FCC Web Documents citing 78.22

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-376A1_Rcd.pdf
  • license inventory announced in the Auction 78 Comment Public Notice, and we noted that Alpine's Stay Request was pending.21Addressing MetroPCS's Comments, the Auction 78 Procedures Public Noticestated that removing the "closed" bidding designation for certain of the PCS licenses would require modification of the Commission's rules and was beyond the scope of the proceeding to establish procedures for conducting Auction 78.22Additionally, we explained that, because MetroPCS's requested change regarding the applicability of section 1.2105(c) of theCommission's rules prohibiting certain communications would require a rule amendment, it was also outside of the scope of the proceeding.23 9.With respect to the implementation of our anonymous bidding procedures, the Auction 78 Procedures Public Noticeexplained why the Bureau rejected the suggestions made in MetroPCS's Comments.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.txt
  • Missouri MO 250,073 123,336 123,698 49.46 Sprint - United Telephone of Missouri MO 63,025 37,546 25,479 40.43 Qwest - Montana MT 46,373 27,094 19,269 41.55 ALLTEL - Nebraska NE 79,526 59,335 14,293 17.97 Qwest - Nebraska NE 39,487 15,250 24,229 61.36 Sprint - Central Telephone - Nevada NV 70,831 4,285 66,547 93.95 Verizon - Contel Nevada NV 4,724 1,028 3,695 78.22 AT&T - Pacific Telesis - Nevada Bell NV 19,708 730 18,700 94.89 Table 11.5 Net Income ($000) - 2005 11 - 11 Study Area State Code Subject to Separations Interstate Intrastate Percent Interstate Verizon New England - New Hampshire NH $21,377 ($2,861) $24,249 113.44 Verizon New Jersey NJ 319,710 13,959 305,736 95.63 Sprint - United Telephone Company of New Jersey
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A13.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A13.txt
  • Missouri MO 250,073 123,336 123,698 49.46 Sprint - United Telephone of Missouri MO 63,025 37,546 25,479 40.43 Qwest - Montana MT 46,373 27,094 19,269 41.55 ALLTEL - Nebraska NE 79,526 59,335 14,293 17.97 Qwest - Nebraska NE 39,487 15,250 24,229 61.36 Sprint - Central Telephone - Nevada NV 70,831 4,285 66,547 93.95 Verizon - Contel Nevada NV 4,724 1,028 3,695 78.22 AT&T - Pacific Telesis - Nevada Bell NV 19,708 730 18,700 94.89 Table 11.5 Net Income ($000) - 2005 11 - 11 Study Area State Code Subject to Separations Interstate Intrastate Percent Interstate Verizon New England - New Hampshire NH $21,377 ($2,861) $24,249 113.44 Verizon New Jersey NJ 319,710 13,959 305,736 95.63 Sprint - United Telephone Company of New Jersey
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-105A1.txt
  • initial and reply comments, parties filed six petitions to deny. The Commission has also received over 26,172 informal comments. On December 5, 2005, the Chief of the Media Bureau requested additional information from the Applicants. Applicants' separately filed responses to those requests are included in the record. Standing/Petitions to Deny. Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act, as amended, and section 78.22 of the Commission's rules require that a petition to deny contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that the petitioner is a party-in-interest and that grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest. Allegations of fact set forth in the petition must be supported by the affidavit of a person with personal knowledge of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/2000/fcc00165.doc
  • has been filed, the amendment shall be served on the petitioner. Sec. 78.20..........................Acceptance of Application; Public Notice. (a) Applications which are tendered for filing are dated upon receipt and then forwarded to the Cable Services Bureau where an administration examination is made to ascertain whether the applications are complete... Sec. 78.21.......................Dismissal of Applications. (a) ***no change*** (b) ***no change*** Sec. 78.22......................Objections to Applications. (a) Any party in interest may file a petition to deny an application, either manually or electronically (via COALS), to deny any application (whether as originally filed or as amended) no later than thirty (30) days after issuance of a public notice of the acceptance for filing of any such application or amendment thereto. Petitions to deny shall
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part78.pdf
  • § 78.1 Purpose. § 78.3 Other pertinent rules. § 78.5 Definitions. Subpart B-Applications and Licenses § 78.11 Permissible service. § 78.13 Eligibility for license. § 78.15 Contents of applications. § 78.16 Who may sign applications. § 78.17 Amendment of applications. § 78.18 Frequency assignments. § 78.19 Interference. § 78.20 Acceptance of applications; public notice. § 78.21 Dismissal of applications. § 78.22 Objections to applications. § 78.23 Equipment tests. § 78.27 License conditions. § 78.29 License period. § 78.30 Forfeiture and termination of station authorizations. § 78.31 Temporary extension of license. § 78.33 Special temporary authority. § 78.35 Assignment or transfer of control. § 78.36 Frequency coordination. § 78.40 Transition of the 1990­2025 MHz band from the Cable Television Relay Service to
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/aol-tw/exparte/cu_rplyopp052200.pdf
  • & Time Warner style their May 11, 2000 filing as Reply of America Online and Time Warner. Although the Commission's March 27, 2000 specified "Petitions/Comments" by April 26, 5 2000, and "Oppositions/Responses" by May 11, 2000, it did not provide a filing deadline for replies to oppositions. CU, et al. file this reply to AOL/TW's opposition pursuant to 47 CFR §78.22(b). CU, et al. have consistently objected to the Commission's misplaced effort to restrict citizen's rights to participating in agency proceedings by purporting to deny them reply rights in licensing proceedings. See Testimony of Andrew Jay Schwartzman in CS 99-251, February 4, 2000 at 4; Reply of CU, et al. to Opposition To Petition to Dismiss or Deny Application of AT&T/MediaOne,