FCC Web Documents citing 22.927

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-242A1.txt
  • . . location-determining hardware and/or software, which is used by a licensee to locate 911 calls.''). See ComCARE Alliance Comments at 6; Verizon Comments at 2; Toyota Reply Comments at 3. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.18(g)(1)(i)-(v). See 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(g). NENA, APCO, and NASNA Joint Comments at 2, 4. See 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(a). See generally, 47 C.F.R. § 22.927 (pertaining to licensee responsibility for mobile stations). See E911 Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17404, para. 32. See NENA, APCO, and NASNA Joint Comments at 2 (raising issue that the matter of Phase II compliance pertaining to OnStar's unit may affect carrier compliance). See OnStar Petition at 7. See Public Notice, ``Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Standardizes Carrier Reporting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-22A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-22A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-22A1.txt
  • should be reconsidered for a variety of reasons. For example, CTIA argues that this language conflicts with the WTPA by allowing those engaging in cloning to claim that they are acting consistent with Commission policy. Further, CTIA asserts that, with respect to cloned mobile stations, cellular carriers will not be able to exercise the ``effective operational control'' required by section 22.927 of the Commission's rules because carriers will not be able to distinguish one mobile station from the other. This inability to distinguish between the phones creates serious operational difficulties in the set up and delivery of calls simultaneously initiated by cloned phones. CTIA states that the Report and Order language may encourage entities not affiliated with carriers to offer ``cloning
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-22A1_Erratum.doc
  • should be reconsidered for a variety of reasons. For example, CTIA argues that this language conflicts with the WTPA by allowing those engaging in cloning to claim that they are acting consistent with Commission policy. Further, CTIA asserts that, with respect to cloned mobile stations, cellular carriers will not be able to exercise the ``effective operational control'' required by section 22.927 of the Commission's rules because carriers will not be able to distinguish one mobile station from the other. This inability to distinguish between the phones creates serious operational difficulties in the set up and delivery of calls simultaneously initiated by cloned phones. CTIA states that the Report and Order language may encourage entities not affiliated with carriers to offer ``cloning
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/04/releases/frao3253.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/04/releases/frao3253.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/04/releases/frao3253.wp
  • of Part 24 of our Rules, will govern application filing and content requirements, waiver procedures, procedures for return of defective applications, regulations regarding modification of applications, and general application processing rules. We also adopt petition to deny procedures based on Section 22.30 of the Commission's Rules. In addition, as we proposed in the Notice, we adopt rules similar to Sections 22.927, 22.928 and 22.929 of our existing rules (47 C.F.R. §§ 22.927, 22.928, 22.929) to prevent the filing of speculative applications and pleadings (or threats of the same) designed to extract money from sincere broadband PCS applicants. In this regard, we limit the consideration that an applicant or petitioner is permitted to receive for agreeing to withdraw an application or a
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/bip_def.pdf
  • result in: (1) A major change in the ownership of an applicant to which §§ 24.823(c) and 24.823(g) apply or which would cause the applicant to lose its status as a designated entity under § 24.709, or (2) The individual or mutual withdrawal, amendment or dismissal of any pending application, amendment, petition or other pleading. (b) The provisions of § 22.927 of the Commission's Rules will apply in the event of the filing of petitions to deny or other pleadings or informal objections filed against broadband PCS applications. The provisions of § 22.928 of the Commission's Rules will apply in the event of dismissal of broadband PCS applications. The provisions of § 22.929 of the Commission's Rules will apply in the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00246.doc
  • 20.12 of this chapter. A cellular system licensee may refuse or terminate service, however, subject to any applicable state or local requirements for timely notification, to any subscriber who operates a cellular telephone in an airborne aircraft in violation of Sec. 22.925 or otherwise fails to cooperate with the licensee in exercising operational control over mobile stations pursuant to Sec. 22.927. *** (d) Alternative technologies and co-primary services. Licensees of cellular systems may use alternative cellular technologies and/or provide fixed services on a co-primary basis with their mobile offerings, including personal communications services (as defined in Part 24 of this chapter) on the spectrum within their assigned channel block. Cellular carriers that provide mobile services must make such service available to