FCC Web Documents citing 3.22

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300946A7.pdf
  • 2,373 $24,474 408 518.22 11.08 Comanche 112,429 39,808 $34,645 6,038 1069.35 105.14 Cotton 6,589 2,614 $29,156 445 636.64 10.35 Craig 15,078 5,620 $32,520 1,381 761.03 19.81 Creek 68,708 25,289 $35,288 5,379 955.53 71.91 Custer 25,208 10,136 $30,422 2,451 986.51 25.55 Delaware 39,146 14,838 $29,686 2,818 740.65 52.85 Dewey 4,568 1,962 $31,531 580 1000.13 4.57 Ellis 3,963 1,769 $31,014 437 1229.14 3.22 Garfield 56,958 23,175 $34,356 5,323 1058.39 53.82 Garvin 27,228 10,865 $30,645 2,785 807.49 33.72 E9-1-1 ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA © 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 113 County Resident total population Households Median household income Total number of firms Land area in square miles Population per square mile Grady 49,369 17,341 $36,753 3,379 1100.96
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-87A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-87A5.txt
  • n/a Italy 1.69 1.68 1.05 2.77 2.74 1.68 n/a n/a 2.41 Ireland n/a 2.44 1.05 n/a 4.60 1.68 n/a 5.75 2.37 Luxembourg n/a 2.23 2.36 n/a 2.23 2.36 n/a 2.23 2.36 Netherlands 2.20 1.30 1.05 2.20 1.78 1.48 2.77 2.29 1.78 Portugal n/a 1.33 1.04 n/a 2.63 1.71 n/a 19.97 2.71 Spain 1.66 1.65 1.04 1.66 1.65 1.67 4.63 4.63 3.22 Sweden 1.84 1.26 0.90 2.36 1.96 1.22 3.27 2.67 1.67 U.K. 0.70 0.68 0.65 1.00 0.97 0.94 1.91 1.88 1.33 Notes: September 1997, $/ECU = 1.0981 May 1998, $/ECU = 1.1096 September 1999, $/EURO = 1.0497 Source: Interconnection Rates: 1997, 1998 from Porte-Parole, Falling Cost of Fixed Networked Telecommunications in Europe, July 1998, 1999 from The European Commission, Fifth Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A3.txt
  • in Singapore, (c) no government has or will have, as a direct or indirect shareholder of New GX, special voting or veto rights concerning the actions of New GX, and GCL and New GX are aware of no plans the result of-which would confer special voting or veto rights to any government, and (d) except as otherwise provided in Section 3.22, there are no present plans, and GCL and New GX are aware of no present plans of any other entity, as a result of which GCL or New GX will provide, direct, control, supervise or manage Domestic Communications through facilities located outside the United States. NOW THEREFORE, the Parties are entering into this Agreement to address national security, law enforcement
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.txt
  • Stations with Cross-Owned TV Station Number of Commercial Stations Owned Nationally by In-Market Owners Marg. Effect T-Stat Marg. Effect T-Stat Marg. Effect T-Stat Marg. Effect T-Stat Marg. Effect T-Stat Adj R-Squared N Percent Sports, AM Drive 0.0119 (0.31) 0.0006 (1.23) -0.0127 (-0.11) -0.0427* (-2.31) 0.000002 (0.53) 0.1027 100 Percent News, Evening -0.1273* (2.11) -0.0005 (0.69) -0.2752 (-1.31) -0.0276 (-1.13) -0.000020* (-3.22) 0.0903 114 Average Block, Sports, AM Drive -0.5721 (0.63) 0.0027 (0.24) 0.1326 (0.05) -0.8613* (-1.99) -0.000030 (-0.28) 0.0537 100 Average Block, Music, Evening -6.3285 (1.67) -0.0988* (2.14) -0.8090 (-0.06) -2.0792 (-1.35) 0.000183 (0.47) 0.0389 114 Average Block, News, Evening -1.3116 (1.71) -0.0055 (0.58) -4.2009 (-1.58) -0.3169 (-1.02) -0.000295* (-3.75) 0.1094 114 With Demographics: Percent News, AM Drive -0.0253 (0.15) 0.0026
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.txt
  • 0.054*** 9.60 2008 0.106*** 16.66 Constant 0.993*** 3.25 Observations 1993 --- Centered R-Squared 0.46 --- Root Mean Squared Error 0.103 --- Significant at: *** 99-percent confidence level. Second Regression Estimation: Includes only Incumbent Observations in Overbuilt Markets Dependent Variable (Log Price) Estimated Coefficient t-Statistic Log HHI 0.072** 2.26 Log Income 0.026** 2.31 Log National Subscribers 0.030*** 14.58 Log Capacity 0.071*** 3.22 Log Density -0.000 0.87 Log Density Squared 0.000 0.69 Overbuild Competition -0.141*** 10.89 Local-into-Local 0.034*** 4.43 Vertical Affiliation -0.059*** 7.01 Log Channels 0.130*** 4.06 2007 0.051*** 9.08 2008 0.100*** 16.18 Constant 1.834*** 4.91 Observations 1846 --- Centered R-Squared 0.47 --- Root Mean Squared Error 0.099 --- Significant at: *** 99-percent confidence level; ** 95-percent confidence level. All of the estimated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1009A1_Rcd.pdf
  • such research throughout the auction.In addition, potential bidders should perform technical analyses sufficient to assure themselves that, should they prevail in competitive bidding for a specificconstruction permit, they will be able to build and operate facilities that will comply fully with the Commission's technical and legal requirements.For further details regarding due diligence, please refer to the Auction 88Procedures Public Notice,Section I.B.3.22 14.Prohibition of Certain Communications.The Bureausremind applicants that Sections 1.2105(c)and 73.5002(d)of the Commission's rules prohibit applicants for any of the same geographic license areas from communicating with each other aboutbids, bidding strategies, or settlements, which may include communications regarding the post-auction market structure, unless they have identified each other on their short-form applications as parties with which they have entered into
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-187A2_Rcd.pdf
  • 1,763.05 21,508.00 2,114.20 5.07 0.62 2.27 1,674.70 7.30 WY 12,227 79 49 23 6 12,085 24,245 11.53 950.74 25,168.92 4,569.35 1.35 14.85 3.02 1,280.53 21.63 AS* 51 2111 n/a 53 0.00 8.34 27.46 1.67 0.00 2.36 0.00 0.12 0.01 GU* 73211 n/a 0 0.00 0.00 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 MP* 469 18 8 3 1 n/a 80 3.22 14.14 321.94 4.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.03 1.68 PR* 24 5544 5 23 0.00 0.44 4.55 35.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 467,604 10,808 6,089 2,140 625 1,947,267 889,829 482.58 35,274.69 640,529.64 78,627.09 113.52 12,154.65 250.08 38,082.67 1,373.83 Notes: The District of Columbia does not have any unserved blocks. The numbers above reflect all unserved blocks with road miles
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.txt
  • Commercial FM Stations' Revenue per Adult by Market Year No LPFM One LPFM Two or More LPFM Market Rank 1 - 100 Market Measure 2005 3.47 3.66 3.03 * (663) (378) (580) 2007 3.45 3.27 3.17 (447) (381) (783) 2009 2.50 2.42 2.22 * (473) (344) (825) Contour Measure 2005 2.69 3.38 * 4.38 * (737) (407) (477) 2007 2.45 3.22 * 4.10 * (595) (396) (620) 2009 1.81 2.23 * 2.87 * (605) (349) (688) Market Rank 101 - 200 Market Measure 2005 5.73 4.18 * 3.78 * (371) (308) (406) 2007 5.57 4.67 * 3.61 * (324) (257) (533) 2009 4.48 3.36 * 2.81 * (264) (302) (540) Contour Measure 2005 3.39 4.10 * 6.06 * (373) (323) (389)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255118A1.txt
  • ln) 1 X t e e ba + - - . 16 TABLE 3 PARAMETRIC WEIBULL SURVIVAL ESTIMATES (Z-statistics in parentheses) Weibull (No Unobserved Heterogeneity) Weibull (Gamma-distributed Unobserved Heterogeneity) Millions of Subs -0.07*** (3.92) -0.13*** (3.95) Missing Subs -0.65*** (2.61) -1.07** (2.31) Vertical Integration 0.00 (0.07) 0.00 (0.02) Spinoff -1.39*** (2.64) -2.69*** (2.67) Missing Vertical or Spinoff 0.56** (2.51) 1.74*** (3.22) Born before 1984 -0.89* (1.94) -3.48*** (3.25) Constant -2.87*** (9.23) -4.46*** (6.58) a 0.28* (1.83) 2.39*** (3.95) sports a 0.79 (1.63) 3.36 (1.27) shop a 0.68** (2.52) 4.26*** (2.57) gvariance 6.30*** (3.24) Observations 305 305 Failures 96 96 Log Likelihood -363.10*** -348.97*** *- significant at 10% level, ** - significant at 5% level, *** - significant at 1% level 17
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.txt
  • 3.17 High-Cost Loop Support Data - 2003 - by Study Area ...................................... Table 3.31 High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes - by State or Jurisdiction.......Table 3.18 High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes - by Study Area ................. Table 3.32 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction............................. Table 3.6 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ......................................... Table 3.22 High-Cost Model Support Payments by Non-Rural Study Area ........................ Table 3.25 High-Cost Model Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ........................... Table 3.9 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History - ILECs and CETCs ........................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total ............................................................ Chart 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total - ILECs and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.txt
  • 3.17 High-Cost Loop Support Data - 2003 - by Study Area ...................................... Table 3.31 High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes - by State or Jurisdiction.......Table 3.18 High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes - by Study Area ................. Table 3.32 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction............................. Table 3.6 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ......................................... Table 3.22 High-Cost Model Support Payments by Non-Rural Study Area ........................ Table 3.25 High-Cost Model Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ........................... Table 3.9 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History - ILECs and CETCs ........................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total ............................................................ Chart 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total - ILECs and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.txt
  • 3.21 present state summaries of the revised historical information filed for 1999 through 2003 in the 2004 filing. Table 3.19 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.20 shows the number of loops. Table 3.21 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. The next several tables in this section are data for individual study areas. Tables 3.22 through 3.30 are derived from the USAC data. Table 3.22 has HCLS payments. Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Only those study areas that are eligible for these payments, regardless of whether they receive any support, are included in the table. Table 3.24 has safety valve support payments. Only those study areas that are eligible for these payments,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • 818 915 811 831 1999 837 934 872 847 2000 862 986 889 876 2001 899 1,024 917 914 2002 944 1,050 1,021 950 2003 946 1,027 968 954 2004 986 1,025 1,031 985 1980 1.85% 2.96% 1981 1.98 2.88 1982 1.97 3.27 1983 2.00 3.48 1984 1.89 3.16 1985 1.86 2.90 1986 1.89 2.95 1987 1.96 3.10 1988 1.99 3.22 1989 1.95 3.29 1990 1.99 3.26 1991 1.99 3.27 1992 1.99 3.29 1993 2.03 3.48 1994 2.07 3.37 3.00% 2.12% 1995 2.09 3.29 2.98 2.14 1996 2.16 3.56 3.12 2.22 1997 2.19 3.70 2.84 2.28 1998 2.22 3.55 2.70 2.31 1999 2.18 3.41 2.63 2.27 2000 2.19 3.50 2.72 2.27 2001 2.19 3.54 2.67 2.28 2002 2.24 3.48 2.94 2.30
