FCC Web Documents citing 63.505

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 06 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.pdf
  • in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 258 and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120; (b) $3,000 for the failure to file a sworn statement or a Registration Statement in violation of a Commission directive and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1195; and (c) $120,000 for the unauthorized discontinuance of service to a community in violation of 47 U.S.C. §214 and 47 C.F.R. §§63.71 and 63.505. The Presiding Judge in the earlier proceeding determined that BOI: (a) changed the long distance provider of a subscriber without authorization 16 times; (b) failed to file an FCC Form 499-A; and (c) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of Section 214 of the Act and Sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. In addition,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2580A1.txt
  • U.S.C. § 214, for authority to discontinue the provision of occasional-use television, occasional-use IBS and part-time IBS services by COMSAT World Systems (``World Systems'') on routes where World Systems is regulated as dominant, pursuant to the Commission's decision In the Matter of COMSAT Corporation, 13 FCC Rcd 14083 (1998), in accordance with the provisions of Section 63.19, 63.62, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.19, 63.62, 63.71, and 63.505. COMSAT wholly-owns World Systems. World System's proposed discontinuance of provision of occasional-use TV, occasional-use IBS and part-time IBS will also affect international routes on which COMSAT is classified as dominant pursuant to Section 63.10 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 63.10. COMSAT also will discontinue service on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2904A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2904A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2904A1.txt
  • OPINION and ORDER Adopted: December 17, 2001 Released: December 18, 2001 By the Chief, International Bureau: introduction and background On November 1, 2001, COMSAT Corporation (COMSAT) filed an application pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), to discontinue the provision of certain international services. Specifically COMSAT requests, pursuant to Sections 63.19(b), 63.62, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules, the authority to discontinue the provision of occasional-use television, occasional-use IBS, and part-time IBS services provided over the Intelsat system by its COMSAT World Systems (World Systems) line of business on routes where World Systems is regulated as dominant. COMSAT and its World Systems business are currently regulated as dominant on certain U.S.-international routes pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-968A1.txt
  • No. 20023217-0001 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 26, 2002 Released: April 29, 2002 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that BroadStreet Communications, Inc. (``BroadStreet'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in Baltimore, Maryland, and Norfolk, Virginia, as well as all of its long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that BroadStreet is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-621A1.txt
  • FRN: 0003793205 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 4, 2003 Released: March 6, 2003 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Arbros Communications, Inc. (``Arbros'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. as well as all of its interstate long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. As a result, Arbros's former customers apparently were without service for up to seven weeks, causing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-332A1.txt
  • FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 9, 2004 Released: February 10, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) against Arbros Communications, Inc. (``Arbros'') for violating section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., as well as all of its interstate long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. II. BACKGROUND 2. The facts and circumstances surrounding this case are set forth in the Notice
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-437A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-437A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-437A2.txt
  • ``Act'') and §§ 64.1100-1190 of the Commission's rules (Issue b); to determine whether BOI had failed to file FCC Form 499-A in willful or repeated violation of § 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Issue c); to determine whether BOI had discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of § 214 of the Act and §§ 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules (Issue d); to determine whether BOI's authorization pursuant to § 214 of the Act to operate as a common carrier should be revoked (Issue e); and to determine whether the BOI and/or its principals should be ordered to cease and desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244194A1.txt
  • authorization in willful or repeated violation of section 258 of the Act and sections 64.1100-1190 of the Commission's rules, (3) failed to file FCC Form 499-A in willful or repeated violation of section 64.1195 of the Commission's rules, and (4) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of section 214 of the Act and sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. The Commission ordered BOI to show cause why BOI's operating authority under section 214 of the Act should not be revoked and why BOI's principals should not be ordered to cease and desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. The Order to Show Cause put BOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-68A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-68A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-68A1.txt
