FCC Web Documents citing 3.26

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-87A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-87A5.txt
  • 1.77 1.16 2.98 2.41 1.59 U.K. 0.64 0.61 0.62 0.91 0.87 0.90 1.74 1.69 1.27 Attachment 4 EU interconnection rates U.S. Cents per minute at peak rates Local Single Transit Double Transit 1997 1998 1999 1997 1998 1999 1997 1998 1999 Country Austria 8.36 2.00 1.91 8.36 2.00 1.91 9.24 2.63 2.52 Belgium 3.05 1.23 1.12 3.05 2.33 1.89 3.98 3.26 2.69 Denmark 1.08 1.09 0.98 2.00 2.02 1.75 2.44 2.46 2.00 Finland 1.99 1.58 1.50 1.99 1.58 1.50 4.61 3.12 3.44 France 0.78 0.78 0.64 1.90 1.90 1.57 2.80 2.80 2.34 Germany 1.10 1.10 1.06 1.88 1.88 1.81 2.87 2.86 2.76 Greece n/a 2.01 n/a n/a 2.01 n/a n/a 2.87 n/a Italy 1.69 1.68 1.05 2.77 2.74 1.68 n/a n/a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.txt
  • Anyofthethreeabove 1.69 4.05 0.70 Anyofthelasttwoabove 1.87 4.89 0.63 ReligiousProgramming NetworksShowingPrimarilyReligiousProgramming 0.22 0.26 0.00 "ReligiousProgramming" 0.11 0.05 0.22 OverallTargeting AverageTVContentRating(wherenotedforTV) AverageMPAARating(wherenotedformovies) Observations 265,388 35,448 229,940 Notes:Reportedinthetableistheaverageratingamonghouseholdswithaccesstoaprogram.Thisis alsousedasoneofourmeasuresofProgramQuality.Averageisoverthesamenetworksandtimeperiods describedinthenotestoTable6.ItiscalculatedbytakingtheaverageratinginTable8anddividingby theaverageavailabilityinTable7.SeeSection5.1formoredetails.Source:Authorcalculations. 38 Table10: ProgramProductionbyProgrammingTypeandTime 6:00p.m.-12:00a.m.EST(orequivalent),2weeks/year,2003-2006 Variable 2003 2004 2005 2006 NewsProgramming AnyNews 4.29 3.99 4.07 4.22 NetworkNews 0.60 0.51 0.49 0.46 LocalNews 3.69 3.47 3.58 3.76 PublicAffairsProgramming 2.37 2.13 1.88 1.59 MinorityProgramming NetworksTargetingBlackAudiences 3.26 3.61 3.45 3.23 TargetingLatinoAudiences OnNetworksTargetingLatinoAudiences 7.11 8.07 8.35 8.87 Spanish-LanguageProgramming 2.94 3.01 3.41 4.09 NetworksTargetingOtherDiverseAudiences 2.65 2.55 2.67 2.72 Children'sProgramming "Children'sProgramming" 1.70 1.91 2.15 1.94 GMoviesorTV-Y/TV-Y7TV 3.18 3.28 3.04 2.94 Eitheroftheabove 4.88 5.19 5.19 4.88 FamilyProgramming NetworksTargetingFamilies 11.46 10.89 10.69 10.74 TY-GProgramming 11.35 12.18 11.93 10.94 Arts,Educational,orDocumentaryProgramming 8.32 7.46 7.05 7.62 Eitherofthetwoabove 19.67 19.64 18.98 18.56 AdultProgramming NetworksShowingAdultProgramming 4.84 4.60
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.txt
  • Ownership Structure on Listenership, Big versus Small Markets All Commercial, In-Market, Edison Stations HHI Stations Percent of Stations with Cross-Owned Newspaper Percent of 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 Average Rating -0.0087 (1.39) -0.0001* (3.26) 0.0180 (1.31) -0.0042* (-2.22) -0.00000062 (-1.90) 0.2964 104 Average Rating, AM Drive -0.0103 (1.18) -0.0001* (3.10) 0.0153 (0.80) -0.0063* (-2.38) -0.00000040 (-0.88) 0.2425 104 Average Rating, Evening -0.0043 (1.49) 0.0000* (2.16) 0.0093 (1.47) -0.0021* (-2.43)-0.000000172 (-1.14) 0.1498 104 With Demographics: Average Rating -0.0154* (2.76) -0.0001* (4.68) 0.0015 (0.12) 0.0005 (0.31) -0.00000039 (-1.25) 0.5142 104 Average Rating, AM Drive -0.0200* (2.52)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A8.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A8.txt
  • WorkingPaper:UniversityofWashington. Byerly,C.M.(2006)ìQuestioningMediaAccess:AnalysisofFCCWomenandMinor- ityOwnershipDataî,inDoesBiggerMediaEqualBetterMedia(Report),SocialScience ResearchCouncilandBentonFoundation. Gentzkow,M.andJ.M.Shapiro(2006)ìMediaBiasandReputationî,JournalofPo- liticalEconomy,114(2),pp.280-316. Gentzkow,M.andJ.M.Shapiro(2006)ìWhatDrivesMediaSlant?EvidencefromU.S. DailyNewspapersî,Workingpaper:UniversityofChicago. Turner,S.D.andM.Cooper(2006)ìOutofthePicture:MinorityandFemaleTV StationOwnershipintheUnitedStates:CurrentStatus,ComparativeStatisticalAnalysis andtheE§ectsofFCCPolicyandMediaConsolidationîFreePress. Lowrey,Y.(2007)ìMinoritiesinBusiness:ADemographicReviewofMinorityBusiness Ownershipî,O¢ceofAdvocacy:U.S.SmallBusinessAdministration. Lowrey,Y.(2006)ìWomeninBusiness:ADemographicReviewofWomenísBusiness Ownershipî,O¢ceofAdvocacy:U.S.SmallBusinessAdministration. 15 AAppendix:AdditionalTablesandSourcesofinformation A.1AdditionalCensusdata Weincludeintheappendixadditionalinformationonownershipandonmarketcomposition forthefullsetofnon-farmbusinessesintheUnitedStates.Thisinformationiscompiled fromtheCensusíEconomicSurveyfor2002.First,wereporttheshareofÖrmownership bygender,alongwiththetotalnumberofÖrmsinTable7.Firmsarecategorizedasfemale owned,maleowned,equallymalenfemaleowned,orpubliclyheld(ornotclassiÖableby gender).Second,wereportÖrmownershipbyraceforthesamesetofÖrmsinTable8. ThereadershouldnotethatthecolumnsinTable8donotnecessarilysumtohundred percent,sincerespondentscouldreportmorethanonerace(about2%oftheoverallcensus respondentsself-identifyasbelongingtomorethanonerace).Also,thereadershouldbe awarethatthenumbersinTables7andTable8aresomewhatdi¢culttointerpret,since thefractionofpubliclyheldcompaniesvarieswidelyfromoneindustrytothenext.The EconomicSurveyalsocontainsinformationaboutconcentrationratiosforvariousindustries. WereporttheseratiosinTable9. A.2TheNABOBData TheNationalAssociationofBlackOwnedBroadcasters(NABOB)collectsinformationon Radio(bothAMandFM)andTVstationsownedbyAfricanAmericans.Weweregiven historicaldatafortheyears1986,1991,1996,2001and2006.Thecountsfortheradioand TVstationsaresummarizedinTable10.Thecountsfortheearliestperiod1986areclearly incompleteandwechosetoomitthem.ItisreasonabletoassumethattheÖguresinthis tablearesubjectedtochangesinreportingandcoverage. ThenumberofstatesinwhichtherehasbeeneitheraradiooraTVstationownedby anAfricanAmericanis37.From1991to2006thenumberofFMradiostationsreportedto beownedbyAfricanAmericanshasalmostdoubled,increasingfrom74to138.Thetotal numberofAMradiostationshasáuctuatedduringthatperiodandhadnocleartrend.By inlarge,boththeriseinFMstationsandtheáuctuationsinAMstationhappenedmostly inanarrowsetofstates(GA,MS,OH,NCandTX).Acloserlookatthedatarevealsthat, 16 Table7:OwnershipbyGender(IncludingPublicFirms) NAICSName #Örms FemaleMaleEqualPublic 22 Utilities 6,223 4.8534.72 6.28 54.15 23 Construction 729,842 7.0877.24 12.42 3.26 31-33 Manufacturing 310,821 12.8567.82 12.58 6.75 42 WholesaleTrade 347,319 12.0268.87 12.45 6.66 44-45 RetailTrade 745,872 19.5358.95 17.87 3.65 48-49 Transportation&Warehousing 167,865 11.6566.30 16.46 5.58 51 Information 76,443 14.1862.26 11.52 12.04 515112 RadioStations 3784 11.5463.33 7.50 17.63 515120 TVStations 1001 8.2847.97 4.33 39.42 511110 NewspaperPublishers 5935 19.2857.88 16.62 6.22 52 FinanceandInsurance 241,120 13.4868.04 7.91 10.57 53 RealEstate,Rental,Leasing 266,161 18.7557.93 14.31 9.01
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1454A1.txt
  • MI 36,900 8.24% 4 11.85 11.85 0 0 OH 410,700 91.76% 9 9.49 10.97 7 6 TOPEKA 136 KS 181,100 100.00% 8 4.94 6.41 5 5 TRAVERSE CITY-CADILLAC 119 MI 245,200 100.00% 19 6.33 7.11 5 5 TRI-CITIES, TN-VA 91 KY 14,900 4.37% 0 4.28 4.28 0 0 TN 211,700 62.10% 7 5.93 7.3 4 4 VA 114,300 33.53% 5 3.26 3.62 4 4 TUCSON (SIERRA VISTA) 67 AZ 468,900 100.00% 23 8.86 17.07 10 10 TULSA 61 KS 15,700 2.90% 0 1.5 2.24 0 0 OK 524,900 97.10% 15 12.13 13.96 11 10 TWIN FALLS 192 ID 66,400 100.00% 20 3.24 8.25 5 0 TYLER-LONGVIEW(LFKN&NCGD) 109 TX 272,700 100.00% 27 6.21 7.77 4 6 UTICA 171 NY 105,800 100.00% 16