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.txt
  • Customer Perception Surveys - Percentage of Customers Dissatisfied .................. Table 9.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Sample Sizes ........................................................ Table 9.5 Embedded High-Cost Loop Fund Formulas ......................................................... Table 3.3 Expenses and Taxes ................................................................................................ Table 11.2 Expenses - Total Operating ..................................................................................... Table 11.9 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction............................. Table 3.6 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ......................................... Table 3.22 High-Cost Model Support Payments by Non-Rural Study Area ........................ Table 3.25 High-Cost Model Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ........................... Table 3.9 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History - ILECs and CETCs ........................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total ............................................................ Chart 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total - ILECs and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.txt
  • Customer Perception Surveys - Percentage of Customers Dissatisfied .................. Table 9.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Sample Sizes ........................................................ Table 9.5 Embedded High-Cost Loop Fund Formulas ......................................................... Table 3.3 Expenses and Taxes ................................................................................................ Table 11.2 Expenses - Total Operating ..................................................................................... Table 11.9 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction............................. Table 3.6 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ......................................... Table 3.22 High-Cost Model Support Payments by Non-Rural Study Area ........................ Table 3.25 High-Cost Model Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ........................... Table 3.9 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History - ILECs and CETCs ........................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total ............................................................ Chart 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total - ILECs and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.txt
  • Alabama 6,330,533 1.51% $544 $710 Alaska NA NA NA NA American Samoa NA NA NA NA Arizona 8,056,121 1.92 692 904 Arkansas 4,219,045 1.00 362 473 California 41,806,069 9.95 3,590 4,690 Colorado 8,112,321 1.93 697 910 Connecticut 7,811,776 1.86 671 876 Delaware 1,723,388 0.41 148 193 District of Columbia 2,282,194 0.54 196 256 Florida 31,111,064 7.40 2,671 3,491 Georgia 13,532,017 3.22 1,162 1,518 Guam NA NA NA NA Hawaii 1,629,168 0.39 140 183 Idaho 2,411,013 0.57 207 271 Illinois 16,561,607 3.94 1,422 1,858 Indiana 8,175,825 1.95 702 917 Iowa 4,156,953 0.99 357 466 Kansas 4,136,265 0.98 355 464 Kentucky 5,323,972 1.27 457 597 Louisiana 5,563,796 1.32 478 624 Maine 2,131,290 0.51 183 239 Maryland 10,148,909 2.42 871 1,139 Massachusetts 9,679,522 2.30
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A4.txt
  • 13.50 10.57 New Hampshire 8.13 8.25 8.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.13 8.25 8.14 8.13 8.25 8.14 New Jersey 7.02 8.25 8.00 0.00 3.46 3.43 0.00 1.73 1.72 7.02 9.98 9.72 7.02 13.44 13.15 New Mexico 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.32 0.00 1.75 1.66 8.25 10.00 9.91 8.25 13.50 13.22 New York 6.17 8.25 8.02 0.00 3.50 3.22 0.00 1.75 1.61 6.17 10.00 9.63 6.17 13.50 12.86 North Carolina 7.41 8.25 7.92 0.00 3.50 3.49 0.00 1.75 1.75 7.41 10.00 9.67 7.41 13.50 13.16 North Dakota 1.75 8.25 8.24 0.00 3.50 1.84 0.00 1.75 0.92 1.75 10.00 9.17 1.75 13.50 11.01 N. Marianna Islands 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.txt
  • 3.21 present state summaries of the revised historical information filed for 2000 through 2004 in the 2005 filing. Table 3.19 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.20 shows the number of loops. Table 3.21 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. The next several tables in this section are data for individual study areas. Tables 3.22 through 3.30 are derived from the USAC data. In each table, only those study areas that are (or at some time were) eligible for payments from the support mechanism covered by the table, regardless of whether they received any support, are included in the table. Table 3.22 has HCLS Consequently, for CETCs, rural and non-rural loops or lines were computed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.txt
  • 13.50 10.57 New Hampshire 8.13 8.25 8.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.13 8.25 8.14 8.13 8.25 8.14 New Jersey 7.02 8.25 8.00 0.00 3.46 3.43 0.00 1.73 1.72 7.02 9.98 9.72 7.02 13.44 13.15 New Mexico 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.32 0.00 1.75 1.66 8.25 10.00 9.91 8.25 13.50 13.22 New York 6.17 8.25 8.02 0.00 3.50 3.22 0.00 1.75 1.61 6.17 10.00 9.63 6.17 13.50 12.86 North Carolina 7.41 8.25 7.92 0.00 3.50 3.49 0.00 1.75 1.75 7.41 10.00 9.67 7.41 13.50 13.16 North Dakota 1.75 8.25 8.24 0.00 3.50 1.84 0.00 1.75 0.92 1.75 10.00 9.17 1.75 13.50 11.01 N. Marianna Islands 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.txt
  • Customer Perception Surveys - Percentage of Customers Dissatisfied .................. Table 9.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Sample Sizes ........................................................ Table 9.5 Embedded High-Cost Loop Fund Formulas ......................................................... Table 3.3 Expenses and Taxes ................................................................................................ Table 11.2 Expenses - Total Operating ..................................................................................... Table 11.9 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction............................. Table 3.6 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ......................................... Table 3.22 High-Cost Model Support Payments by Non-Rural Study Area ........................ Table 3.25 High-Cost Model Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ........................... Table 3.9 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History - ILECs and CETCs ........................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total ............................................................ Chart 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total - ILECs and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.txt
  • Customer Perception Surveys - Percentage of Customers Dissatisfied .................. Table 9.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Sample Sizes ........................................................ Table 9.5 Embedded High-Cost Loop Fund Formulas ......................................................... Table 3.3 Expenses and Taxes ................................................................................................ Table 11.2 Expenses - Total Operating ..................................................................................... Table 11.9 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction............................. Table 3.6 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ......................................... Table 3.22 High-Cost Model Support Payments by Non-Rural Study Area ........................ Table 3.25 High-Cost Model Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ........................... Table 3.9 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History - ILECs and CETCs ........................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total ............................................................ Chart 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total - ILECs and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.txt
  • 3.21 present state summaries of the revised historical information filed for 2001 through 2005 in the 2006 filing. Table 3.19 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.20 shows the number of loops. Table 3.21 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. The next several tables in this section are data for individual study areas. Tables 3.22 through 3.30 are derived from the USAC data. In each table, only payments made in 2002 through projections for 2007 are included. Also, only those study areas that received payments for the support mechanism covered by the table for those years are included in the table. Payments for 1998 through 2001 can be found in the 2006 Universal Service Monitoring
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 862 986 889 876 2001 899 1,024 917 914 2002 944 1,050 1,021 950 2003 946 1,027 968 954 2004 986 1,025 1,031 985 2005 1,032 1,124 1,032 1,038 2006 1,074 1,154 1,033 1,072 1980 1.85% 2.96% 1981 1.98 2.88 1982 1.97 3.27 1983 2.00 3.48 1984 1.89 3.16 1985 1.86 2.90 1986 1.89 2.95 1987 1.96 3.10 1988 1.99 3.22 1989 1.95 3.29 1990 1.99 3.26 1991 1.99 3.27 1992 1.99 3.29 1993 2.03 3.48 1994 2.07 3.37 3.00% 2.12% 1995 2.09 3.29 2.98 2.14 1996 2.16 3.56 3.12 2.22 1997 2.19 3.70 2.84 2.28 1998 2.22 3.55 2.70 2.31 1999 2.18 3.41 2.63 2.27 2000 2.19 3.50 2.72 2.27 2001 2.19 3.54 2.67 2.28 2002 2.24 3.48 2.94 2.30
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A1.pdf
  • Customer Perception Surveys - Percentage of Customers Dissatisfied .................. Table 9.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Sample Sizes ........................................................ Table 9.5 Embedded High-Cost Loop Fund Formulas ......................................................... Table 3.3 Expenses and Taxes ................................................................................................ Table 11.2 Expenses - Total Operating ..................................................................................... Table 11.9 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction............................. Table 3.6 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ......................................... Table 3.22 High-Cost Model Support Payments by Non-Rural Study Area ........................ Table 3.25 High-Cost Model Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ........................... Table 3.9 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History - ILECs and CETCs ........................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total ............................................................ Chart 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total - ILECs and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A2.pdf