  • BOI Violated Section 214 of the Act and the Commission's Related Rules 29. BOI's application for authorization appears to show that BOI did not meet its obligations as a common carrier to adequately notify its customers of the discontinuance or seek Commission approval before it discontinued service, in apparent violation of section 214(a) of the Act and sections 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. Section 214(a) has an essential role in the Commission's efforts to protect consumers. Unless the Commission has the ability to determine whether a discontinuance of service is in the public interest, it cannot protect customers from having essential services cut off without adequate warning, or ensure that these customers have other viable alternatives. 30. Under the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-68A1_Erratum.doc
  • BOI Violated Section 214 of the Act and the Commission's Related Rules 29. BOI's application for authorization appears to show that BOI did not meet its obligations as a common carrier to adequately notify its customers of the discontinuance or seek Commission approval before it discontinued service, in apparent violation of section 214(a) of the Act and sections 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. Section 214(a) has an essential role in the Commission's efforts to protect consumers. Unless the Commission has the ability to determine whether a discontinuance of service is in the public interest, it cannot protect customers from having essential services cut off without adequate warning, or ensure that these customers have other viable alternatives. 30. Under the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.txt
  • in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 258 and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120; (b) $3,000 for the failure to file a sworn statement or a Registration Statement in violation of a Commission directive and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1195; and (c) $120,000 for the unauthorized discontinuance of service to a community in violation of 47 U.S.C. §214 and 47 C.F.R. §§63.71 and 63.505. The Presiding Judge in the earlier proceeding determined that BOI: (a) changed the long distance provider of a subscriber without authorization 16 times; (b) failed to file an FCC Form 499-A; and (c) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of Section 214 of the Act and Sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. In addition,
• 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
  • the definition of such term.'' 47 U.S.C. § 153(26). We note that an existing incumbent LEC's ability to discontinue such services would be contingent upon Commission approval based on, among other things, a ``[s]tatement of the factors showing that neither present nor future public convenience and necessity would be adversely affected by the granting of the application.'' 47 C.F.R. § 63.505(i). The provider might continue to offer special access services, for example, and thus remain a local exchange carrier (and thus an incumbent LEC) on that basis. See, e.g., Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities et al., CC Docket Nos. 02-33, 01-337, 95-20, 98-10, WC Docket Nos. 04-242, 05-271, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-968A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 26, 2002 Released: April 29, 2002 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''),1 we find that BroadStreet Communications, Inc. (``BroadStreet'')2 apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),3 and sections 63.61, 63.63, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules4 by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in Baltimore, Maryland, and Norfolk, Virginia, as well as all of its long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that BroadStreet is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-621A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 4, 2003 Released: March 6, 2003 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''),1 we find that Arbros Communications, Inc. (``Arbros'')2 apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),3 and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules4 by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. as well as all of its interstate long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. As a result, Arbros's former customers apparently were without service for up to seven weeks, causing
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-68A1.html
  • BOI Violated Section 214 of the Act and the Commission's Related Rules 29. BOI's application for authorization appears to show that BOI did not meet its obligations as a common carrier to adequately notify its customers of the discontinuance or seek Commission approval before it discontinued service, in apparent violation of section 214(a) of the Act and sections 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. Section 214(a) has an essential role in the Commission's efforts to protect consumers. Unless the Commission has the ability to determine whether a discontinuance of service is in the public interest, it cannot protect customers from having essential services cut off without adequate warning, or ensure that these customers have other viable alternatives.65 30. Under the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-332A1.html
  • FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 9, 2004 Released: February 10, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) against Arbros Communications, Inc. (``Arbros'') for violating section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'')1 and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules2 by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., as well as all of its interstate long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. II. BACKGROUND 2. The facts and circumstances surrounding this case are set forth in the Notice
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DOC-244194A1.html
  • in willful or repeated violation of section 258 of the Act2 and sections 64.1100- 1190 of the Commission's rules,3 (3) failed to file FCC Form 499-A in willful or repeated violation of section 64.1195 of the Commission's rules,4 and (4) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of section 214 of the Act5 and sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules.6 The Commission ordered BOI to show cause why BOI's operating authority under section 214 of the Act7 should not be revoked and why BOI's principals should not be ordered to cease and desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. The Order to Show Cause put BOI
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-165A1.html