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-649A1.txt
  • Broeckaert Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau ATTACHMENT A CSR 8391-E, CSR 8392-E, CSR 8393-E, CSR 8394-E, CSR 8395-E, CSR 8396-E & CSR 8397-E COMMUNITIES SERVED BY TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Communities CUIDs Franchise Area Households Cable Subscribers Penetration Percentage South Webster, Village of OH1267 312 34 10.90 Benton Township OH1917 543 103 18.97 Mifflin Township OH1916 430 14 3.26 Newton Township OH1154 727 116 15.96 Pebble Township OH1918 812 70 8.62 Sunfish Township OH1915 485 28 5.77 Morenci, City of MI0923 877 167 19.04 Northwood, City of OH0182 2024 480 23.72 Perrysburg Township OH1134 5161 278 5.39 Washington Township OH1933 630 5 0.79 Commercial Point, Village of OH1866 277 39 14.08 Darbyville, Village of OH1865 94 13 13.83 Jackson
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242532A8.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242532A8.txt
  • 4,403 0.04 0.15 0.11 0.11 7 11 10 12 13Singapore 1,990 55,576 6,344 63,910 4,744 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.10 7 12 9 10 18China 1,585 52,979 245 54,809 85,937 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.45 7 13 8 8 10Korea, South 3,037 36,700 1,261 40,998 27,085 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.29 1 14 n.a. n.a. n.a.Austria 387 39,021 0 39,408 229 0.01 0.20 3.26 2.99 1 15 13 16 25Italy 15,613 18,834 0 34,447 7,151 0.83 0.18 0.27 3.29 1 16 16 13 12Sweden 4,887 29,207 32 34,126 2,080 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.49 6 17 12 9 11Brazil 5,724 19,547 6,570 31,841 42,929 0.22 0.11 0.09 0.24 7 18 15 15 15Taiwan 2,201 27,413 1 29,615 14,811 0.08 0.06 0.12 0.29 1 19 14
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.txt
  • Beneficiaries - Tribal and Non-Tribal - by State ..................Table 2.10 Link Up Assistance - Payments - by State .......................................................... Table 2.11 Local Switching Support Payment Trueups by State or Jurisdiction ......................Table 3.13 Local Switching Support Payment Trueups by Study Area ....................................Table 3.29 Long-Term Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .......................................... Table 3.10 Long-Term Support Payments by Study Area ........................................................ Table 3.26 Loops - by State or Jurisdiction .............................................................. Table 3.20 Loops - by Study Area ........................................................................ Table 3.34 Low-Income Average Benefits by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.12 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .................................................Table 2.5 Low-Income Support Payments ....................................................................... Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.4 Minutes - Interstate Access - by Study Area ........................................................Table
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.txt
  • Beneficiaries - Tribal and Non-Tribal - by State ..................Table 2.10 Link Up Assistance - Payments - by State .......................................................... Table 2.11 Local Switching Support Payment Trueups by State or Jurisdiction ......................Table 3.13 Local Switching Support Payment Trueups by Study Area ....................................Table 3.29 Long-Term Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .......................................... Table 3.10 Long-Term Support Payments by Study Area ........................................................ Table 3.26 Loops - by State or Jurisdiction .............................................................. Table 3.20 Loops - by Study Area ........................................................................ Table 3.34 Low-Income Average Benefits by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.12 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .................................................Table 2.5 Low-Income Support Payments ....................................................................... Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.4 Minutes - Interstate Access - by Study Area ........................................................Table
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A3.txt
  • 5,313 1.20 461 620 Oregon 5,886 1.33 511 687 Pennsylvania 18,191 4.12 1,579 2,124 Puerto Rico 2,547 0.58 221 297 Rhode Island 1,551 0.35 135 181 South Carolina 6,963 1.58 604 813 South Dakota 1,173 0.27 102 137 Tennessee 8,490 1.92 737 991 Texas 26,177 5.92 2,272 3,057 Utah 3,193 0.72 277 373 Vermont 1,517 0.34 132 177 Virginia 14,422 3.26 1,252 1,684 Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA Washington 9,784 2.21 849 1,142 West Virginia 3,424 0.77 297 400 Wisconsin 7,432 1.68 645 868 Wyoming 1,123 0.25 98 131 Total 2/ 441,958 100.00% $38,544 $51,851 NA - Not Applicable. Note: Figures may not add due to rounding. 1/ Access minutes are in thousands and include both originating and terminating minutes.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.txt
  • 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, regardless of whether they receive any support, are included in the table. Table 3.25 provides, by non-rural study area, the high cost support using the forward-looking high-cost model support mechanism.42 Table 3.26 has LTS payments. Table 3.27 has ICLS payments. Table 3.28 has 40 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 those carriers' average number of loops per exchange. 41 The data submitted by NECA include payments that would
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • 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 2003 2.23 3.58 2.80 2.30 2004
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.txt
  • Tribal and Non-Tribal - by State ..................Table 2.10 Link Up Assistance - Payments - by State .......................................................... Table 2.11 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................. Table 3.13 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by Study Area ................................ Table 3.29 Long-Term Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .......................................... Table 3.10 Long-Term Support Payments by Study Area ........................................................ Table 3.26 Low-Income Average Benefits by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.12 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .................................................Table 2.5 Low-Income Support Payments ....................................................................... Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILEC by Study Area ............................................. Table 8.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILECs by Tier .......................................................... Table 8.1 Minutes - Interstate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.txt