  • Customer Perception Surveys - Percentage of Customers Dissatisfied .................. Table 9.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Sample Sizes ........................................................ Table 9.5 Embedded High-Cost Loop Fund Formulas ......................................................... Table 3.3 Expenses and Taxes ................................................................................................ Table 11.2 Expenses - Total Operating ..................................................................................... Table 11.9 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction............................. Table 3.6 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ......................................... Table 3.22 High-Cost Model Support Payments by Non-Rural Study Area ........................ Table 3.25 High-Cost Model Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ........................... Table 3.9 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History - ILECs and CETCs ........................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total ............................................................ Chart 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total - ILECs and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A3.pdf
  • Hampshire 166 54 112 0.53 29 114 New Jersey 1,216 384 832 3.94 213 847 New Mexico 275 97 178 0.84 46 181 New York 2,101 666 1,434 6.80 368 1,461 North Carolina 881 361 519 2.46 133 529 North Dakota 87 23 64 0.30 16 65 N. Mariana Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA Ohio 1,071 391 679 3.22 174 692 Oklahoma 381 112 268 1.27 69 273 Oregon 437 143 294 1.39 75 299 Pennsylvania 1,468 516 952 4.51 244 970 Puerto Rico 224 94 129 0.61 33 132 Rhode Island 86 28 58 0.28 15 59 South Carolina 398 174 224 1.06 57 228 South Dakota 85 26 59 0.28 15 60 Tennessee 535 240 295 1.40
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A5.pdf
  • 3.21 present state summaries of the revised historical information filed for 2002 through 2006 in the 2007 filing. Table 3.19 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.20 shows the number of loops. Table 3.21 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. The next several tables in this section are data for individual study areas. Tables 3.22 through 3.30 are derived from the USAC data. In each table, only payments made in 2004 through projections for 2008 are included. Also, only those study areas that received payments for the support mechanism covered by the table for those years are included in the table. Payments for 1998 through 2001 can be found in the 2006 Universal Service Monitoring
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.txt
  • - Monthly ........................................................................ Table 7.4 Contribution Base Revenues by Program ................................................. Table 1.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Percentage of Customers Dissatisfied .................. Table 9.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Sample Sizes ........................................................ Table 9.5 Embedded High-Cost Loop Fund Formulas ......................................................... Table 3.3 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction............................. Table 3.6 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ......................................... Table 3.22 High-Cost Model Support Payments by Non-Rural Study Area ........................ Table 3.25 High-Cost Model Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ........................... Table 3.9 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History - ILECs and CETCs ........................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total ............................................................ Chart 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total - ILECs and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.txt
  • - Monthly ........................................................................ Table 7.4 Contribution Base Revenues by Program ................................................. Table 1.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Percentage of Customers Dissatisfied .................. Table 9.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Sample Sizes ........................................................ Table 9.5 Embedded High-Cost Loop Fund Formulas ......................................................... Table 3.3 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction............................. Table 3.6 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ......................................... Table 3.22 High-Cost Model Support Payments by Non-Rural Study Area ........................ Table 3.25 High-Cost Model Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ........................... Table 3.9 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History - ILECs and CETCs ........................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total ............................................................ Chart 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total - ILECs and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.txt
  • Hampshire 168 49 119 0.53 19 108 New Jersey 1,224 348 877 3.89 138 800 New Mexico 289 92 197 0.87 31 180 New York 2,161 600 1,561 6.93 246 1,424 North Carolina 833 338 495 2.20 78 451 North Dakota 86 20 66 0.29 10 60 N. Mariana Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA Ohio 1,087 362 725 3.22 114 661 Oklahoma 387 103 284 1.26 45 259 Oregon 446 129 316 1.40 50 289 Pennsylvania 1,514 478 1,037 4.60 163 946 Puerto Rico 223 81 142 0.63 22 130 Rhode Island 89 26 63 0.28 10 58 South Carolina 400 158 242 1.07 38 221 South Dakota 82 22 60 0.27 9 54 Tennessee 518 223 295 1.31
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.txt
  • 3.21 present state summaries of the revised historical information filed for 2003 through 2007 in the 2008 filing. Table 3.19 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.20 shows the number of loops. Table 3.21 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. The next several tables in this section are data for individual study areas. Tables 3.22 through 3.30 are derived from the USAC data. In each table, only payments made in 2005 through projections for 2009 are included. Also, only those study areas that received payments for the support mechanism covered by the table for those years are included in the table. Payments for 1998 through 2001 can be found in the 2006 Universal Service Monitoring
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300946A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300946A7.txt
  • 2,373 $24,474 408 518.22 11.08 Comanche 112,429 39,808 $34,645 6,038 1069.35 105.14 Cotton 6,589 2,614 $29,156 445 636.64 10.35 Craig 15,078 5,620 $32,520 1,381 761.03 19.81 Creek 68,708 25,289 $35,288 5,379 955.53 71.91 Custer 25,208 10,136 $30,422 2,451 986.51 25.55 Delaware 39,146 14,838 $29,686 2,818 740.65 52.85 Dewey 4,568 1,962 $31,531 580 1000.13 4.57 Ellis 3,963 1,769 $31,014 437 1229.14 3.22 Garfield 56,958 23,175 $34,356 5,323 1058.39 53.82 Garvin 27,228 10,865 $30,645 2,785 807.49 33.72 E9-1-1 ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA © 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 113 County Resident total population Households Median household income Total number of firms Land area in square miles Population per square mile Grady 49,369 17,341 $36,753 3,379 1100.96
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • 1.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Percentage of Customers Dissatisfied - 2009..........Table 9.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Sample Sizes - 2009 ............................................... Table 9.5 Data Used to Allocate Nationwide Revenue to States................................. Table 1.17 Embedded High-Cost Loop Fund Formulas ......................................................... Table 3.3 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction............................. Table 3.6 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ......................................... Table 3.22 High-Cost Model Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ........................... Table 3.9 High-Cost Model Support Payments by Study Area ...................................... Table 3.25 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History - ILECs and CETCs ........................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total ............................................................ Chart 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total - ILECs and CETCs
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A2.txt
  • 1.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Percentage of Customers Dissatisfied - 2009..........Table 9.4 Customer Perception Surveys - Sample Sizes - 2009 ............................................... Table 9.5 Data Used to Allocate Nationwide Revenue to States................................. Table 1.17 Embedded High-Cost Loop Fund Formulas ......................................................... Table 3.3 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction............................. Table 3.6 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ......................................... Table 3.22 High-Cost Model Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ........................... Table 3.9 High-Cost Model Support Payments by Study Area ...................................... Table 3.25 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History - ILECs and CETCs ........................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total ............................................................ Chart 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total - ILECs and CETCs
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A4.txt