  • in violation of 47 U.S.C. S: 258 and 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1120; (b) $3,000 for the failure to file a sworn statement or a Registration Statement in violation of a Commission directive and 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1195; and (c) $120,000 for the unauthorized discontinuance of service to a community in violation of 47 U.S.C. S:214 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:63.71 and 63.505. The Presiding Judge in the earlier proceeding determined that BOI: (a) changed the long distance provider of a subscriber without authorization 16 times; (b) failed to file an FCC Form 499-A; and (c) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of Section 214 of the Act and Sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. In addition,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-04-437A2.html
  • 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and 64.1100-1190 of the Commission's rules (Issue b); to determine whether BOI had failed to file FCC Form 499-A in willful or repeated violation of 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Issue c); to determine whether BOI had discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of 214 of the Act and 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules (Issue d); to determine whether BOI's authorization pursuant to 214 of the Act to operate as a common carrier should be revoked (Issue e); and to determine whether the BOI and/or its principals should be ordered to cease and desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1997/dd970331.html
  • compatible (HAC) and are manufactured in the United States (other than for export), or imported for use in the United States, must have the letters "HAC" permanently affixed thereto. Action by Deputy Bureau Chief, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: March 28, 1997. by Order. (DA No. 97-643). CCB Internet URL: [11]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/da970643.txt U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Ordered that Sections 63.90 and 63.505(1) of the Comission's rules are waived and granted U S West's application to discontinue service over facilities in eight South Dakota exchanges. Action by Chief, Network Services Division. Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: March 27, 1997. by Order & Certificate. (DA No. 97-638). CCB Internet URL: [12]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/da970638.txt ENTERPRISE MEDIA OF TOLEDO, L.P. Granted, with appropriate remedies and sanctions, Enterprise Media of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2002/dd020429.html
  • 175 Applications to Participate in the Auction. WTB. Contact: Denise Coca or Jeff Crooks at (202) 418-0660; Barbara Sibert at (717) 338-2829 [29]DA-02-965A1.doc [30]DA-02-965A1.pdf [31]DA-02-965A2.pdf [32]DA-02-965A3.pdf [33]DA-02-965A1.txt [34]DA-02-965A2.txt [35]DA-02-965A3.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- BROADSTREET COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (BROADSTREET). Issued forfeiture in the amount of $15,000 to Broadstreet for violating section 214(a) of the Communications Act and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the FCC's rules by discontinuing service on three separate occasions without FCC authorization. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 04/26/2002 by NALF. (DA No. 02-968). EB [36]DA-02-968A1.doc [37]DA-02-968A1.pdf [38]DA-02-968A1.txt COXCOM, INC. D/B/A COX COMMUNICATIONS NEW ENGLAND. Granted appeal and remanded for further consideration the local rate order of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy for the Town of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-968A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 26, 2002 Released: April 29, 2002 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''),1 we find that BroadStreet Communications, Inc. (``BroadStreet'')2 apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),3 and sections 63.61, 63.63, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules4 by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in Baltimore, Maryland, and Norfolk, Virginia, as well as all of its long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that BroadStreet is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-621A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 4, 2003 Released: March 6, 2003 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''),1 we find that Arbros Communications, Inc. (``Arbros'')2 apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),3 and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules4 by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. as well as all of its interstate long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. As a result, Arbros's former customers apparently were without service for up to seven weeks, causing
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-68A1.html
  • BOI Violated Section 214 of the Act and the Commission's Related Rules 29. BOI's application for authorization appears to show that BOI did not meet its obligations as a common carrier to adequately notify its customers of the discontinuance or seek Commission approval before it discontinued service, in apparent violation of section 214(a) of the Act and sections 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. Section 214(a) has an essential role in the Commission's efforts to protect consumers. Unless the Commission has the ability to determine whether a discontinuance of service is in the public interest, it cannot protect customers from having essential services cut off without adequate warning, or ensure that these customers have other viable alternatives.65 30. Under the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-332A1.html
  • FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 9, 2004 Released: February 10, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) against Arbros Communications, Inc. (``Arbros'') for violating section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'')1 and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules2 by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., as well as all of its interstate long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. II. BACKGROUND 2. The facts and circumstances surrounding this case are set forth in the Notice