  • Tribal and Non-Tribal - by State ..................Table 2.10 Link Up Assistance - Payments - by State .......................................................... Table 2.11 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................. Table 3.13 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by Study Area ................................ Table 3.29 Long-Term Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .......................................... Table 3.10 Long-Term Support Payments by Study Area ........................................................ Table 3.26 Low-Income Average Benefits by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.12 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .................................................Table 2.5 Low-Income Support Payments ....................................................................... Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILEC by Study Area ............................................. Table 8.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILECs by Tier .......................................................... Table 8.1 Minutes - Interstate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A4.txt
  • 10.00 8.87 5.25 13.50 12.29 Utah 8.08 8.25 8.10 0.00 3.50 3.50 0.00 1.75 1.75 8.08 10.00 9.85 8.08 13.50 13.35 Vermont 8.13 8.25 8.16 0.00 3.50 3.50 0.00 1.75 1.75 8.13 10.00 9.91 8.13 13.50 13.41 Virgin Islands 8.25 8.25 8.25 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 10.00 10.00 10.00 13.50 13.50 13.50 Virginia 6.62 8.25 7.47 1.76 3.50 3.26 0.88 1.75 1.63 7.50 10.00 9.10 9.26 13.50 12.35 Washington 6.97 8.25 7.82 0.00 3.50 1.92 0.00 1.75 0.96 6.97 10.00 8.78 6.97 13.50 10.70 West Virginia 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 2.75 0.00 1.75 1.37 8.25 10.00 9.62 8.25 13.50 12.37 Wisconsin 6.81 8.25 7.25 0.00 3.50 1.23 0.00 1.75 0.61 6.81 10.00 7.86 6.81 13.50 9.08 Wyoming 8.16
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.txt
  • the basis of the hold-harmless calculations. Consequently the amounts shown in Table 3.6 are a better indication of the actual HCLS payments. 3 - 11 payments. Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Table 3.24 has safety valve support payments. Table 3.25 provides, by non-rural study area, the high cost support using the forward-looking high-cost model support mechanism.44 Table 3.26 has LTS payments. Table 3.27 has ICLS payments. Table 3.28 has IAS payments for price-cap companies. Table 3.29 has LSS payments. Table 3.30 has the total support payments for all seven programs. Each of these tables contains the annual amounts for only those years for which a support mechanism was in place. The 1998 amounts in Tables 3.22, 3.26, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.txt
  • 10.00 8.87 5.25 13.50 12.29 Utah 8.08 8.25 8.10 0.00 3.50 3.50 0.00 1.75 1.75 8.08 10.00 9.85 8.08 13.50 13.35 Vermont 8.13 8.25 8.16 0.00 3.50 3.50 0.00 1.75 1.75 8.13 10.00 9.91 8.13 13.50 13.41 Virgin Islands 8.25 8.25 8.25 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 10.00 10.00 10.00 13.50 13.50 13.50 Virginia 6.62 8.25 7.47 1.76 3.50 3.26 0.88 1.75 1.63 7.50 10.00 9.10 9.26 13.50 12.35 Washington 6.97 8.25 7.82 0.00 3.50 1.92 0.00 1.75 0.96 6.97 10.00 8.78 6.97 13.50 10.70 West Virginia 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 2.75 0.00 1.75 1.37 8.25 10.00 9.62 8.25 13.50 12.37 Wisconsin 6.81 8.25 7.25 0.00 3.50 1.23 0.00 1.75 0.61 6.81 10.00 7.86 6.81 13.50 9.08 Wyoming 8.16
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277321A1.txt
  • a competitive hearing until 1975. The state of female and minority ownership hasn't gotten much better since then. In fact, the FCC doesn't even have good data on the number of female and people of color who own broadcast stations. Frankly, that's just appalling. The numbers compiled by outside experts are troubling. People of color (one-third of U.S. population) own 3.26 percent of TV stations and 7.7 percent of full power commercial radio stations, while women (over half of U.S. population) own 4.97 percent TV stations and 6 percent of full-power commercial radio stations. Today, I feel a sense of responsibility to remedy this legacy of neglect. Diversity is truly the strength of America, and we need to draw on every
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.txt
  • Tribal and Non-Tribal - by State ..................Table 2.10 Link Up Assistance - Payments - by State .......................................................... Table 2.11 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................. Table 3.13 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by Study Area ................................ Table 3.29 Long-Term Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .......................................... Table 3.10 Long-Term Support Payments by Study Area ........................................................ Table 3.26 Low-Income Average Benefits by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.12 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .................................................Table 2.5 Low-Income Support Payments ....................................................................... Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILEC by Study Area ............................................. Table 8.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILECs by Tier .......................................................... Table 8.1 Minutes - Interstate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.txt
  • Tribal and Non-Tribal - by State ..................Table 2.10 Link Up Assistance - Payments - by State .......................................................... Table 2.11 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................. Table 3.13 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by Study Area ................................ Table 3.29 Long-Term Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .......................................... Table 3.10 Long-Term Support Payments by Study Area ........................................................ Table 3.26 Low-Income Average Benefits by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.12 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .................................................Table 2.5 Low-Income Support Payments ....................................................................... Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILEC by Study Area ............................................. Table 8.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILECs by Tier .......................................................... Table 8.1 Minutes - Interstate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.txt
  • 3,694 1,080 Indiana 3,277 1.71 1,322 394 1,411 413 Iowa 1,594 0.83 643 192 686 201 Kansas 1,539 0.80 621 185 663 194 Kentucky 2,495 1.30 1,007 300 1,075 314 Louisiana 2,998 1.56 1,210 360 1,291 378 Maine 786 0.41 317 94 338 99 Maryland 4,178 2.18 1,686 502 1,799 526 Massachusetts 4,316 2.25 1,742 519 1,859 544 Michigan 6,239 3.26 2,517 750 2,687 786 Minnesota 3,124 1.63 1,261 376 1,346 393 Mississippi 1,628 0.85 657 196 701 205 Missouri 3,483 1.82 1,405 419 1,500 439 Montana 468 0.24 189 56 201 59 Nebraska 1,079 0.56 435 130 465 136 Nevada 1,606 0.84 648 193 692 202 New Hampshire 917 0.48 370 110 395 115 New Jersey 7,269 3.79 2,933 874