  • 13.50 8.96 New Hampshire 8.00 8.25 8.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 8.25 8.03 8.00 8.25 8.03 New Jersey 7.02 8.25 8.03 0.00 3.50 3.48 0.00 1.75 0.00 7.02 10.00 8.03 7.02 13.50 11.51 New Mexico 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.31 0.00 1.75 1.65 8.25 10.00 9.90 8.25 13.50 13.21 New York 5.93 8.25 8.08 0.00 3.50 3.22 0.00 1.75 1.61 5.93 10.00 9.69 5.93 13.50 12.91 North Carolina 7.36 8.25 7.88 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.72 9.11 10.00 9.60 12.61 13.50 13.10 North Dakota 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 1.71 0.00 1.75 0.86 8.25 10.00 9.11 8.25 13.50 10.82 N. Marianna Islands 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.txt
  • 3.21 present state summaries of the revised historical information filed for 2005 through 2009 in the 2010 filing. Table 3.19 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.20 shows the number of loops. Table 3.21 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. The next several tables in this section are data for individual study areas. Tables 3.22 through 3.30 are derived from the USAC data. In each table, only payments made in 2006 through projections for 2010 are included. Also, only those study areas that received payments for the support mechanism covered by the table for those years are included in the table. Payments for 1998 through 2001 can be found in the 2006 Universal Service Monitoring
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.txt
  • three service orders and for which the dates on each of the three orders do not match. See SWBT Noland Reply Aff. at para. 42. See SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Measurement No. 11.1, Kansas and Oklahoma, 271-No.10.1, 11.1. Specifically, from July through October 2000 in Kansas, SWBT returned manually generated rejection notices in an average of 3.69, 8.32, 8.69 and 3.22 hours respectively. In Oklahoma, SWBT returned manually generated rejection notices in an average of 3.05, 6.76, 10.72, and 3.61 hours over the same time period. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18441-42, para. 175. See SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Measurement No. 10.1-01, Kansas and Oklahoma, at 271 No. 10.1-01, 11.1. SWBT has returned 79.8, 86.1, and 96.5 percent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.txt
  • This method, which involved identifying whether or not the operator has an affiliation with a programming network, produced similar results. A price elasticity estimate of less than one is referred to as ``inelastic.'' Conversely, an elasticity estimate of more than one is considered ``elastic.'' Recent econometric estimates of the price elasticity of demand for cable service range from 2.41 to 3.22. See, e.g., Ford and Jackson; and General Accounting Office, The Effects of Competition from Satellite Providers on Cable Rates 30 (2000) (``GAO Report''). Throughout the analysis, a 5% level is used to denote statistical significance. As explained above, the operators meeting the criteria for this subgoup include only those who have filed a petition seeking a finding of effective competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.txt
  • 5.11 5.12 4.46 5.38 10.35 4.52 3.07 A.3.3.3.1 Design (Specials)/Dispatch/FL (hours) 5.82 3.60 5.61 6.01 5.52 5.34 6.67 3.85 5.04 5.64 A.3.3.3.2 Design (Specials)/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 2.48 1.84 2.91 3.42 2.32 2.35 12.21 3.39 2.05 2.19 A.3.3.4.1 PBX/Dispatch/FL (hours) 13.17 5.63 13.92 19.00 18.43 11.04 13.28 10.69 13.05 8.73 4,5 A.3.3.4.2 PBX/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 2.52 1.26 3.07 2.01 3.61 10.66 31.67 1.18 3.22 5.17 3,4,5 A.3.3.5.1 Centrex/Dispatch/FL (hours) 14.63 13.90 17.53 23.25 21.05 6.09 19.00 17.33 19.71 2.50 2,4,5 A.3.3.5.2 Centrex/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 4.93 4.75 5.02 1.75 4.65 17.50 4.50 1.00 5.01 5.00 1,2,3,4,5 A.3.3.6.1 ISDN/Dispatch/FL (hours) 6.77 2.18 6.52 2.85 7.26 3.27 6.44 3.53 5.72 5.68 1,2,3,4,5 A.3.3.6.2 ISDN/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 2.68 2.19 2.30 5.43 4.77 1.84 2.50 2.98 1.77 1.70 1,2,3,4,5 % Repeat
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-87A1.txt
  • PGC (and states with PGCs at 1.33 or lower) adopted a 1.50 PGC, there would be a significant increase in the number of low-income households that would take Lifeline. Nationwide, for 2002, the number of additional Lifeline takers would be between 2.67 million and 2.94 million. For 2005, the number of additional Lifeline subscribers would be between 2.91 million and 3.22 million. Change to federal Lifeline expenditures for 2005 is forecasted. We predict that federal Lifeline expenditures would increase by $316 million to $348 million if all states implemented a 1.50 PGC. The forecasted change to federal Lifeline expenditures is calculated by multiplying the forecasted increase in the number of Lifeline subscribers in each state by the expected federal expenditures per
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-205A1.txt
  • See PRTC White Paper, App. A. . PRTC serves almost 1.2 million lines. Id. In 1999, PRTC received a total of approximately $133 million in high cost universal service support, comprised of $44 million in high-cost loop support, and $89 million in long term support (LTS). See Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Universal Service Monitoring Report, Tables 3.22, 3.25 (Oct. 2004). PRTC received ``hold-harmless'' high-cost loop support in 2000 through 2003. PRTC also received LTS in 2000 though June 2004. LTS was merged with ICLS July 1, 2004. With the consolidation of LTS into ICLS, no carriers received interim hold-harmless LTS support after the second quarter of 2004. We also note that PRTC is permitted to assess the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-11A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-11A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-11A1.txt
  • This is probably a more accurate approach, but causes direct year-to-year comparisons to be uninformative. TABLE B-3 2005 Concentration in the National Market for Purchase of Video Programming(1) Rank Company Percent of Subscribers(2) 1 Comcast 22.99 2 DirecTV 15.72 3 EchoStar 12.27 4 Time Warner 11.69 Top 4 62.67 5 Cox 6.73 6 Charter 6.37 7 Adelphia 5.50 8 Cablevision 3.22 Top 8 84.50 9 Bright House 2.34 10 Mediacom 1.55 Top 10 88.39 Top 25 94.00 Top 50 95.73 HHI 1201(3) Notes: MSO subscriber totals as of June 2005, and reported in Top Cable System Operators as of March 2004, Kagan World Media, Cable TV Investor, July 29, 2004, at 16-17. There is no double counting of subscribers. If a
• 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
  • percent). More recent data indicates that the percentage of MVPD subscribers receiving their video programming from one of the four largest vertically integrated cable MSOs (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, and Cablevision) has increased to between 54 and 56.75 percent. See EchoStar Comments at 5 (calculating a percentage of 56.75 percent using market share figures for Cox (6.73 percent) and Cablevision (3.22 percent) from the 12th Annual Report (21 FCC Rcd at 2620, Table B-3) and for Comcast (28.90 percent) and Time Warner (17.9 percent) from the Adelphia Order (21 FCC Rcd at 8206, ¶ 2)); Cablevision Reply Comments at 10-11 n.36 (calculating a percentage of 54 percent taking into account an increase in the total number of MVPD households by 4.5
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.txt
  • requesting USG Parties and any other U.S. Government entity designated by the USG Parties, to discuss matters concerning the Companies' compliance with and enforcement of this Agreement and any other issue that could affect U.S. national security. The USG Parties shall coordinate such meetings and take reasonable steps so as not to place an undue economic burden on the Companies. 3.22. U.S. Government Access to Facilities, Records and Personnel. Upon forty-eight hours prior written request from the USG Parties, the Domestic Companies shall provide access to all records requested and/or physical access to facilities and personnel requested. The Companies 17 may request a meeting to discuss the scope of the U.S. Government agency's request or other reasonable concerns, and the U.S.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • (0.82) (1.17) (-0.75) (1.02) (1.63) (0.16) (0.85) (-1.06) Census_Blocs_uc -0.215* -0.279* -0.319 -0.406 0.0452 -0.0284 0.00157 -0. 247 -0.162 -0.164 -0.271 -0.241 (-2.23) (-2.29) (-0.83) (-0.80) (0.28) (-0.19) (0.01) (-0.90) (-1.01) ( -0.94) (-1.39) (-0.50) Census_Blocs_ua 0.163 -0.0922 -0.701 -0.0939 -0.173 0.344 0.0371 0.314 - 0.0927 -0.276 0.539** 0.930 (1.45) (-0.34) (-1.24) (-0.10) (-0.47) (1.91) (0.19) (0.57) (-0.58) (-0 .84) (3.22) (1.03) Constant 10.58*** 9.068*** 4.426*** 2.460* 7.735*** 7.748*** 4.921*** 7.261*** 7 .234*** 6.602*** 5.275*** 5.705*** (37.30) (23.73) (5.48) (2.26) (14.24) (17.77) (7.72) (7.26) (17.65) (12 .92) (14.24) (4.18) N 717 717 717 717 717 716 716 717 717 717 717 717 pseudo R2 0.5931 0.4839 0.3042 0.2747 0.4440 0.3142 0.3718 0.3920 0.5194 0.3818 0.4570 0.0791 t statistics in parentheses *
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.txt
  • and IP Communications). Department of Justice Texas II Evaluation at 6; Rhythms Texas II Comments at 14; Rhythms Texas II Lopez Aff. at para 6; SWBT Texas II Chapman Reply Aff. at paras. 31, 33. Department of Justice Texas II Evaluation at 6. In February and April 2000, competing carrier xDSL loops were repaired in an average of 10.51 and 3.22 hours, while during the same months SWBT repaired its own retail loops in an average of 28.65 and 24.08 hours. In March 2000, competing carrier xDSL loops were repaired in an average of 14.37 hours, only marginally higher than the 11.17 hours it took SWBT, on average, to repair its own retail xDSL loops. SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Measurement No.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.txt
  • three service orders and for which the dates on each of the three orders do not match. See SWBT Noland Reply Aff. at para. 42. See SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Measurement No. 11.1, Kansas and Oklahoma, 271-No.10.1, 11.1. Specifically, from July through October 2000 in Kansas, SWBT returned manually generated rejection notices in an average of 3.69, 8.32, 8.69 and 3.22 hours respectively. In Oklahoma, SWBT returned manually generated rejection notices in an average of 3.05, 6.76, 10.72, and 3.61 hours over the same time period. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18441-42, para. 175. See SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Measurement No. 10.1-01, Kansas and Oklahoma, at 271 No. 10.1-01, 11.1. SWBT has returned 79.8, 86.1, and 96.5 percent
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/antenna/index.htm?job=uls_transaction&page=daily