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DOC-244194A1.html
  • in willful or repeated violation of section 258 of the Act2 and sections 64.1100- 1190 of the Commission's rules,3 (3) failed to file FCC Form 499-A in willful or repeated violation of section 64.1195 of the Commission's rules,4 and (4) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of section 214 of the Act5 and sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules.6 The Commission ordered BOI to show cause why BOI's operating authority under section 214 of the Act7 should not be revoked and why BOI's principals should not be ordered to cease and desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. The Order to Show Cause put BOI
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-165A1.html
  • in violation of 47 U.S.C. S: 258 and 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1120; (b) $3,000 for the failure to file a sworn statement or a Registration Statement in violation of a Commission directive and 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1195; and (c) $120,000 for the unauthorized discontinuance of service to a community in violation of 47 U.S.C. S:214 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:63.71 and 63.505. The Presiding Judge in the earlier proceeding determined that BOI: (a) changed the long distance provider of a subscriber without authorization 16 times; (b) failed to file an FCC Form 499-A; and (c) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of Section 214 of the Act and Sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. In addition,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-04-437A2.html
  • 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and 64.1100-1190 of the Commission's rules (Issue b); to determine whether BOI had failed to file FCC Form 499-A in willful or repeated violation of 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Issue c); to determine whether BOI had discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of 214 of the Act and 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules (Issue d); to determine whether BOI's authorization pursuant to 214 of the Act to operate as a common carrier should be revoked (Issue e); and to determine whether the BOI and/or its principals should be ordered to cease and desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/telecomrules.html
  • original or any copies with the fee payment. For applications and other filings that are not submitted electronically, an original and five (5) copies of the submission must be filed with the Commission. Upon request by the Commission additonal copies shall be furnished. (b) No application accepted for filing and subject to the provisions of [131] 63.18 , 63.62 or 63.505 shall be granted by the Commission earlier than 28 days following issuance of public notice by the Commission of the acceptance for filing of such application or any major amendment unless said public notice specifies another time period, or the application qualifies for streamlined processing pursuant to [132] 63.12 . (c) No application accepted for filing and subject to the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.pdf
  • in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 258 and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120; (b) $3,000 for the failure to file a sworn statement or a Registration Statement in violation of a Commission directive and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1195; and (c) $120,000 for the unauthorized discontinuance of service to a community in violation of 47 U.S.C. §214 and 47 C.F.R. §§63.71 and 63.505. The Presiding Judge in the earlier proceeding determined that BOI: (a) changed the long distance provider of a subscriber without authorization 16 times; (b) failed to file an FCC Form 499-A; and (c) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of Section 214 of the Act and Sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. In addition,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2580A1.txt
  • U.S.C. § 214, for authority to discontinue the provision of occasional-use television, occasional-use IBS and part-time IBS services by COMSAT World Systems (``World Systems'') on routes where World Systems is regulated as dominant, pursuant to the Commission's decision In the Matter of COMSAT Corporation, 13 FCC Rcd 14083 (1998), in accordance with the provisions of Section 63.19, 63.62, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.19, 63.62, 63.71, and 63.505. COMSAT wholly-owns World Systems. World System's proposed discontinuance of provision of occasional-use TV, occasional-use IBS and part-time IBS will also affect international routes on which COMSAT is classified as dominant pursuant to Section 63.10 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 63.10. COMSAT also will discontinue service on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2904A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2904A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2904A1.txt
  • OPINION and ORDER Adopted: December 17, 2001 Released: December 18, 2001 By the Chief, International Bureau: introduction and background On November 1, 2001, COMSAT Corporation (COMSAT) filed an application pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), to discontinue the provision of certain international services. Specifically COMSAT requests, pursuant to Sections 63.19(b), 63.62, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules, the authority to discontinue the provision of occasional-use television, occasional-use IBS, and part-time IBS services provided over the Intelsat system by its COMSAT World Systems (World Systems) line of business on routes where World Systems is regulated as dominant. COMSAT and its World Systems business are currently regulated as dominant on certain U.S.-international routes pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-968A1.txt
  • No. 20023217-0001 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 26, 2002 Released: April 29, 2002 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that BroadStreet Communications, Inc. (``BroadStreet'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in Baltimore, Maryland, and Norfolk, Virginia, as well as all of its long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that BroadStreet is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-621A1.txt