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.txt
  • years are included in the table. Payments for 1998 through 2001 can be found in the 2006 Universal Service Monitoring Report. Table 3.22 has HCLS payments. Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Table 3.24 has safety valve support payments. Table 3.25 provides, by non-rural study area, the high cost support using the forward-looking high-cost model support mechanism.47 Table 3.26 has LTS payments. Table 3.27 has ICLS payments. Table 3.28 has IAS payments for price-cap companies. Table 3.29 has LSS payments. Table 3.30 has the total support payments for all seven programs. Each of these tables contains the annual amounts for only those years for which a support mechanism was in place. Table 3.27 has the final ICLS true-ups for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284932A1.txt
  • NobelTel, LLC 235 1,406 414 6.82 Embarq Communications, Inc. 64 872 47 0.78 NECC Telecom, Inc. 12 94 35 0.57 Trilogy International Enterprises LLC 891 4,148 135 2.22 Belgacom International Carriers Services S.A 31 125 21 0.35 Gold Line Telemanagement, Inc 5 48 16 0.26 One Phone, Inc. 84 249 16 0.26 Acceris Management and Acquisition LLC 256 3,517 198 3.26 PaeTec Corporation 11 207 17 0.28 Logical Telecom, LP 6 57 9 0.15 Comtel Telcom Assets LP 20 211 10 0.17 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 25 244 29 0.47 Hawaiian Telcom Services Company, Inc 28 47 6 0.09 WDT World Discount Telecommunications Co. 21 201 6 0.10 Comcast 46 361 35 0.58 Cavalier Telephone Corporation 7 68 9 0.14 Telmex
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 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 2003 2.23 3.58 2.80 2.30 2004
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A1.pdf
  • Tribal and Non-Tribal - by State ..................Table 2.10 Link Up Assistance - Payments - by State .......................................................... Table 2.11 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................. Table 3.13 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by Study Area ................................ Table 3.29 Long-Term Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .......................................... Table 3.10 Long-Term Support Payments by Study Area ........................................................ Table 3.26 Low-Income Average Benefits by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.12 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .................................................Table 2.5 Low-Income Support Payments ....................................................................... Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILEC by Study Area ............................................. Table 8.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILECs by Tier .......................................................... Table 8.1 Minutes - Interstate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A2.pdf
  • Tribal and Non-Tribal - by State ..................Table 2.10 Link Up Assistance - Payments - by State .......................................................... Table 2.11 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................. Table 3.13 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by Study Area ................................ Table 3.29 Long-Term Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .......................................... Table 3.10 Long-Term Support Payments by Study Area ........................................................ Table 3.26 Low-Income Average Benefits by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.12 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .................................................Table 2.5 Low-Income Support Payments ....................................................................... Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILEC by Study Area ............................................. Table 8.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILECs by Tier .......................................................... Table 8.1 Minutes - Interstate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A3.pdf
  • 352,634 4.47 4.44 5.27 64 0.71 79 New Hampshire 400,698 34,080 134,662 6.40 6.40 6.61 44 0.49 54 New Jersey 2,170,476 504,766 1,449,462 6.25 6.25 6.35 311 3.46 384 New Mexico 591,555 44,472 262,318 6.50 7.00 9.20 79 0.88 97 New York 4,022,134 516,304 2,423,487 6.34 6.35 6.69 540 6.01 666 North Carolina 2,550,668 177,727 1,010,066 6.26 6.41 7.22 293 3.26 361 North Dakota 134,970 3,355 73,396 6.50 7.00 8.56 18 0.20 23 N. Mariana Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ohio 3,002,818 200,177 1,330,535 5.66 5.68 6.24 317 3.53 391 Oklahoma 868,335 64,049 411,200 5.50 5.36 6.03 91 1.01 112 Oregon 983,952 77,331 351,451 6.50 6.87 7.78 116 1.29 143 Pennsylvania 3,820,713 380,746 1,453,415 5.99 5.97
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A5.pdf
  • 2006 Universal Service Monitoring Report, and payments for 2002 and 2003 can be found in the 2007 Universal Service Monitoring Report. Table 3.22 has HCLS payments. Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Table 3.24 has safety valve support payments. Table 3.25 provides, by non-rural study area, the high cost support using the forward-looking high-cost model support mechanism. Table 3.26 has LTS payments. Table 3.27 has ICLS payments. Table 3.28 has IAS payments for price-cap companies. Table 3.29 has LSS payments. Table 3.30 has the total support payments for all seven programs. Each of these tables contains the annual amounts for only those years for which a support mechanism was in place. Table 3.27 has the final ICLS true-ups for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.txt
  • Tribal and Non-Tribal - by State ..................Table 2.10 Link Up Assistance - Payments - by State .......................................................... Table 2.11 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................. Table 3.13 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by Study Area ................................ Table 3.29 Long-Term Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .......................................... Table 3.10 Long-Term Support Payments by Study Area ........................................................ Table 3.26 Low-Income Average Benefits by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.12 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .................................................Table 2.5 Low-Income Support Payments ....................................................................... Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILEC by Study Area ............................................. Table 8.3 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILECs by Tier .......................................................... Table 8.1 Minutes - Interstate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.txt