  • KB [262]Thu (07-13-12) 173.39 KB [263]Fri (07-14-12) 127.76 KB [264]Sat (07-15-12) 72.59 KB License Records [265]Sun (07-16-12) 29.09 KB [266]Mon (07-10-12) 145.03 KB [267]Tue (07-11-12) 262.81 KB [268]Wed (07-12-12) 299.15 KB [269]Thu (07-13-12) 336.16 KB [270]Fri (07-14-12) 98.66 KB [271]Sat (07-15-12) 88.21 KB Ownership Filing Records [272]Sun (07-16-12) 0.43 KB [273]Mon (07-10-12) 2.12 KB [274]Tue (07-11-12) 1.98 KB [275]Wed (07-12-12) 3.22 KB [276]Thu (07-13-12) 5.77 KB [277]Fri (07-14-12) 0.16 KB [278]Sat (05-27-12) 0.16 KB Paging - 47 CFR Part 22 Application Records [279]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [280]Mon (07-10-12) 0.16 KB [281]Tue (07-11-12) 0.16 KB [282]Wed (07-12-12) 0.16 KB [283]Thu (07-13-12) 0.16 KB [284]Fri (07-14-12) 0.95 KB [285]Sat (07-15-12) 0.16 KB License Records [286]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [287]Mon (07-10-12) 0.16 KB [288]Tue
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?&job=transaction&page=daily
  • KB [285]Thu (07-13-12) 173.39 KB [286]Fri (07-14-12) 127.76 KB [287]Sat (07-15-12) 72.59 KB License Records [288]Sun (07-16-12) 29.09 KB [289]Mon (07-10-12) 145.03 KB [290]Tue (07-11-12) 262.81 KB [291]Wed (07-12-12) 299.15 KB [292]Thu (07-13-12) 336.16 KB [293]Fri (07-14-12) 98.66 KB [294]Sat (07-15-12) 88.21 KB Ownership Filing Records [295]Sun (07-16-12) 0.43 KB [296]Mon (07-10-12) 2.12 KB [297]Tue (07-11-12) 1.98 KB [298]Wed (07-12-12) 3.22 KB [299]Thu (07-13-12) 5.77 KB [300]Fri (07-14-12) 0.16 KB [301]Sat (05-27-12) 0.16 KB Paging - 47 CFR Part 22 Application Records [302]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [303]Mon (07-10-12) 0.16 KB [304]Tue (07-11-12) 0.16 KB [305]Wed (07-12-12) 0.16 KB [306]Thu (07-13-12) 0.16 KB [307]Fri (07-14-12) 0.95 KB [308]Sat (07-15-12) 0.16 KB License Records [309]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [310]Mon (07-10-12) 0.16 KB [311]Tue
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?job=transaction&page=daily
  • KB [285]Thu (07-13-12) 173.39 KB [286]Fri (07-14-12) 127.76 KB [287]Sat (07-15-12) 72.59 KB License Records [288]Sun (07-16-12) 29.09 KB [289]Mon (07-10-12) 145.03 KB [290]Tue (07-11-12) 262.81 KB [291]Wed (07-12-12) 299.15 KB [292]Thu (07-13-12) 336.16 KB [293]Fri (07-14-12) 98.66 KB [294]Sat (07-15-12) 88.21 KB Ownership Filing Records [295]Sun (07-16-12) 0.43 KB [296]Mon (07-10-12) 2.12 KB [297]Tue (07-11-12) 1.98 KB [298]Wed (07-12-12) 3.22 KB [299]Thu (07-13-12) 5.77 KB [300]Fri (07-14-12) 0.16 KB [301]Sat (05-27-12) 0.16 KB Paging - 47 CFR Part 22 Application Records [302]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [303]Mon (07-10-12) 0.16 KB [304]Tue (07-11-12) 0.16 KB [305]Wed (07-12-12) 0.16 KB [306]Thu (07-13-12) 0.16 KB [307]Fri (07-14-12) 0.95 KB [308]Sat (07-15-12) 0.16 KB License Records [309]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [310]Mon (07-10-12) 0.16 KB [311]Tue
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/weeklypn.htm?job=transaction&page=daily
  • KB [285]Thu (07-13-12) 173.39 KB [286]Fri (07-14-12) 127.76 KB [287]Sat (07-15-12) 72.59 KB License Records [288]Sun (07-16-12) 29.09 KB [289]Mon (07-17-12) 112.22 KB [290]Tue (07-11-12) 262.81 KB [291]Wed (07-12-12) 299.15 KB [292]Thu (07-13-12) 336.16 KB [293]Fri (07-14-12) 98.66 KB [294]Sat (07-15-12) 88.21 KB Ownership Filing Records [295]Sun (07-16-12) 0.43 KB [296]Mon (07-10-12) 2.12 KB [297]Tue (07-11-12) 1.98 KB [298]Wed (07-12-12) 3.22 KB [299]Thu (07-13-12) 5.77 KB [300]Fri (07-14-12) 0.16 KB [301]Sat (05-27-12) 0.16 KB Paging - 47 CFR Part 22 Application Records [302]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [303]Mon (07-10-12) 0.16 KB [304]Tue (07-11-12) 0.16 KB [305]Wed (07-12-12) 0.16 KB [306]Thu (07-13-12) 0.16 KB [307]Fri (07-14-12) 0.95 KB [308]Sat (07-15-12) 0.16 KB License Records [309]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [310]Mon (07-17-12) 0.16 KB [311]Tue
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.txt
  • and IP Communications). Department of Justice Texas II Evaluation at 6; Rhythms Texas II Comments at 14; Rhythms Texas II Lopez Aff. at para 6; SWBT Texas II Chapman Reply Aff. at paras. 31, 33. Department of Justice Texas II Evaluation at 6. In February and April 2000, competing carrier xDSL loops were repaired in an average of 10.51 and 3.22 hours, while during the same months SWBT repaired its own retail loops in an average of 28.65 and 24.08 hours. In March 2000, competing carrier xDSL loops were repaired in an average of 14.37 hours, only marginally higher than the 11.17 hours it took SWBT, on average, to repair its own retail xDSL loops. SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Measurement No.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.txt
  • three service orders and for which the dates on each of the three orders do not match. See SWBT Noland Reply Aff. at para. 42. See SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Measurement No. 11.1, Kansas and Oklahoma, 271-No.10.1, 11.1. Specifically, from July through October 2000 in Kansas, SWBT returned manually generated rejection notices in an average of 3.69, 8.32, 8.69 and 3.22 hours respectively. In Oklahoma, SWBT returned manually generated rejection notices in an average of 3.05, 6.76, 10.72, and 3.61 hours over the same time period. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18441-42, para. 175. See SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Measurement No. 10.1-01, Kansas and Oklahoma, at 271 No. 10.1-01, 11.1. SWBT has returned 79.8, 86.1, and 96.5 percent
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2002/fcc02331.pdf
  • 5.11 5.12 4.46 5.38 10.35 4.52 3.07 A.3.3.3.1 Design (Specials)/Dispatch/FL (hours) 5.82 3.60 5.61 6.01 5.52 5.34 6.67 3.85 5.04 5.64 A.3.3.3.2 Design (Specials)/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 2.48 1.84 2.91 3.42 2.32 2.35 12.21 3.39 2.05 2.19 A.3.3.4.1 PBX/Dispatch/FL (hours) 13.17 5.63 13.92 19.00 18.43 11.04 13.28 10.69 13.05 8.73 4,5 A.3.3.4.2 PBX/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 2.52 1.26 3.07 2.01 3.61 10.66 31.67 1.18 3.22 5.17 3,4,5 A.3.3.5.1 Centrex/Dispatch/FL (hours) 14.63 13.90 17.53 23.25 21.05 6.09 19.00 17.33 19.71 2.50 2,4,5 A.3.3.5.2 Centrex/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 4.93 4.75 5.02 1.75 4.65 17.50 4.50 1.00 5.01 5.00 1,2,3,4,5 A.3.3.6.1 ISDN/Dispatch/FL (hours) 6.77 2.18 6.52 2.85 7.26 3.27 6.44 3.53 5.72 5.68 1,2,3,4,5 A.3.3.6.2 ISDN/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 2.68 2.19 2.30 5.43 4.77 1.84 2.50 2.98 1.77 1.70 1,2,3,4,5 % Repeat
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • 74 76 76 78 79 79 78 76 78 78 78 78 Cost of a Five-Minute Business-Day Same-Zone Call $0.10 $0.10 $0.09 $0.10 $0.10 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.10 $0.09 Basic Connection Charge for Three Lines $164.60 $164.60 $178.28 $178.39 $170.74 $169.93 $168.08 $168.02 $166.42 $165.91 $163.43 $163.36 $163 .15 Additional Connection Charge for Touch-Tone Service 5.51 5.51 3.22 3.39 3.48 2.75 0.67 0.67 0.52 0.67 0.37 0.37 0.37 Taxes, 911, and Other Charges 9.20 9.20 9.65 9.61 9.02 9.01 9.84 10.05 11.04 10.56 11.26 10.72 10.73 Total Connection Charge for Three Lines $179.31 $179.31 $191.16 $191.39 $183.23 $181.69 $178.59 $178.73 $177.99 $177.14 $175.06 $174.46 $174 .25 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed 14.09 14.09 20.79
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • $51.54 $51.84 $52.38 Number of Sample Cities with Measured/Message Service 77 74 76 76 78 79 79 78 76 78 78 78 76 76 Cost of a Five-Minute Business-Day Same-Zone Call $0.10 $0.10 $0.09 $0.10 $0.10 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.10 $0.09 $0.09 Basic Connection Charge for Three Lines $164.60$164.60$178.28$178.39$170.74$169.93$168.08$168.02$166.42$165.91$163.43$163.36$161.85$162.03 Additional Connection Charge for Touch-Tone Service 5.51 5.51 3.22 3.39 3.48 2.75 0.67 0.67 0.52 0.67 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Taxes, 911, and Other Charges 9.20 9.20 9.65 9.61 9.02 9.01 9.84 10.05 11.04 10.56 11.26 10.72 10.13 11.43 Total Connection Charge for Three Lines $179.31$179.31$191.16$191.39$183.23$181.69$178.59$178.73$177.99$177.14$175.06$174.46$172.36$173.83 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed 14.09 14.09 20.79 12.58 13.28 11.58 11.69 10.46 10.10 10.10 9.87 9.84 9.83 9.84
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref04.pdf
  • 757 887 870 763 1997 791 945 833 807 1998 818 915 811 831 1999 837 934 872 847 2000 862 986 889 876 2001 899 1,024 917 914 2002 944 1,050 1,021 950 1980 1.85% 2.96% 1981 1.98 2.88 1982 1.97 3.27 1983 2.00 3.48 1984 1.89 3.16 1985 1.86 2.90 1986 1.89 2.95 1987 1.96 3.10 1988 1.99 3.22 1989 1.95 3.29 1990 1.99 3.26 1991 1.99 3.27 1992 1.99 3.29 1993 2.03 3.48 1994 2.07 3.37 3.00% 2.12% 1995 2.09 3.29 2.98 2.14 1996 2.16 3.56 3.12 2.22 1997 2.19 3.70 2.84 2.28 1998 2.22 3.55 2.70 2.31 1999 2.18 3.41 2.63 2.27 2000 2.19 3.50 2.72 2.27 2001 2.19 3.54 2.67 2.28 2002 2.24 3.48 2.94 2.30
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
  • 791 945 833 807 1998 818 915 811 831 1999 837 934 872 847 2000 862 986 889 876 2001 899 1,024 917 914 2002 944 1,050 1,021 950 2003 946 1,027 968 954 1980 1.85% 2.96% 1981 1.98 2.88 1982 1.97 3.27 1983 2.00 3.48 1984 1.89 3.16 1985 1.86 2.90 1986 1.89 2.95 1987 1.96 3.10 1988 1.99 3.22 1989 1.95 3.29 1990 1.99 3.26 1991 1.99 3.27 1992 1.99 3.29 1993 2.03 3.48 1994 2.07 3.37 3.00% 2.12% 1995 2.09 3.29 2.98 2.14 1996 2.16 3.56 3.12 2.22 1997 2.19 3.70 2.84 2.28 1998 2.22 3.55 2.70 2.31 1999 2.18 3.41 2.63 2.27 2000 2.19 3.50 2.72 2.27 2001 2.19 3.54 2.67 2.28 2002 2.24 3.48 2.94 2.30
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref97.pdf
  • 4.89 4.75 4.67 5.23 5.38 5.52 Extra for Touch-tone 3.41 2.69 2.47 2.34 1.72 1.33 Tax including 911 charges 5.16 5.04 5.22 5.32 5.21 5.37 Total monthly charge 50.09 50.05 50.30 51.09 49.85 49.86 Additional local five-minute call 0.094 0.089 0.091 0.092 0.090 0.089 Connection charge for three rotary lines 164.60 178.28 178.39 169.60 170.33 167.04 Extra for Touch-tone 5.51 3.22 3.39 3.34 2.75 0.81 Tax 9.20 9.65 9.61 8.95 9.01 9.85 Total charge for three lines 179.31 191.15 191.39 181.89 182.09 177.70 Additional charges for three lines if drop lines and connection blocks are 14.09 20.79 12.58 12.20 10.90 11.69 needed 25 As of October 1995, the average bill for "representative" single-line service was $32.46 for the access line and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref98.pdf