  • FRN: 0003793205 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 4, 2003 Released: March 6, 2003 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Arbros Communications, Inc. (``Arbros'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. as well as all of its interstate long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. As a result, Arbros's former customers apparently were without service for up to seven weeks, causing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-332A1.txt
  • FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 9, 2004 Released: February 10, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) against Arbros Communications, Inc. (``Arbros'') for violating section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., as well as all of its interstate long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. II. BACKGROUND 2. The facts and circumstances surrounding this case are set forth in the Notice
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-437A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-437A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-437A2.txt
  • ``Act'') and §§ 64.1100-1190 of the Commission's rules (Issue b); to determine whether BOI had failed to file FCC Form 499-A in willful or repeated violation of § 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Issue c); to determine whether BOI had discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of § 214 of the Act and §§ 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules (Issue d); to determine whether BOI's authorization pursuant to § 214 of the Act to operate as a common carrier should be revoked (Issue e); and to determine whether the BOI and/or its principals should be ordered to cease and desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244194A1.txt
  • authorization in willful or repeated violation of section 258 of the Act and sections 64.1100-1190 of the Commission's rules, (3) failed to file FCC Form 499-A in willful or repeated violation of section 64.1195 of the Commission's rules, and (4) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of section 214 of the Act and sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. The Commission ordered BOI to show cause why BOI's operating authority under section 214 of the Act should not be revoked and why BOI's principals should not be ordered to cease and desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. The Order to Show Cause put BOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-68A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-68A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-68A1.txt
  • BOI Violated Section 214 of the Act and the Commission's Related Rules 29. BOI's application for authorization appears to show that BOI did not meet its obligations as a common carrier to adequately notify its customers of the discontinuance or seek Commission approval before it discontinued service, in apparent violation of section 214(a) of the Act and sections 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. Section 214(a) has an essential role in the Commission's efforts to protect consumers. Unless the Commission has the ability to determine whether a discontinuance of service is in the public interest, it cannot protect customers from having essential services cut off without adequate warning, or ensure that these customers have other viable alternatives. 30. Under the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-68A1_Erratum.doc
  • BOI Violated Section 214 of the Act and the Commission's Related Rules 29. BOI's application for authorization appears to show that BOI did not meet its obligations as a common carrier to adequately notify its customers of the discontinuance or seek Commission approval before it discontinued service, in apparent violation of section 214(a) of the Act and sections 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. Section 214(a) has an essential role in the Commission's efforts to protect consumers. Unless the Commission has the ability to determine whether a discontinuance of service is in the public interest, it cannot protect customers from having essential services cut off without adequate warning, or ensure that these customers have other viable alternatives. 30. Under the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.txt
  • in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 258 and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120; (b) $3,000 for the failure to file a sworn statement or a Registration Statement in violation of a Commission directive and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1195; and (c) $120,000 for the unauthorized discontinuance of service to a community in violation of 47 U.S.C. §214 and 47 C.F.R. §§63.71 and 63.505. The Presiding Judge in the earlier proceeding determined that BOI: (a) changed the long distance provider of a subscriber without authorization 16 times; (b) failed to file an FCC Form 499-A; and (c) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of Section 214 of the Act and Sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. In addition,
• 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
  • the definition of such term.'' 47 U.S.C. § 153(26). We note that an existing incumbent LEC's ability to discontinue such services would be contingent upon Commission approval based on, among other things, a ``[s]tatement of the factors showing that neither present nor future public convenience and necessity would be adversely affected by the granting of the application.'' 47 C.F.R. § 63.505(i). The provider might continue to offer special access services, for example, and thus remain a local exchange carrier (and thus an incumbent LEC) on that basis. See, e.g., Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities et al., CC Docket Nos. 02-33, 01-337, 95-20, 98-10, WC Docket Nos. 04-242, 05-271, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-968A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 26, 2002 Released: April 29, 2002 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''),1 we find that BroadStreet Communications, Inc. (``BroadStreet'')2 apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),3 and sections 63.61, 63.63, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules4 by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in Baltimore, Maryland, and Norfolk, Virginia, as well as all of its long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that BroadStreet is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-621A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 4, 2003 Released: March 6, 2003 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''),1 we find that Arbros Communications, Inc. (``Arbros'')2 apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),3 and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules4 by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. as well as all of its interstate long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. As a result, Arbros's former customers apparently were without service for up to seven weeks, causing