  • Tribal and Non-Tribal - by State ..................Table 2.10 Link Up Assistance - Payments - by State .......................................................... Table 2.11 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................. Table 3.13 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by Study Area ................................ Table 3.29 Long-Term Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .......................................... Table 3.10 Long-Term Support Payments by Study Area ........................................................ Table 3.26 Low-Income Average Benefits by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.12 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .................................................Table 2.5 Low-Income Support Payments ....................................................................... Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILEC by Study Area ............................................. Table 8.3 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILECs by Tier .......................................................... Table 8.1 Minutes - Interstate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.txt
  • of the actual HCLS payments. 3 - 12 payments for 2004 can be found in the 2008 Universal Service Monitoring Report. Table 3.22 has HCLS payments. Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Table 3.24 has safety valve support payments. Table 3.25 provides, by non-rural study area, the high cost support using the forward-looking high-cost model support mechanism. Table 3.26 has LTS payments. Table 3.27 has ICLS payments. Table 3.28 has IAS payments for price-cap companies. Table 3.29 has LSS payments. Table 3.30 has the total support payments for all seven programs. Each of these tables contains the annual amounts for only those years for which a support mechanism was in place. Table 3.27 has the final ICLS true-ups for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • Jurisdiction ............................... Table 2.9 Link Up Assistance - Beneficiaries - Tribal and Non-Tribal Areas - by State ..........Table 2.10 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................. Table 3.13 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by Study Area ................................ Table 3.29 Long-Term Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .......................................... Table 3.10 Long-Term Support Payments by Study Area ........................................................ Table 3.26 Low-Income Average Benefits by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.12 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .................................................Table 2.5 Low-Income Support Payments ....................................................................... Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILEC ................ ................................................. Chart 8.1 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILEC by Study Area ............................................. Table 8.3 Minutes - Interstate Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A2.txt
  • Jurisdiction ............................... Table 2.9 Link Up Assistance - Beneficiaries - Tribal and Non-Tribal Areas - by State ..........Table 2.10 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................. Table 3.13 Local Switching Support Trued-up Payments by Study Area ................................ Table 3.29 Long-Term Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .......................................... Table 3.10 Long-Term Support Payments by Study Area ........................................................ Table 3.26 Low-Income Average Benefits by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.12 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .................................................Table 2.5 Low-Income Support Payments ....................................................................... Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 2.4 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILEC ................ ................................................. Chart 8.1 Minutes - Interstate Access ­ ILEC by Study Area ............................................. Table 8.3 Minutes - Interstate Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A3.txt
  • Payphones: March 2008 2Percent of Total Wireless Subscribers: June 2009 3 Percent of Total Interstate Access Minutes: 2009Percent of Total Alabama 1,861 1.49% 460 1.05% 6 1.48% 3,887 1.52% 5,561,528 1.76% Alaska 294 0.24 109 0.25 2 0.43 480 0.19 1,025,583 0.32 American Samoa 11 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.02 20 0.01 19,087 0.01 Arizona 1,943 1.56 1,218 2.78 13 3.26 4,936 1.93 6,058,782 1.92 Arkansas 1,069 0.86 223 0.51 2 0.58 2,446 0.96 3,098,534 0.98 California 17,149 13.76 4,536 10.37 66 16.36 31,946 12.49 31,440,776 9.96 Colorado 1,973 1.58 838 1.91 8 2.02 4,066 1.59 6,116,346 1.94 Connecticut 1,632 1.31 625 1.43 3 0.68 2,959 1.16 4,795,494 1.52 Delaware 396 0.32 164 0.37 1 0.25 775 0.30 1,391,815 0.44 District
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A4.txt
  • 8.14 13.50 13.45 Pennsylvania 5.25 8.25 7.79 0.00 3.50 0.83 0.00 1.75 0.42 5.25 10.00 8.20 5.25 13.50 9.04 Puerto Rico 8.25 8.25 8.25 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 10.00 10.00 10.00 13.50 13.50 13.50 Rhode Island 8.17 8.17 8.17 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 9.92 9.92 9.92 13.42 13.42 13.42 South Carolina 7.35 8.25 8.12 0.00 3.50 3.26 0.00 1.75 0.00 7.35 10.00 8.12 7.35 13.50 11.38 South Dakota 8.11 8.25 8.19 0.00 1.96 0.05 0.00 0.98 0.03 8.11 9.23 8.22 8.11 11.19 8.27 Tennessee 6.80 8.25 8.11 0.00 3.50 3.35 0.00 1.75 1.67 6.80 10.00 9.78 6.80 13.50 13.13 Texas 4.92 8.25 7.28 0.00 3.50 3.47 0.00 1.75 1.73 4.92 10.00 9.01 4.92 13.50 12.48 Utah 8.13
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.txt
  • in the 2008 Universal Service Monitoring Report, and payments for 2005 can be found in the 2009 Universal Service Monitoring Report. Table 3.22 has HCLS payments. Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Table 3.24 has safety valve support payments. Table 3.25 provides, by non-rural study area, the high cost support using the forward-looking high-cost model support mechanism. Table 3.26 has LTS payments. Table 3.27 has ICLS payments. Table 3.28 has IAS payments for price-cap companies. Table 3.29 has LSS payments. Table 3.30 has the total support payments for all seven programs. Each of these tables contains the annual amounts for only those years for which a support mechanism was in place. Table 3.27 has the final ICLS true-ups for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-49A1.txt
  • 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 % Difference†† 6.5% -31.3%* -2.9% 34.7%* -10.8%* 43.5%* -- 1999 Monthly Charge $31.49 $32.90 $31.73 $30.40 $30.17 $21.54 $32.25 Standard Error 0.70 1.22 0.79 0.23 0.60 1.56 0.35 % Difference†† 2.4% -2.0% 1.6% 6.1%* 6.9%* 49.7%* -- Number of Channels 53.2 35.1 50.1 64.5 43.5 48.9 52.0 Standard Error 1.81 3.16 20.4 0.65 1.77 3.26 0.90 % Difference†† -2.3% 48.1%* 3.8% -19.4%* 19.5%* 6.3% -- Charge per Channel 0.62 1.02 0.69 0.48 0.74 0.46 0.65 Standard Error 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 % Difference†† 4.8% -36.3%* -5.8% 35.4%* -12.2* 41.3%* -- 1998 Monthly Charge $29.76 $31.40 $30.04 $29.26 $28.88 $20.58 $30.65 Standard Error 0.62 1.09 0.70 0.21 0.57 1.39 0.33 % Difference†† 3.0%
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.txt