  • 5.22 5.25 5.21 5.36 5.51 5.72 Total Monthly Charge for Measured/Message Service 50.09 49.97 49.93 50.20 50.73 49.71 49.73 49.54 50.00 Number of Sample Cities with Measured/Message Service 77 74 76 76 78 79 79 78 78 Cost of a Five-minute Business-day Same-zone Call $0.0936$0.0950$0.0934$0.0956$0.0970$0.0948$0.0929$0.0927$0.0925 Basic Connection Charge for Three Lines $164.60$164.60$178.28$178.39$170.74$169.93$168.08$168.02$168.31 Additional Connection Charge for Touch-tone Service 5.51 5.51 3.22 3.39 3.48 2.75 0.67 0.67 0.67 Tax 9.20 9.20 9.65 9.61 9.02 9.01 9.84 10.05 10.99 Total Connection Charge for Three Lines 179.31 179.31 191.16 191.39 183.23 181.69 178.59 178.73 179.97 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed 14.09 14.09 20.79 12.58 13.28 11.58 11.69 10.46 10.43 *Rate is based upon flat-rate service where available, and measured/message service
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref99.pdf
  • 50.31 51.72 Number of Sample Cities with Measured/Message Service 77 74 76 76 78 79 79 78 76 78 Cost of a Five-minute Business-day Same-zone Call 9.36¢ 9.50¢ 9.34¢ 9.56¢ 9.70¢ 9.48¢ 9.29¢ 9.27¢ 9.30¢ 9.24¢ Basic Connection Charge for Three Lines $164.60 $164.60 $178.28 $178.39 $170.74 $169.93 $168.08 $168.02 $166.42 $155.84 Additional Connection Charge for Touch-tone Service 5.51 5.51 3.22 3.39 3.48 2.75 0.67 0.67 0.52 0.67 Other 9.20 9.20 9.65 9.61 9.02 9.01 9.84 10.05 11.04 9.99 Total Connection Charge for Three Lines 179.31 179.31 191.16 191.39 183.23 181.69 178.59 178.73 177.99 166.50 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed 14.09 14.09 20.79 12.58 13.28 11.58 11.69 10.46 10.10 10.10 31 Table 1.19 Monthly Telephone Rates in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ror96.pdf
  • 9.27 28.89 12.86 27HOME TELEPHONE COMPANY 10.79 9.96 (12.18) 12.49 9.20 12.30 28HORRY TELEPHONE CO. 3/ 8/ 11.93 9.61 9.32 19.67 20.62 21.04 29ILLINOIS CONSOLIDATED TELEPHONE COMPANY 9.48 10.02 7.41 7.70 (850.00) 10.55 9.42 30LUFKIN-CONROE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE 10.90 9.80 8.87 24.45 (5,065.57) 15.40 17.13 31MADISON TELEPHONE COMPANY 4.92 9.79 (15.42) (0.74) 20.81 2.91 32MCNABB TELEPHONE COMPANY 6/ 10.94 10.07 12.00 3.22 11.18 33MONTROSE MUTUAL TELEPHONE COMPANY 8.95 9.89 0.78 9.09 7.31 8.44 34MOULTRIE INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE COMPANY 11.93 9.94 5.41 11.43 25.27 13.08 35ONEIDA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE 9/ 9.90 9.81 (50.69) 7.30 47.56 10.10 36PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY 10.89 9.96 10.50 13.09 (25.88) 13.32 13.14 37ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY 9.38 9.91 10.70 9.42 118.01 6.61 8.10 38SHAWNEE TELEPHONE COMPANY 10/ 15.60 9.76 63.60 14.13
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-99.pdf
  • 0.00 1.25 79.92 16.91 96.83 Illinois 30.09 4.48 12.35 27.52 2.27 0.59 77.31 21.51 98.82 Indiana 27.72 4.63 14.84 25.99 1.11 0.72 75.02 16.36 91.39 Iowa 22.31 5.07 13.73 30.04 2.33 0.85 74.32 21.09 95.41 Kansas 30.28 4.62 12.48 30.43 4.77 0.73 83.30 17.78 101.08 Kentucky 35.20 4.96 12.13 30.18 0.89 0.88 84.24 19.00 103.24 Louisiana 36.84 4.98 9.45 26.81 3.22 0.63 81.93 21.67 103.60 Maine 26.76 4.33 20.91 28.27 0.86 0.95 82.08 9.91 91.99 Maryland 28.63 4.77 9.39 30.63 0.88 0.59 74.89 17.52 92.41 Massachusetts 25.89 4.98 13.52 30.61 2.58 0.87 78.45 18.84 97.28 Michigan 24.56 4.45 22.98 21.11 1.36 0.60 75.07 24.56 99.64 Minnesota 28.24 5.02 9.55 30.03 2.81 0.84 76.49 23.07 99.56 Mississippi 40.20 4.90 10.16 31.37 1.74
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend502.pdf
  • + GLIN = GAIN) 32.88 33.00 32.47 29.06 23.61 24 GTE North/Contel Systems of South (GTMI + GLMI = GAMI) 17.63 16.45 15.75 13.17 15.33 25 GTE North/GTE South (GTIL + GLIL = GAIL) 23.56 23.90 22.35 23.07 21.59 26 GTE Northwest Inc. (Oregon - GTOR) 31.83 30.95 31.56 27.03 28.23 27 GTE Northwest Inc. (West Coast CA - GNCA) 3.22 (8.35) (9.93) (6.85)(25.83) 28 GTE Northwest Inc. (Washington - COWA) 39.37 39.49 39.17 30.41 31.85 29 GTE Northwest Inc. (Washington - GTWA) 34.06 33.26 32.91 27.33 24.41 30 GTE Northwest Inc. (Idaho - GTID) 38.48 34.17 32.24 30.89 30.52 31 GTE South Inc. (Alabama - GTAL) 24.03 20.24 22.23 17.59 23.49 32 GTE South Inc. (Kentucky - COKY) 30.92 20.60
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-1.pdf
  • 95-116, 98-170, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 24952 (2002). 16 Figures in Table 1.11 are lower than those in Table 1.10 due to the difference between projected demand and actual disbursements. 1 -8 net estimated dollar flow (disbursements less estimated contributions).17 This table represents an aggregation of the information in Tables 2.13, 3.22, 4.5b, and 5.3b. Technical Appendix Carrier revenue information is not reported on a state-by-state basis. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate revenues per state in order to derive contributions made per state. The nationwide sum of contributions to support universal service is equal to the payments made from USAC to carriers for universal service mechanisms plus administration costs. Contributions on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-3.pdf
  • later year" in the last column refers to the fact that the payments are made two years after the costs are incurred; in this case, in the years 2002 and 2003. In the payments column in this table, the entry "INFINITE" indicates that the payment was zero in the first year and positive in the second year. Tables 3.19 through 3.22 present state summaries of the revised historical information filed for 1997 through 2001 in the 2002 filing. Table 3.19 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.20 shows the number of loops. Table 3.21 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. Table 3.22 shows the HCLS payments for 1999 through 2003. The next several tables in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-7.pdf
  • 51.54 51.84 52.38 Number of Sample Cities with Measured/Message Service 77 74 76 76 78 79 79 78 76 78 78 78 76 76 Cost of a Five-minute Business-day Same-zone Call $0.10 $0.10 $0.09 $0.10 $0.10 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.10 $0.09 $0.09 Basic Connection Charge for Three Lines $164.60$164.60$178.28$178.39$170.74$169.93$168.08$168.02$166.42$165.91$163.43$163.36$161.85$162.03 Additional Connection Charge for Touch-tone Service 5.51 5.51 3.22 3.39 3.48 2.75 0.67 0.67 0.52 0.67 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Tax 9.20 9.20 9.65 9.61 9.02 9.01 9.84 10.05 11.04 10.56 11.26 10.72 10.13 11.43 Total Connection Charge for Three Lines 179.31 179.31 191.16 191.39 183.23 181.69 178.59 178.73 177.99 177.14 175.06 174.46 172.36 173.83 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed 14.09 14.09 20.79 12.58 13.28
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-intro.pdf
  • ....................................................................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Loop Support - 2001 Data - by Jurisdiction...................................... Table 3.17 High-Cost Loop Support - 2001 Data - by Study Area .......................................Table 3.31 High-Cost Loop Support Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.3 High-Cost Loop Support Payment Projections by Jurisdiction............................ Table 3.8 High-Cost Loop Support Payment Projections by Study Area ............................ Table 3.23 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Jurisdiction.........................................Table 3.22 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ........................................... Table 3.37 High-Cost Loop Support - Percentage Changes - by Jurisdiction....................... Table 3.18 High-Cost Loop Support - Percentage Changes - by Study Area ........................ Table 3.32 High-Cost Model Support Payment Projections by Jurisdiction ....................... Table 3.10 High-Cost Programs Fund Size Projections and Actuals ................................. Table 3.1 High-Cost Support - Non-Rural by Study
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-3.pdf
  • for 1998 through 2002 in the 2003 filing. Table 3.18 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.19 shows the number of loops. Table 3.20 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. Table 3.21 shows the HCLS payments for 2000 through 2004. The next several tables in this section are data for individual study areas. Tables 3.22 through 3.29 are derived from the quarterly USAC filings of projected payments. Table 3.22 has HCLS payments.41 Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Only those study areas 39 These are the carriers that settle on a cost basis. Costs for the remaining ILECs, which settle on an average schedule basis, are attributed by NECA on the basis of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-intro.pdf
  • Fund Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payment History - ILECs and CLECs ........................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total ............................................................ Chart 3.1 High-Cost Support Fund Payments - Total - ILECs and CLECs ............................Chart 3.2 High-Cost Loop Support Payment Projections by State or Jurisdiction................ Table 3.6 High-Cost Loop Support Payment Projections by Study Area ............................ Table 3.22 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .............................. Table 3.21 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ............................................ Table 3.35 High-Cost Loop Support - Percentage Changes ­ by State or Jurisdiction............. Table 3.17 High-Cost Loop Support - Percentage Changes - by Study Area ........................ Table 3.31 High-Cost Model Support Payment Projections by State or Jurisdiction .............. Table 3.8 High-Cost
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-0.pdf
  • Service Revenue by Type of Service Provider .............Table 1.4 Local Switching Support - Payment Projections - by Study Area ......................Table 3.17 Long Term Support - Payment History .............................................................. Table 3.5 Long Term Support - Payment Projections - by Study Area ..............................Table 3.16 Loops - Summary ............................................................................................... Table 8.6 Loops by State .................................................................................................... Table 3.12 Loops by Study Area .......................................................................................... Table 3.22 Minutes of Use - Dial Equipment - Interstate ..................................................... Table 8.17 Minutes of Use - Dial Equipment - Local .......................................................... Table 8.15 2 Index of Tables and Charts Minutes of Use - Dial Equipment - State Toll .................................................... Table 8.16 Minutes of Use - Dial Equipment - Summary .................................................... Table 8.5 Minutes of Use - Dial Equipment - Total ...........................................................