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-68A1.html
  • BOI Violated Section 214 of the Act and the Commission's Related Rules 29. BOI's application for authorization appears to show that BOI did not meet its obligations as a common carrier to adequately notify its customers of the discontinuance or seek Commission approval before it discontinued service, in apparent violation of section 214(a) of the Act and sections 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. Section 214(a) has an essential role in the Commission's efforts to protect consumers. Unless the Commission has the ability to determine whether a discontinuance of service is in the public interest, it cannot protect customers from having essential services cut off without adequate warning, or ensure that these customers have other viable alternatives.65 30. Under the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-332A1.html
  • FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 9, 2004 Released: February 10, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) against Arbros Communications, Inc. (``Arbros'') for violating section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'')1 and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules2 by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., as well as all of its interstate long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. II. BACKGROUND 2. The facts and circumstances surrounding this case are set forth in the Notice
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DOC-244194A1.html
  • in willful or repeated violation of section 258 of the Act2 and sections 64.1100- 1190 of the Commission's rules,3 (3) failed to file FCC Form 499-A in willful or repeated violation of section 64.1195 of the Commission's rules,4 and (4) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of section 214 of the Act5 and sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules.6 The Commission ordered BOI to show cause why BOI's operating authority under section 214 of the Act7 should not be revoked and why BOI's principals should not be ordered to cease and desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. The Order to Show Cause put BOI
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-165A1.html
  • in violation of 47 U.S.C. S: 258 and 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1120; (b) $3,000 for the failure to file a sworn statement or a Registration Statement in violation of a Commission directive and 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1195; and (c) $120,000 for the unauthorized discontinuance of service to a community in violation of 47 U.S.C. S:214 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:63.71 and 63.505. The Presiding Judge in the earlier proceeding determined that BOI: (a) changed the long distance provider of a subscriber without authorization 16 times; (b) failed to file an FCC Form 499-A; and (c) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of Section 214 of the Act and Sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. In addition,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-04-437A2.html
  • 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and 64.1100-1190 of the Commission's rules (Issue b); to determine whether BOI had failed to file FCC Form 499-A in willful or repeated violation of 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Issue c); to determine whether BOI had discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of 214 of the Act and 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules (Issue d); to determine whether BOI's authorization pursuant to 214 of the Act to operate as a common carrier should be revoked (Issue e); and to determine whether the BOI and/or its principals should be ordered to cease and desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1997/dd970331.html
  • compatible (HAC) and are manufactured in the United States (other than for export), or imported for use in the United States, must have the letters "HAC" permanently affixed thereto. Action by Deputy Bureau Chief, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: March 28, 1997. by Order. (DA No. 97-643). CCB Internet URL: [11]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/da970643.txt U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Ordered that Sections 63.90 and 63.505(1) of the Comission's rules are waived and granted U S West's application to discontinue service over facilities in eight South Dakota exchanges. Action by Chief, Network Services Division. Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: March 27, 1997. by Order & Certificate. (DA No. 97-638). CCB Internet URL: [12]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/da970638.txt ENTERPRISE MEDIA OF TOLEDO, L.P. Granted, with appropriate remedies and sanctions, Enterprise Media of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2002/dd020429.html