  • (3) the telecom formula including operating expenses but no capital costs. Incumbent LEC Pole Attachment Rates, Based on ARMIS Data ($ per attachment per year) All Costs VZ NY VZ PA AT&T CA AT&T FL AT&T IL AT&T TX Qwest CO Qwest WA Cable Rate 4.58 2.16 5.43 4.92 1.80 2.16 1.58 2.48 Telecom Rate - Urbanized (5 attachers) 6.92 3.26 8.21 7.44 2.72 3.26 2.39 3.75 Telecom Rate - Non-Urbanized (3 attachers) 10.43 4.92 12.39 11.22 4.11 4.92 3.60 5.65 No Capital Costs Telecom Rate - Urbanized (5 attachers) 1.71 0.49 2.47 2.03 0.51 0.94 0.82 0.66 Telecom Rate - Non-Urbanized (3 attachers) 2.58 0.74 3.72 3.06 0.77 1.41 1.24 0.99 Utility Pole Attachment Rates, Based on FERC Data ($
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.txt
  • each quoting Robert C. Herd & Co. v. Krawill Mach. Corp., 359 U.S. 297, 304 (1959) (``Herd''). NAB Comments at 9; Disney Comments at 5; ALTV Comments at 14. Disney Comments at 2. Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952). Herd, 359 U.S. 297, 304 (1959) ( internal quotes and citation omitted); see E. Allen Farnsworth, Contracts § 3.26 (2d ed. 1990) (requirement to negotiate in good faith is a departure from common law principles protecting the freedom of contract). Disney Reply at 3; Young Reply at 2. Network Affiliates Comments at 5; Fox Comments at 1; CBS Comments at 7. Disney Reply at 3; NAB Comments at 8-10; CBS Comments at 10-14. We also look to the Commission's
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.txt
  • from 0.8 to 2.0 days longer for June through August, averaging more than four months (June-September 1999) 2.43 days for competing carrier orders versus 1.09 days for Bell Atlantic orders, for a difference of 1.34 days. Meanwhile, UNE platform dispatch orders took from 2.6 to 3.6 days longer, averaging over the four months 6.49 days for competing carriers orders versus 3.26 days for Bell Atlantic orders, for a difference of 3.23 days. Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Decl. Attach. D; Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Reply Decl. Attach. C. The Carrier to Carrier report also contains data about how many orders were completed within "X" number of days for Bell Atlantic and competitive LEC customers, with metrics provided for "X" ranging from one to six
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.txt
  • each quoting Robert C. Herd & Co. v. Krawill Mach. Corp., 359 U.S. 297, 304 (1959) (``Herd''). NAB Comments at 9; Disney Comments at 5; ALTV Comments at 14. Disney Comments at 2. Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952). Herd, 359 U.S. 297, 304 (1959) ( internal quotes and citation omitted); see E. Allen Farnsworth, Contracts § 3.26 (2d ed. 1990) (requirement to negotiate in good faith is a departure from common law principles protecting the freedom of contract). Disney Reply at 3; Young Reply at 2. Network Affiliates Comments at 5; Fox Comments at 1; CBS Comments at 7. Disney Reply at 3; NAB Comments at 8-10; CBS Comments at 10-14. We also look to the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.txt
  • from 0.8 to 2.0 days longer for June through August, averaging more than four months (June-September 1999) 2.43 days for competing carrier orders versus 1.09 days for Bell Atlantic orders, for a difference of 1.34 days. Meanwhile, UNE platform dispatch orders took from 2.6 to 3.6 days longer, averaging over the four months 6.49 days for competing carriers orders versus 3.26 days for Bell Atlantic orders, for a difference of 3.23 days. Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Decl. Attach. D; Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Reply Decl. Attach. C. The Carrier to Carrier report also contains data about how many orders were completed within "X" number of days for Bell Atlantic and competitive LEC customers, with metrics provided for "X" ranging from one to six
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • 782 796 700 1996 757 887 870 763 1997 791 945 833 807 1998 818 915 811 831 1999 837 934 872 847 2000 862 986 889 876 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 Household Expenditure for Telephone Service Expenditures on Telephone Service as Percentage of Total Household Expenditures Table
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • 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 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 2.18 3.41 2.63 2.27 2001 2.19 3.54 2.67 2.28 Household Expenditure for Telephone Service Expenditures on Telephone Service as Percentage
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref04.pdf
  • 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 Household Expenditure for Telephone Service Expenditures
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
  • 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 2003 2.23 3.58 2.80 2.30 Household
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ror96.pdf
  • 12.60 9.21 11.07 (64.84) 14.04 11.76 39PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE CO.-ID 12.04 12.56 15.09 8.31 (140.00) 12.42 10.08 40PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE CO.-OR 12.80 12.35 8.79 14.15 7.73 15.60 14.76 41PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE CO.-WA 12.10 12.13 13.01 13.66 (13.68) 10.60 11.70 42ALLTEL ILLINOIS, INC. 14.78 13.30 13.87 17.77 (67.84) 17.20 17.51 43ANCHORAGE TELEPHONE UTILITY 8.18 10.13 6.78 4.33 96.70 (3.26) 5.11 44AYSHIRE FARMERS MUTUAL TELEPHONE COMPANY 10.00 12.36 (21.49) 10.31 - 0.81 (21.49) 45BAY SPRINGS TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. 12.70 12.50 1.70 17.30 - 8.70 14.30 46BOURBEUSE TELEPHONE COMPANY 11.67 12.06 8.89 8.89 - - 8.89 47CAROLINA TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 12.51 12.44 11.22 14.85 9.31 9.90 12.91 48CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF FLORIDA 11.08 12.44 2.40 9.49 (40.68) 27.29 11.51 49CENTRAL
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-99.pdf
  • District of Columbia 0 0.00 12,863 1.16 -12,863 -1.16 Florida 50,466 0.37 151,591 1.12 -101,124 -0.75 Georgia 79,527 1.27 72,344 1.16 7,184 0.11 Hawaii 2,055 0.24 8,616 0.99 -6,561 -0.76 Idaho 35,850 4.07 11,253 1.28 24,598 2.80 Illinois 31,393 0.31 98,816 0.99 -67,423 -0.67 Indiana 30,731 0.70 40,985 0.93 -10,254 -0.23 Iowa 30,431 1.51 21,744 1.08 8,687 0.43 Kansas 67,243 3.26 22,488 1.09 44,755 2.17 Kentucky 29,606 1.13 27,969 1.06 1,637 0.06 Louisiana 72,848 2.35 30,839 0.99 42,009 1.35 Maine 30,713 2.97 10,011 0.97 20,702 2.00 Maryland 2,394 0.05 48,742 1.06 -46,348 -1.01 Massachusetts 1,269 0.02 60,009 1.09 -58,741 -1.07 Michigan 39,571 0.50 63,497 0.81 -23,926 -0.31 Minnesota 48,094 1.31 40,120 1.09 7,975 0.22 Mississippi 133,052 7.81 18,872 1.11 114,180 6.70
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf
  • Telecommunications Company 19 172 18 0.34 Western Wireless International Enterprises, Inc. 13 56 8 0.14 WilTel Communications, LLC 804 3,497 250 4.62 Working Assets Funding Services, Inc. 3 32 14 0.25 Z-Tel Communications, Inc. 3 17 6 0.11 Total for 22 Companies Requesting Confidential Treatment 1,227 6,689 1,423 26.25 Total for 626 Companies Not Shown Above 1/ 268 1,106 177 3.26 Total for all Reporting Carriers 5,027 34,510 $5,420 100.00% 1/ Data are consolidated for affiliated carriers. A total of 698 companies made a total of 748 filings. Source: International Bureau, 2003 International Telecommunications Data (January 2005). 6 - 7 Rev. 7/12/05 7-1 7 Lines Within the telephone industry there are several alternative, but closely related, definitions of telephone lines or