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-3.pdf
  • sales or acquisitions of exchanges. On May 7, 1997, the Commission extended the current high-cost support mechanisms for rural carriers at least until January 1, 2001, and for other carriers until January 1, 1999.9 The implementation date for the forward looking cost models for non-rural LECs has subsequently 6 The amounts shown in Tables 3.7 through 3.12 and 3.17 through 3.22 are based on year- end data. However, pursuant to section 36.612 of the Commission's rules, carriers have the option of updating their data on a rolling year basis at the end of any quarter. 7 The cap is in section 36.601(c) of the Commission's rules. It has been extended until July 1, 1999 for all carriers, and thereafter for rural
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrd99-0.pdf
  • 2.1 Local Exchange Carrier Study Areas - Changes ......................................................Table 3.25 Local Switching Support - Payment History ...........................................................Table 3.6 Local Switching Support - Payment Projections - by Study Area ............................Table 3.17 Long Term Support - Payment History ...................................................................Table 3.5 Long Term Support - Payment Projections - by Study Area ...................................Table 3.16 Loops by State .......................................................................................................Table 3.12 Loops by Study Area ..............................................................................................Table 3.22 Minutes of Use - Interstate Access - Tier 1 .............................................................Table 8.1 Non-operating Items - Total ....................................................................................Table 11.10 Non-Traffic Sensitive Revenue Requirement - Unseparated - by State ....................Table 3.11 Non-Traffic Sensitive Revenue Requirement - Unseparated - by Study Area ...........Table 3.21 NTS Revenue Requirement per Loop - by State ......................................................Table 3.13 NTS Revenue Requirement per Loop - by Study Area ............................................Table
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrd99-3.pdf
  • In the USF columns in this table, the entry "INFINITE" indicates that the USF was zero in the first year and positive in the second year. Tables 3.21 through 3.24 present individual study area data for the historical information filed for 1994 through 1998 in the 1999 filing. Table 3.21 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.22 shows the number of loops. Table 3.23 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. Table 3.24 shows the Universal Service Fund payments. an average schedule basis, are attributed by NECA on the basis of those carriers' average number of loops per exchange. 3 - 6 In compiling the historical data, it is necessary to account for changes that have
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrj99-0.pdf
  • Service Revenue by Type of Service Provider .............Table 1.4 Local Switching Support - Payment Projections - by Study Area ......................Table 3.17 Long Term Support - Payment History .............................................................. Table 3.5 Long Term Support - Payment Projections - by Study Area ..............................Table 3.16 Loops - Summary ............................................................................................... Table 8.6 Loops by State .................................................................................................... Table 3.12 Loops by Study Area .......................................................................................... Table 3.22 2 Index of Tables and Charts Minutes of Use - Dial Equipment - Interstate ..................................................... Table 8.17 Minutes of Use - Dial Equipment - Local .......................................................... Table 8.15 Minutes of Use - Dial Equipment - State Toll .................................................... Table 8.16 Minutes of Use - Dial Equipment - Summary .................................................... Table 8.5 Minutes of Use - Dial Equipment - Total ...........................................................
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrj99-3.pdf
  • were required to be part of the NECA common line (CL) pool, and CCL rates were uniform nationwide. The transition to jurisdictionally specific CCL access charges occurred on April 1, 1989. The following LECs withdrew from the CL pool on that date: Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Centel, Cincinnati 6 The amounts shown in Tables 3.7 through 3.12 and 3.17 through 3.22 are based on year- end data. However, pursuant to section 36.612 of the Commission's rules, carriers have the option of updating their data on a rolling year basis at the end of any quarter. 7 The cap is in section 36.601(c) of the Commission's rules. It has been extended until July 1, 1999 for all carriers, and thereafter for rural
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs00-0.pdf
  • Number of Sample Cities with Measured/Message Service 77 74 76 76 78 79 79 78 76 78 78 Cost of a Five-minute Business-day Same-zone Call $0.10 $0.10 $0.09 $0.10 $0.10 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 Basic Connection Charge for Three Lines $164.60 $164.60 $178.28 $178.39 $170.74 $169.93 $168.08 $168.02 $166.42 $165.91$164.60 Additional Connection Charge for Touch-tone Service 5.51 5.51 3.22 3.39 3.48 2.75 0.67 0.67 0.52 0.67 0.37 Tax 9.20 9.20 9.65 9.61 9.02 9.01 9.84 10.05 11.04 10.56 11.29 Total Connection Charge for Three Lines 179.31 179.31 191.16 191.39 183.23 181.69 178.59 178.73 177.99 177.14176.26 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed 14.09 14.09 20.79 12.58 13.28 11.58 11.69 10.46 10.10 10.10 9.87 7 - 23 Table
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs01-0.pdf
  • Support - Payment History .......................................................... Table 3.6 Local Switching Support - Payment Projections - by Jurisdiction ......................... Table 3.10 Local Switching Support - Payment Projections - by Study Area .......................... Table 3.23 Long-Term Support - Payment History ..................................................................Table 3.5 Long-Term Support - Payment Projections - by Jurisdiction ................................. Table 3.9 Long-Term Support - Payment Projections - by Study Area ..................................Table 3.22 Loops - by Jurisdiction .......................................................................Table 3.18 Loops - by Study Area ........................................................................Table 3.30 Low-Income Program Dollars by State ........................................................ Table 2.2 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .............................................. Table 2.3 Low-Income Programs Fund Size Projections ............................................ Table 2.4 Low-Income Support Programs ­ Net Revenues by State ..............................Table 2.11 Minutes - Dial Equipment - Interstate ................................................................. Table 8.9 Minutes - Dial
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs02-0.pdf
  • to Allocate Revenues by State ................... Table 1.14 Transmission Systems ............................................................................................. Table 10.2 Universal Service Program Requirements and Fund Factors ................................. Table 1.10 Universal Service Support - Distribution of Disbursements ........................... Chart 1.1 Universal Service Support Mechanisms ................................................... Table 1.11 Universal Service Support Mechanisms - by State ..................................... Table 1.12 Unseparated Non-Trafffic Sensitive Revenue Requirement - by Jurisdiction ....... Table 3.22 Unseparated Non-Trafffic Sensitive Revenue Requirement - by Study Area ........ Table 3.34 Unseparated NTS Revenue Requirement per Loop - by Jurisdiction ................. Table 3.24 Unseparated NTS Revenue Requirement per Loop - by Study Area .................. Table 3.36 6 Universal Service Monitoring Report CC Docket No. 98-202 Summer 2002 Introduction and Summary This is the sixth report in a series of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/QualSvc/qual01.pdf
  • 15.48 8.52 7.99 5.11 4.51 4.92 Small Business 9.36 14.72 14.68 8.48 10.38 10.68 8.97 7.44 Large Business 7.99 NA 17.88 9.01 6.74 4.93 6.64 4.79 Repairs: Residential 17.59 9.95 19.22 9.95 11.67 13.84 13.03 12.21 Small Business 9.91 9.85 15.72 6.86 8.42 11.79 10.95 10.24 Large Business 6.97 NA 18.22 5.76 6.22 7.08 6.20 6.43 Business Office: Residential 13.20 3.22 15.59 8.05 8.40 7.41 6.19 7.99 Small Business 12.95 6.68 15.72 7.14 9.38 9.45 9.94 9.33 Large Business 7.73 NA 20.99 10.15 8.41 4.49 8.89 10.13 * Please refer to text for notes and data qualifications. Table 1(d) Company Comparision 2001 Customer Perception Surveys 18 BellSouth Qwest SBC SBC SBC Verizon Verizon Verizon Ameritech Pacific Southwest North South GTE Sample