  • 175 Applications to Participate in the Auction. WTB. Contact: Denise Coca or Jeff Crooks at (202) 418-0660; Barbara Sibert at (717) 338-2829 [29]DA-02-965A1.doc [30]DA-02-965A1.pdf [31]DA-02-965A2.pdf [32]DA-02-965A3.pdf [33]DA-02-965A1.txt [34]DA-02-965A2.txt [35]DA-02-965A3.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- BROADSTREET COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (BROADSTREET). Issued forfeiture in the amount of $15,000 to Broadstreet for violating section 214(a) of the Communications Act and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the FCC's rules by discontinuing service on three separate occasions without FCC authorization. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 04/26/2002 by NALF. (DA No. 02-968). EB [36]DA-02-968A1.doc [37]DA-02-968A1.pdf [38]DA-02-968A1.txt COXCOM, INC. D/B/A COX COMMUNICATIONS NEW ENGLAND. Granted appeal and remanded for further consideration the local rate order of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy for the Town of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-968A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 26, 2002 Released: April 29, 2002 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''),1 we find that BroadStreet Communications, Inc. (``BroadStreet'')2 apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),3 and sections 63.61, 63.63, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules4 by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in Baltimore, Maryland, and Norfolk, Virginia, as well as all of its long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that BroadStreet is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-621A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 4, 2003 Released: March 6, 2003 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''),1 we find that Arbros Communications, Inc. (``Arbros'')2 apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),3 and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules4 by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. as well as all of its interstate long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. As a result, Arbros's former customers apparently were without service for up to seven weeks, causing
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-68A1.html
  • BOI Violated Section 214 of the Act and the Commission's Related Rules 29. BOI's application for authorization appears to show that BOI did not meet its obligations as a common carrier to adequately notify its customers of the discontinuance or seek Commission approval before it discontinued service, in apparent violation of section 214(a) of the Act and sections 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. Section 214(a) has an essential role in the Commission's efforts to protect consumers. Unless the Commission has the ability to determine whether a discontinuance of service is in the public interest, it cannot protect customers from having essential services cut off without adequate warning, or ensure that these customers have other viable alternatives.65 30. Under the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-332A1.html
  • FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 9, 2004 Released: February 10, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) against Arbros Communications, Inc. (``Arbros'') for violating section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'')1 and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules2 by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service in California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., as well as all of its interstate long distance service, before receiving authorization to do so from the Commission. II. BACKGROUND 2. The facts and circumstances surrounding this case are set forth in the Notice
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DOC-244194A1.html
  • in willful or repeated violation of section 258 of the Act2 and sections 64.1100- 1190 of the Commission's rules,3 (3) failed to file FCC Form 499-A in willful or repeated violation of section 64.1195 of the Commission's rules,4 and (4) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of section 214 of the Act5 and sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules.6 The Commission ordered BOI to show cause why BOI's operating authority under section 214 of the Act7 should not be revoked and why BOI's principals should not be ordered to cease and desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. The Order to Show Cause put BOI
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-165A1.html
  • in violation of 47 U.S.C. S: 258 and 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1120; (b) $3,000 for the failure to file a sworn statement or a Registration Statement in violation of a Commission directive and 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1195; and (c) $120,000 for the unauthorized discontinuance of service to a community in violation of 47 U.S.C. S:214 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:63.71 and 63.505. The Presiding Judge in the earlier proceeding determined that BOI: (a) changed the long distance provider of a subscriber without authorization 16 times; (b) failed to file an FCC Form 499-A; and (c) discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of Section 214 of the Act and Sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. In addition,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-04-437A2.html
  • 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and 64.1100-1190 of the Commission's rules (Issue b); to determine whether BOI had failed to file FCC Form 499-A in willful or repeated violation of 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Issue c); to determine whether BOI had discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of 214 of the Act and 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules (Issue d); to determine whether BOI's authorization pursuant to 214 of the Act to operate as a common carrier should be revoked (Issue e); and to determine whether the BOI and/or its principals should be ordered to cease and desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/telecomrules.html
  • original or any copies with the fee payment. For applications and other filings that are not submitted electronically, an original and five (5) copies of the submission must be filed with the Commission. Upon request by the Commission additonal copies shall be furnished. (b) No application accepted for filing and subject to the provisions of [131] 63.18 , 63.62 or 63.505 shall be granted by the Commission earlier than 28 days following issuance of public notice by the Commission of the acceptance for filing of such application or any major amendment unless said public notice specifies another time period, or the application qualifies for streamlined processing pursuant to [132] 63.12 . (c) No application accepted for filing and subject to the