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-3.pdf
  • account for implementation of the forward-looking non-rural high-cost model support mechanism. Under sections 54.309 3 - 11 that qualify for these payments are included in the table. Table 3.25 provides estimates, by non- rural study area, of the high cost support using the forward-looking high-cost model support mechanism, along with the hold-harmless support for the years 2000 through 2003.41 Table 3.26 has LTS payments. Table 3.27 has IAS payments for price-cap companies. Table 3.28 has ICLS payments. Table 3.29 has LSS payments. Table 3.30 has the total support payments for all seven programs. Each of these tables (except 3.31) contains the annual amounts for 1998 through 2003. The 1998 amounts in Tables 3.23, 3.26, and 3.29 are the actual payments after
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-intro.pdf
  • by Study Area ................................................. Table 2.12 Local Switching Support - Payment History .......................................................... Table 3.7 Local Switching Support Payment Projections by Jurisdiction .............................. Table 3.14 Local Switching Support Payment Projections by Study Area ...............................Table 3.29 Long-Term Support - Payment History .................................................................. Table 3.6 Long-Term Support Payment Projections by Jurisdiction ...................................... Table 3.11 Long-Term Support Payment Projections by Study Area .......................................Table 3.26 Loops - by Jurisdiction ....................................................................... Table 3.20 Loops - by Study Area ........................................................................ Table 3.34 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .............................................. Table 2.3 Low-Income Programs Fund Sizes and Projections ......................................... Table 2.4 Low-Income Support Payments by State ......................................................... Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments per Loop by State .................................... Table 2.13 Minutes - Dial Equipment - Interstate ................................................................. Table 8.9
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-1.pdf
  • * 82,653 0.39 14 22 28 38 California 2,158,878 NA 9.97 363 569 713 952 Colorado 434,125 NA 2.01 73 114 143 191 Connecticut 222,815 NA 1.03 37 59 74 98 Delaware * 37,169 0.18 6 10 13 17 District of Columbia 161,114 NA 0.74 27 42 53 71 Florida 1,035,417 NA 4.78 174 273 342 457 Georgia 704,651 NA 3.26 118 186 233 311 Guam NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hawaii * 36,212 0.17 6 10 12 16 Idaho * 26,166 0.12 5 7 9 12 Illinois 1,468,057 NA 6.78 247 387 485 647 Indiana 252,722 NA 1.17 42 67 84 111 Iowa 190,869 NA 0.88 32 50 63 84 Kansas 176,322 NA 0.81 30 46 58 78
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-3.pdf
  • potential interim hold harmless payments in its high-cost loop 3 - 11 that qualify for these payments are included in the table. Table 3.24 provides estimates, by non- rural study area, of the high cost support using the forward-looking high-cost model support mechanism, along with the hold-harmless support for the years 2000 through 2004.42 Table 3.25 has LTS payments. Table 3.26 has ICLS payments. Table 3.27 has IAS payments for price-cap companies. Table 3.28 has LSS payments. Table 3.29 has the total support payments for all seven programs. Each of these tables (except 3.24) contains the annual amounts for 1998 through 2004. The 1998 amounts in Tables 3.22, 3.25, and 3.28 are the actual payments after processing the final true-ups for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-intro.pdf
  • 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 3 Index of Tables and Charts Interstate Access Support Payment Projections by State or Jurisdiction ................Table 3.11 Interstate Access Support Payment Projections by Study Area ..............................Table 3.27 Interstate Common Line Support Payment Projections by State or Jurisdiction ..... Table 3.10 Interstate Common Line Support Payment Projections by Study Area .................. Table 3.26 Investment - Average Net ....................................................................................... Table 11.6 Investment - Gross .................................................................................................. Table 11.3 Investment - Other .................................................................................................. Table 11.13 Investment Reserves ............................................................................................... Table 11.4 Lifeline and Link Up Support Payments ........................................................ Chart 2.1 Lifeline Assistance - Payments - by State or Jurisdiction .......................................Table 2.8 Lifeline Assistance - Subscribers - by State ........................................................ Table 2.6 Lifeline Assistance - Subscribers - Tribal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs01-0.pdf
  • - by Jurisdiction....................................... Table 3.8 High-Cost Loop Payment Projections - by Study Area .......................................Table 3.21 High-Cost Loop Payments - by Jurisdiction....................................................Table 3.20 High-Cost Loop Payments - by Study Area ....................................................Table 3.32 High-Cost Programs Fund Size Projections ................................................ Table 3.7 High-Cost Support Payment Projections - Non-Rural by Jurisdiction.................. Table 3.13 High-Cost Support Payment Projections - Non-Rural by Study Area .............. Table 3.26 High-Cost Support Payment Projections - Total by Jurisdiction ...................... Table 3.12 High-Cost Support Payment Projections - Total by Study Area ....................... Table 3.25 High-Cost Support Programs ­ Net Revenues by State .................................Table 3.14 Income - Net ...........................................................................................................Table 11.5 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support - Payment Projections - by Jurisdiction ........................ Table 3.11 Interstate Access
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs02-0.pdf