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/00socc.pdf
  • 0.90 1.80 1.45 2.90 0.90 1.80 0.90 1.80 1.30 2.60 0.65 1.30 0.65 1.30 Sprint Res 1.55 3.10 0.95 1.90 0.80 1.60 1.50 3.00 0.95 1.90 0.80 1.60 1.40 2.80 0.85 1.70 0.75 1.50 1999 AT&T Bus 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 MCI Bus 2.15 4.30 1.61 3.22 1.61 3.22 2.15 4.30 1.61 3.22 1.61 3.22 2.15 4.30 1.61 3.22 1.61 3.22 Sprint Bus 1.55 3.10 0.95 1.90 0.80 1.60 1.50 3.00 0.95 1.90 0.80 1.60 1.40 2.80 0.85 1.70 0.75 1.50 AT&T Res 1.30 2.60 0.80 1.60 0.58 1.15 1.30 2.60 0.80 1.60 0.58 1.15 1.30 2.60 0.80 1.60 0.58 1.15 MCI Res 1.45 2.90 0.90 1.80
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/95socc.pdf
  • BOSTON, MA DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DEC 31 FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN 1980 1/ 1.19 2.37 0.36 0.71 1.49 2.97 0.45 0.89 1.25 2.50 0.38 0.75 1981 2/ 1.54 3.07 0.70 1.41 0.51 1.01 1.83 3.66 0.84 1.69 0.61 1.21 1.61 3.22 0.74 1.49 0.53 1.07 1982 3/ 1.64 3.28 0.73 1.46 0.57 1.14 1.87 3.74 0.85 1.69 0.66 1.31 1.71 3.42 0.77 1.54 0.60 1.20 1983 4/ 1.64 3.28 0.81 1.61 0.63 1.25 1.87 3.74 0.93 1.86 0.72 1.45 1.71 3.42 0.85 1.70 0.66 1.32 1984 5/ 1.68 3.33 1.04 2.05 0.68 1.34 1.97 3.84 1.23 2.40 0.82 1.60 1.75 3.48
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/96socc.pdf
  • 5.05 12.42% 34GTE NORTHWEST INC. 41.20% 58.80% 6.11 4.24 10.88% 35GTE SOUTH INC. 35.18% 64.82% 8.29 5.67 11.53% 36GTE SOUTHWEST INC. 39.30% 60.70% 6.86 4.94 9.12% 37PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE CO. 0.05% 99.95% 183.80 136.33 7.97% 38ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORPORATION 18.45% 81.55% 16.50 10.69 10.70% SPRINT CORPORATION: 39CAROLINA TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO. 27.35% 72.65% 7.70 5.26 10.70% 40CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY 16.58% 83.42% 3.22 2.13 10.27% 41CENTRAL TELEPHONE CO. OF ILLINOIS 29.96% 70.04% 6.42 4.35 10.32% 42CENTRAL TELEPHONE CO. OF VIRGINIA 31.69% 68.31% 6.48 4.47 9.78% 43SPRINT-FLORIDA, INC. 32.88% 67.12% 6.54 4.41 12.00% 44UNITED TELEPHONE CO. OF INDIANA, INC. 33.36% 66.64% 10.70 7.12 18.23% 45UNITED TELEPHONE CO. OF MISSOURI 37.78% 62.22% 6.47 4.34 12.43% 46UNITED TELEPHONE CO. OF NEW JERSEY, INC. 27.11% 72.89% 10.22
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/97socc.pdf
  • NY AND PHILADELPHIA, PA DETROIT, MI BOSTON, MA DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN 1.19 2.37 0.36 0.71 1.49 2.97 0.45 0.89 1.25 2.50 0.38 0.75 1.54 3.07 0.70 1.41 0.51 1.01 1.83 3.66 0.84 1.69 0.61 1.21 1.61 3.22 0.74 1.49 0.53 1.07 1.64 3.28 0.73 1.46 0.57 1.14 1.87 3.74 0.85 1.69 0.66 1.31 1.71 3.42 0.77 1.54 0.60 1.20 1.64 3.28 0.81 1.61 0.63 1.25 1.87 3.74 0.93 1.86 0.72 1.45 1.71 3.42 0.85 1.70 0.66 1.32 1.68 3.33 1.04 2.05 0.68 1.34 1.97 3.84 1.23 2.40 0.82 1.60 1.75 3.48 1.10 2.19 0.72 1.44 1.66 3.29
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/98SOCC.PDF
  • BOSTON, MA DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DEC 31 FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN 1980 1/ 1.19 2.37 0.36 0.71 1.49 2.97 0.45 0.89 1.25 2.50 0.38 0.75 1981 2/ 1.54 3.07 0.70 1.41 0.51 1.01 1.83 3.66 0.84 1.69 0.61 1.21 1.61 3.22 0.74 1.49 0.53 1.07 1982 3/ 1.64 3.28 0.73 1.46 0.57 1.14 1.87 3.74 0.85 1.69 0.66 1.31 1.71 3.42 0.77 1.54 0.60 1.20 1983 4/ 1.64 3.28 0.81 1.61 0.63 1.25 1.87 3.74 0.93 1.86 0.72 1.45 1.71 3.42 0.85 1.70 0.66 1.32 1984 5/ 1.68 3.33 1.04 2.05 0.68 1.34 1.97 3.84 1.23 2.40 0.82 1.60 1.75 3.48
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/99socc.pdf
  • 0.90 1.80 1.45 2.90 0.90 1.80 0.90 1.80 1.30 2.60 0.65 1.30 0.65 1.30 Sprint Res 1.55 3.10 0.95 1.90 0.80 1.60 1.50 3.00 0.95 1.90 0.80 1.60 1.40 2.80 0.85 1.70 0.75 1.50 1999 AT&T Bus 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 2.02 4.04 MCI Bus 2.15 4.30 1.61 3.22 1.61 3.22 2.15 4.30 1.61 3.22 1.61 3.22 2.15 4.30 1.61 3.22 1.61 3.22 Sprint Bus 1.55 3.10 0.95 1.90 0.80 1.60 1.50 3.00 0.95 1.90 0.80 1.60 1.40 2.80 0.85 1.70 0.75 1.50 AT&T Res 1.30 2.60 0.80 1.60 0.58 1.15 1.30 2.60 0.80 1.60 0.58 1.15 1.30 2.60 0.80 1.60 0.58 1.15 MCI Res 1.45 2.90 0.90 1.80
• http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477systemguide.pdf
  • Upload File ­ Large Files 3-20 3.16 Entering Data by File Upload 3-21 3.17 Service-Location Address Data 3-22 Form 477 System Guide 2/17/2010 iii 3.18 Printing, Checking or Sa ving a Submission 3-22 3.19 Submitting a Valid Form 477 3-23 3.20 Re-Opening a Previously-Submitted Form 477 3-24 3.21 Submission where Census Tract Values do not Add to State Totals 3-25 3.22 Submission where Census Tract Percent ages do not Add to State Percentage 3-25 3.23 Deleting an "Original ­ In Progress" Submission 3-26 APPENDIX A..................................................................................................................... ..........................A1 APPENDIX B..................................................................................................................... ..........................B1 Form 477 System Guide 2/17/2010 iv Table of Figures Figure 1 - "Create Ne w Form 477" options....................................................................................... ..........3-7 Figure 2 - Form 477 Submissi on Menu............................................................................................ ...........3-8 Figure 3 - Entering
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-2A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-2A1.pdf
  • Commercial FM Stations' Revenue per Adult by Market Year No LPFM One LPFM Two or More LPFM Market Rank 1 - 100 Market Measure 2005 3.47 3.66 3.03 * (663) (378) (580) 2007 3.45 3.27 3.17 (447) (381) (783) 2009 2.50 2.42 2.22 * (473) (344) (825) Contour Measure 2005 2.69 3.38 * 4.38 * (737) (407) (477) 2007 2.45 3.22 * 4.10 * (595) (396) (620) 2009 1.81 2.23 * 2.87 * (605) (349) (688) Market Rank 101 - 200 Market Measure 2005 5.73 4.18 * 3.78 * (371) (308) (406) 2007 5.57 4.67 * 3.61 * (324) (257) (533) 2009 4.48 3.36 * 2.81 * (264) (302) (540) Contour Measure 2005 3.39 4.10 * 6.06 * (373) (323) (389)
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/peer_review/prlpfm_rpt_economic_study.pdf
  • Average Full-Service Commercial FM Stations' Revenue per Adultby Market Year No LPFM One LPFM Two or More LPFM Market Rank 1 -100 Market Measure 2005 3.47 3.66 3.03 * (663) (378) (580) 2007 3.45 3.27 3.17 (447) (381) (783) 2009 2.50 2.42 2.22 * (473) (344) (825) Contour Measure 2005 2.69 3.38 * 4.38 * (737) (407) (477) 2007 2.45 3.22 * 4.10 * (595) (396) (620) 2009 1.81 2.23 * 2.87 * (605) (349) (688) Market Rank 101 -200 Market Measure 2005 5.73 4.18 * 3.78 * (371) (308) (406) 2007 5.57 4.67 * 3.61 * (324) (257) (533) 2009 4.48 3.36 * 2.81 * (264) (302) (540) Contour Measure 2005 3.39 4.10 * 6.06 * (373) (323) (389) 2007
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/aol-tw/exparte/aol_response082800.pdf
  • services. There is no additional cost for the use of AOL Plus offerings. Thus, a consumer accessing AOL via DSL would have available the same AOL flagship service available to any other AOL subscriber, and, as explained above and in response to Question 3.26, the same AOL Plus offerings available to any other AOL broadband user (e.g., via cable modem). 3.22Will AOL offer AOL Plus, or any other AOL-offered ISP service delivered via DSL, to NorthPoint DSL subscribers now that Verizon has acquired NorthPoint? Verizon has indicated that, while the company has not yet finalized exactly how its DSL services will operate in combination with NorthPoint, AOL's current agreement with Verizon will remain in place. Further, AOL is optimistic that Verizon's
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/aol-tw/tseng_comment051100.pdf
  • 18.49 $ 25.50 $ 32.51 $ 39.52 $ Analysis for Year 2000 Scenario PPPoE 1 6.4% 16.4% 26.4% 36.4% 46.4% 56.4% *Low* Percentage of 20.0% 0.19 $ 0.49 $ 0.78 $ 1.08 $ 1.38 $ 1.67 $ (U.S.) Subscribers 50.0% 0.38 $ 0.97 $ 1.56 $ 2.15 $ 2.74 $ 3.33 $ On-Line 80.0% 0.56 $ 1.45 $ 2.34 $ 3.22 $ 4.11 $ 5.00 $ 100.0% 0.69 $ 1.77 $ 2.86 $ 3.94 $ 5.02 $ 6.10 $ Internet Cable Modem Penetration Rates Internet Cable Modem Penetration Rates TABLE 4.6: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COSTS IN BOSTON SCENARIO L2TP 25.0% 35.0% 45.0% 55.0% 65.0% 75.0% Percentage of 20.0% 4.15 $ 5.80 $ 7.46 $ 9.12 $ 10.78 $ 12.44
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/nbc-telemundo/exhibit6.pdf
  • records) of the Company and each of its Significant Subsidiaries heretofore have been made available to the Buyer for its inspection and contain true and complete records of all meetings and consents in lieu of meeting of the Board of Directors (or the equivalent thereof) and shareholders (or equivalent thereof) of the Company and its Subsidiaries since January 1, 1998. 3.22 Brokers. No agent, broker, investment banker, financial advisor or other firm, or person is or shall be entitled, as a result of any action, agreement or commitment of the Company or any of its Affiliates, to any broker's, finder's, financial advisor's or Doc#: NY6: 21743.16 33 other similar fee or commission in connection with any of the transactions contemplated by