Sever")). With YMax's consent, Commission staff also granted AT&T's request to sever, from Counts XI and XII respectively, the allegations made in the Complaint at paragraphs 144 and 151. See Status Conference Order at 2 (citing Joint Statement Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv), File No. EB-10-MD-005 (filed Dec. 16, 2010) ("Joint Statement on Discovery and Scheduling") at 2 n.1). The record consists primarily of the pleadings and documents listed below, all of which were filed in File No. EB-10-MD-005: Complaint; Legal Analysis in Support of AT&T Corp.'s Formal Complaint ("Complaint Legal Analysis"); Answer of YMax Communications Corp. (filed Nov. 29, 2010) ("Answer"); Legal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-5A1.html
  • raised in AT&T v. All American. Complaint at 24-25. Complaint at 25. See supra note 8. Reply and Legal Analysis in Support of Formal Complaint and/or Request for Declaratory Ruling of All American Telephone Co., Inc., e-Pinnacle Communications, Inc., and Chasecom, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 6, 2010) ("Reply"). See supra note 7; Joint Statement Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv), File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 16, 2010). Letter to Jonathan E. Canis, counsel for the CLECs, and James F. Bendernagel, counsel for AT&T, from Lisa B. Griffin, Deputy Chief, EB/MDRD, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 28, 2010). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. S: 1.732(c) ("In cases in which discovery is not conducted, absent an order by the Commission that briefs be
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.txt
  • (``All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust and unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.''). See Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) (``Joint Statement'') at 2 (``Bell Atlantic and Global NAPs ... have interconnection agreements in the states of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. The parties do not agree on the legal status of their physical interconnection in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 90-day notice of termination. Id. at 36, Section 21; see also Global NAPs Answer, File No. E-99-22 (filed July 28, 1999) (Global NAPs Answer) at Attachment C. See Bell Atlantic-Global NAPs Interconnection Agreement at 14, Section 5.7.2; see also Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), File No. E-99-22 (filed August 10, 1999) (Joint Statement) at 2. Bell Atlantic-Global NAPs Interconnection Agreement at 14, Section 5.7.1. According to section 252 of the Act, "reciprocal compensation" arrangements must (1) provide for the "mutual and reciprocal recovery by each carrier of costs associated with the transport and termination on each carrier's network facilities of calls that originate on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99381.doc
  • 90-day notice of termination. Id. at 36, Section 21; see also Global NAPs Answer, File No. E-99-22 (filed July 28, 1999) (Global NAPs Answer) at Attachment C. See Bell Atlantic-Global NAPs Interconnection Agreement at 14, Section 5.7.2; see also Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), File No. E-99-22 (filed August 10, 1999) (Joint Statement) at 2. Bell Atlantic-Global NAPs Interconnection Agreement at 14, Section 5.7.1. According to section 252 of the Act, "reciprocal compensation" arrangements must (1) provide for the "mutual and reciprocal recovery by each carrier of costs associated with the transport and termination on each carrier's network facilities of calls that originate on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/98SOCC.PDF
  • 546.0 485.4 60.6 52.2 15.0 9.3 3.1 2.5 14.9 0.096 NM NEW YORK 2,926.0 2,328.7 597.3 420.5 225.6 90.5 73.7 59.6 223.8 1.811 NY NORTH CAROLINA 216.0 79.0 137.0 108.7 68.3 43.6 14.3 9.4 67.3 0.926 NC NORTH DAKOTA 100.8 102.8 (2.0) (3.0) 4.1 1.7 1.0 1.3 4.0 0.014 ND OHIO 252.4 67.8 184.6 140.3 126.0 73.1 31.4 19.7 124.3 1.733 OH OKLAHOMA 87.8 44.3 43.5 32.0 6.2 3.8 1.0 1.4 6.2 0.032 OK OREGON (59.2) (187.5) 128.4 108.2 43.0 25.2 9.1 8.4 42.8 0.216 OR PENNSYLVANIA (103.5) 37.0 (161.4) (213.0) 92.4 55.6 14.4 21.7 91.8 0.579 PA RHODE ISLAND 33.6 4.8 28.8 20.2 11.4 5.7 2.2 3.4 11.3 0.107 RI SOUTH CAROLINA (70.0) 9.3 (79.3) (86.4) 11.1 8.2 2.0 0.8
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00383.doc
  • (``All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust and unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.''). See Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) (``Joint Statement'') at 2 (``Bell Atlantic and Global NAPs ... have interconnection agreements in the states of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. The parties do not agree on the legal status of their physical interconnection in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210090-3.pdf
  • should be required to affirmative defenses. Rather, the validity of the affirmative defenses should be resolved through the complaint proceeding itself. As suggested above, records must be maintained and produced if the complaint process is to work. Section 1.730(h) should make it clear that complainants have an absolute right to such documentary materials in the Section 255 process. Finally, Section 1.733 rules need to be modified so that they do not place an unreasonable burden on disabled individuals, and so that the critical transcripts and recordings are themselves accessible. IV. CONCLUSION. AFR's Comments have focused on areas where it believes that the regulations proposed by the NPRM require improvement. Generally, however, the Commission is to be applauded for recognizing that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-01-380A1.html
  • 72 Motion of AT&T Corp. to Accept Late Filed Answer, File No. E- 94-41 (filed Mar. 1, 1996) at 2-3. 73 See Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 20823, 20856, 71 (1996). 74 See 47 C.F.R. 1.733(a) (1995) (``In any complaint proceeding, the Commission may in its discretion direct the attorneys and/or the parties to appear before it for a conference ....''). 75 Section 201(b) states, in pertinent part, that ``[a]ll charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with ... communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-127A1.html
  • Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 1, 2000) (Verizon Formal Complaint) at Attachment J. 47 Compare Rooney Affidavit at 5-6, 13-15 with Chronology of Events, Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed Aug. 11, 1999), and Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB- 00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) at 1-13. 48 Global NAPs also argues that we should reconsider the Order because its underlying policy preference favoring interconnection agreements as the context in which to address compensation for ISP-bound traffic was rejected in the Commission's subsequent ISP Remand Order. See Global NAPs
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1132A1.html
  • conference in this proceeding has been scheduled for May 1, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in the Third Floor North Conference Room (Room 3-B112) of the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. After reaching the 3rd Floor-North elevator lobby, the parties should call Amy Goodman at 418-1549 to be escorted to the conference room. See 47 C.F.R. 1.733. Counsel should be prepared to spend at least two hours in conference. 7) The parties shall meet prior to attending the initial status conference. One purpose of that meeting is to resolve or narrow as many issues as possible prior to the conference. The parties shall discuss matters including, but not limited to, settlement prospects, discovery, factual and legal issues
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-767A1.html
  • conference in this proceeding has been scheduled for April 22, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in the Third Floor North Conference Room (Room 3-B142) of the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. After reaching the 3rd Floor-North elevator lobby, the parties should call Amy Goodman at 418-1549 to be escorted to the conference room. See 47 C.F.R. 1.733. Counsel should be prepared to spend at least two hours in conference. 7) The parties shall meet prior to attending the initial status conference. One purpose of that meeting is to resolve or narrow as many issues as possible prior to the conference. The parties shall discuss matters including, but not limited to, settlement prospects, discovery, factual and legal issues
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-1A1.html
  • 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 Petition at 1, 9-13; Reconsideration Reply at 2-5. 29 Reconsideration Petition at 11. 30 Reconsideration Reply at 3. 31 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.733(a)(5); 1.720 (a); 1.732 (c), (d). 32 See Status Conference Order. 33 Reconsideration Petition at 10-11; Reconsideration Reply at 4. 34 Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 22547, 115 (1997) (``Formal Complaints Order''). 35 Formal Complaints Order,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1192A1.html
  • 32-34. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Reply, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed June 12, 2009) ("Reply") at 5, P: 11. See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1320. Reply at 5-6, P: 13. Reply at 6, P: 13, 13, P: 32 (citing APCC v. Radiant, 23 FCC Rcd at 6971-72, P: 30). Joint Statement. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Joint Statement at 3, P: 16, 4, P:P: 17, 20. Joint Statement at 4, P:P: 18-19. CCI Communications, LLC's Responses to Complainant's (1) Initial Interrogatories and Requests for Production and (2) Second Set of Interrogatories, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed Jan. 19, 2010) ("CCI's Interrogatory Responses") at 10. In addition to providing the number of calls at a 30-second proxy,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-59A1.html
  • VII-X and XIV from AT&T Corp.'s Formal Complaint, File No. EB-10-MD-005 (filed Dec. 20, 2010) ("Motion to Sever")). With YMax's consent, Commission staff also granted AT&T's request to sever, from Counts XI and XII respectively, the allegations made in the Complaint at paragraphs 144 and 151. See Status Conference Order at 2 (citing Joint Statement Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv), File No. EB-10-MD-005 (filed Dec. 16, 2010) ("Joint Statement on Discovery and Scheduling") at 2 n.1). The record consists primarily of the pleadings and documents listed below, all of which were filed in File No. EB-10-MD-005: Complaint; Legal Analysis in Support of AT&T Corp.'s Formal Complaint ("Complaint Legal Analysis"); Answer of YMax Communications Corp. (filed Nov. 29, 2010) ("Answer"); Legal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-5A1.html
  • raised in AT&T v. All American. Complaint at 24-25. Complaint at 25. See supra note 8. Reply and Legal Analysis in Support of Formal Complaint and/or Request for Declaratory Ruling of All American Telephone Co., Inc., e-Pinnacle Communications, Inc., and Chasecom, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 6, 2010) ("Reply"). See supra note 7; Joint Statement Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv), File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 16, 2010). Letter to Jonathan E. Canis, counsel for the CLECs, and James F. Bendernagel, counsel for AT&T, from Lisa B. Griffin, Deputy Chief, EB/MDRD, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 28, 2010). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. S: 1.732(c) ("In cases in which discovery is not conducted, absent an order by the Commission that briefs be
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.txt
  • (``All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust and unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.''). See Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) (``Joint Statement'') at 2 (``Bell Atlantic and Global NAPs ... have interconnection agreements in the states of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. The parties do not agree on the legal status of their physical interconnection in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 90-day notice of termination. Id. at 36, Section 21; see also Global NAPs Answer, File No. E-99-22 (filed July 28, 1999) (Global NAPs Answer) at Attachment C. See Bell Atlantic-Global NAPs Interconnection Agreement at 14, Section 5.7.2; see also Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), File No. E-99-22 (filed August 10, 1999) (Joint Statement) at 2. Bell Atlantic-Global NAPs Interconnection Agreement at 14, Section 5.7.1. According to section 252 of the Act, "reciprocal compensation" arrangements must (1) provide for the "mutual and reciprocal recovery by each carrier of costs associated with the transport and termination on each carrier's network facilities of calls that originate on