  • Area .......................................Table 3.32 High-Cost Loop Support - Percentage Changes - by Jurisdiction....................... Table 3.21 High-Cost Loop Support - Percentage Changes - by Study Area ........................ Table 3.33 High-Cost Loop Payment Formulas .................................................................. Table 3.2 High-Cost Loop Payment History ......................................................................... Table 3.3 High-Cost Loop Payment Projections - by Jurisdiction....................................... Table 3.8 High-Cost Loop Payment Projections - by Study Area ....................................... Table 3.26 High-Cost Loop Payments - by Jurisdiction.................................................... Table 3.25 High-Cost Loop Payments - by Study Area .................................................... Table 3.37 High-Cost Loop Support Mechanism ­ Net Dollar Flow by State ................... Table 3.14 High-Cost Model Support Mechanism ­ Net Dollar Flow by State ................... Table 3.17 High-Cost Model Support Payment Projections - Non-Rural by Jurisdiction ........Table 3.12 High-Cost Programs Fund Size Projections
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/95socc.pdf
  • - - 28.86 2.90 1.58 1955 33.7 - - 30.94 3.06 2.18 1956 35.1 - - 37.90 3.36 3.31 1957 35.6 - - 40.54 3.89 3.81 1958 33.3 - - 33.84 3.79 2.46 1959 37.3 $53.4 $29.7 35.88 4.38 3.97 1960 38.1 51.1 28.4 39.44 4.41 3.85 1961 38.4 51.0 28.2 38.34 4.35 2.97 1962 41.6 56.4 32.4 40.86 4.33 3.26 1963 44.0 61.2 34.9 43.67 4.26 3.55 1964 47.0 68.0 40.0 51.26 4.40 3.97 1965 51.7 78.8 47.9 59.52 4.49 4.38 1966 56.3 85.1 51.4 70.40 5.13 5.55 1967 57.5 81.8 49.2 72.75 5.51 5.10 1968 60.7 90.6 51.2 76.42 6.18 5.90 1969 63.5 89.0 49.4 85.74 7.03 7.83 1970 61.4 78.4 44.0 91.91 8.04 7.71 1971 62.2 90.1 52.4
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/96socc.pdf
  • 39.2 21.6 28.86 2.90 1.58 1955 33.7 49.7 27.7 30.94 3.06 2.18 1956 35.1 50.3 28.3 37.90 3.36 3.31 1957 35.6 48.9 27.5 40.54 3.89 3.81 1958 33.3 42.7 23.8 33.84 3.79 2.46 1959 37.3 53.4 29.7 35.88 4.38 3.97 1960 38.1 51.1 28.4 39.44 4.41 3.85 1961 38.4 51.0 28.2 38.34 4.35 2.97 1962 41.6 56.4 32.4 40.86 4.33 3.26 1963 44.0 61.2 34.9 43.67 4.26 3.55 1964 47.0 68.0 40.0 51.26 4.40 3.97 1965 51.7 78.8 47.9 59.52 4.49 4.38 1966 56.3 85.1 51.4 70.40 5.13 5.55 1967 57.5 81.8 49.2 72.75 5.51 5.10 1968 60.7 90.6 51.2 76.42 6.18 5.90 1969 63.5 89.0 49.4 85.74 7.03 7.83 1970 61.4 78.4 44.0 91.91 8.04 7.71 1971 62.2 90.1 52.4
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/97socc.pdf
  • 9.48 23.6 MA MICHIGAN 295.7 232.4 63.4 46.8 16.6 (1.13) (0.59) (0.09) (1.81) 18.4 MI MINNESOTA 52.1 50.4 1.6 (2.5) 4.2 (2.47) (0.93) (0.95) (4.35) 8.5 MN MISSISSIPPI 39.2 25.8 13.4 10.1 3.3 (1.26) 0.03 0.01 (1.23) 4.5 MS MISSOURI 269.7 230.4 39.3 26.9 12.4 (0.13) (0.39) 0.12 (0.40) 12.8 MO MONTANA (1.8) 6.4 (8.1) (6.7) (1.4) (1.83) (0.80) (0.62) (3.26) 1.8 MT NEBRASKA 133.9 45.6 88.3 66.4 21.9 6.94 4.49 5.94 17.36 4.6 NE NEVADA 95.9 56.2 39.6 31.7 8.0 (0.72) (0.18) 0.03 (0.87) 8.8 NV NEW HAMPSHIRE 37.0 9.8 27.2 21.0 6.2 0.48 0.10 0.19 0.76 5.5 NH NEW JERSEY 615.0 494.7 120.3 65.2 55.1 11.40 6.15 7.05 24.59 30.5 NJ NEW MEXICO 39.8 24.5 15.4 10.1 5.3 0.02
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/98SOCC.PDF
  • 39.2 21.6 28.86 2.90 1.58 1955 32.2 49.7 27.7 30.94 3.06 2.18 1956 33.6 50.3 28.3 37.90 3.36 3.31 1957 34.1 48.9 27.5 40.54 3.89 3.81 1958 31.9 42.7 23.8 33.84 3.79 2.46 1959 35.7 53.4 29.7 35.88 4.38 3.97 1960 36.5 51.1 28.4 39.44 4.41 3.85 1961 36.7 51.0 28.2 38.34 4.35 2.97 1962 39.8 56.4 32.4 40.86 4.33 3.26 1963 42.1 61.2 34.9 43.67 4.26 3.55 1967 55.0 81.8 49.2 72.75 5.51 5.10 1968 58.1 90.6 51.2 76.42 6.18 5.90 1969 60.7 89.0 49.4 85.74 7.03 7.83 1970 58.7 78.4 44.0 91.91 8.04 7.71 1971 59.5 90.1 52.4 92.91 7.39 5.11 1972 65.3 104.5 62.6 103.40 7.21 4.73 1973 70.6 130.9 81.6 120.03 7.44 8.15 1974 69.6 142.8 91.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/99socc.pdf
  • 39.3 21.7 28.86 2.90 1.58 1955 32.2 49.9 27.8 30.94 3.06 2.18 1956 33.6 50.5 28.5 37.90 3.36 3.31 1957 34.1 49.1 27.7 40.54 3.89 3.81 1958 31.9 43.0 24.0 33.84 3.79 2.46 1959 35.7 53.7 30.0 35.88 4.38 3.97 1960 36.5 51.5 28.8 39.44 4.41 3.85 1961 36.7 51.5 28.7 38.34 4.35 2.97 1962 39.8 56.9 32.9 40.86 4.33 3.26 1963 42.1 61.9 35.7 43.67 4.26 3.55 1964 45.0 68.9 40.9 51.26 4.40 3.97 1965 49.5 80.0 49.1 59.52 4.49 4.38 1966 53.8 86.5 52.8 70.40 5.13 5.55 1967 55.0 83.3 50.6 72.75 5.51 5.10 1968 58.1 92.2 52.8 76.42 6.18 5.90 1969 60.7 91.1 51.4 85.74 7.03 7.83 1970 58.7 80.6 46.2 91.91 8.04 7.71 1971 59.5 92.4 54.7
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/TABALL02.pdf
  • 4,403 0.04 0.15 0.11 0.11 7 11 10 12 13Singapore 1,990 55,576 6,344 63,910 4,744 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.10 7 12 9 10 18China 1,585 52,979 245 54,809 85,937 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.45 7 13 8 8 10Korea, South 3,037 36,700 1,261 40,998 27,085 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.29 1 14 n.a. n.a. n.a.Austria 387 39,021 0 39,408 229 0.01 0.20 3.26 2.99 1 15 13 16 25Italy 15,613 18,834 0 34,447 7,151 0.83 0.18 0.27 3.29 1 16 16 13 12Sweden 4,887 29,207 32 34,126 2,080 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.49 6 17 12 9 11Brazil 5,724 19,547 6,570 31,841 42,929 0.22 0.11 0.09 0.24 7 18 15 15 15Taiwan 2,201 27,413 1 29,615 14,811 0.08 0.06 0.12 0.29 1 19 14
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/usta.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/usta.wp
  • reason. Second, the X-Factor is calculated as the sum of two components, neither of which followed a trend during the period in question. In fact, their year-to-year fluctuations swamped the trend increments: Table 2 Year Difference between Difference between LEC & US changes in LEC and US changes total factor in inpu t prices productivity 1992 0.21 3.21 1993 1.44 3.26 1994 3.69 1.71 1995 1.78 5.04 1997 Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16,785. Where's the trend? As the underlying variables appear to be thrashing about wildly, the FCC's conclusion that the trend in the difference between the two had some predictive value requires explanation. C. Partial reliance on AT&T estimates Finally, the LECs argue that in its treatment of AT&T's
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/aol-tw/exparte/aol_response082800.pdf
  • as possible. To that end, AOL continues to seek agreements with additional DSL providers. [ ] 3.21Please explain whether the AOL Plus service is the only AOL service a consumer who wishes to use AOL as its DSL ISP can receive. If not, please identify other AOL ISP services delivered via DSL. As described more fully in response to Question 3.26 below, AOL Plus is not a distinct offering for which consumers separately sign up; rather, it is an enhancement of the standard AOL service available to anyone utilizing AOL 5.0 or above and accessing the service using a high- speed connection. AOL Plus offerings appear automatically to AOL subscribers who have logged on from a broadband connection. The first time
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/att-comcast/oppwp35.pdf
  • #1 Net Surplus and Seller #2 Net Surplus as dependent variables, a Shapiro-Wilkes test accepts the null hypothesis that the regression error term is normally distributed. The same test rejected the normality of the error terms in the regressions that employed Seller #3 Net Surplus and Seller #4 Net Surplus as dependent variables. 46 Observations = 24 F(3, 20) = 3.26 Prob > F = 0.04 R2 = .3338 Root MSE = 36.96 Seller #1 Net Surplus Coefficient (t-value) (95% Confidence. Interval) Low/High -48.75 (-2.22) -94.51 -2.98 High/High -59.50 (-2.93) -101.90-17.07 Period -5.46 (-.81) -19.55 8.62 Constant -70.71 (-1.46) -171.80 30.46 Table 18: Seller #1 Net Surplus Regression (CAP MFN Treatment) Observations = 24 F(3, 20) = 1.90 Prob > F