FCC Web Documents citing 1.728

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.pdf
  • Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, from Kathy Baker and Keith Liljestrand, representatives of Pulsar, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 15, 2009) (``Pulsar Memorandum''). Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 22, 2009) (``January 22 Letter''). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720, 1.724, 1.728. January 22 Letter at 2. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 27, 2009) (``January 27 Letter''). January 27 Letter at 3. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-326A1.txt
  • delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint filed by Genesis Communications International, Inc. against Pacific Bell on February 2, 1998, IS DENIED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 208, and Section 1.728(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.728(a), and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111 and 0.311, and in light of our action herein, that the Request for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum filed by Pacific Bell on September 29, 1998, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-418A1.txt
  • Commission against carriers within two years from the time the cause of action accrues ... .''). We therefore do not consider the telephone bills from Roger and Robin Barnes that list additional WorldCom charges, since these charges occurred in 1994, outside the statute of limitations period for this case. See supra note 13 and accompanying text. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.728(a) (where a formal complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, ``any amendment or supplement to such document will be considered a new filing which must be made within the statutory periods of limitations of actions contained in section 415 of the Communications Act.''). See Affidavit of Richard E. Jesmonth, counsel for complainants, dated July 2, 1999 at 2.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2040A1.txt
  • Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, from Kathy Baker and Keith Liljestrand, representatives of Pulsar, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 15, 2009) (``Pulsar Memorandum''). Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 22, 2009) (``January 22 Letter''). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720, 1.724, 1.728. January 22 Letter at 2. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 27, 2009) (``January 27 Letter''). January 27 Letter at 3. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.txt
  • Service reconnection 286 $29.20 0.699 286 $28.38 0.666 CableCARD, existing customer 279 $24.86 1.191 276 $24.37 1.173 CableCARD, new customer 279 $30.53 1.342 275 $29.86 1.289 Second cable operator subgroup (overall) Unwired residence 107 $43.99 1.515 107 $44.09 1.263 Pre-wired residence 107 $31.68 1.126 107 $31.80 1.035 Service reconnection 107 $27.45 1.305 107 $27.20 1.248 CableCARD, existing customer 105 $21.26 1.728 102 $19.81 1.537 CableCARD, new customer 105 $23.68 1.967 102 $21.94 1.818 Second cable operator subgroup (incumbents) Unwired residence 55 $44.13 1.465 55 $44.52 1.010 Pre-wired residence 55 $32.50 1.239 55 $31.70 1.131 Service reconnection 55 $27.25 1.583 55 $25.98 1.524 CableCARD, existing customer 55 $23.59 2.021 55 $22.63 1.829 CableCARD, new customer 55 $27.04 2.344 55 $25.74 2.203 Second
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284286A6.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284286A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284286A6.txt
  • any sections ``of the Communications Act and/or order and/or regulation of the Commission alleged to have been violated.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 1.721(a)(4). Additionally, our rules require dismissal in instances such as this one where a ``document purporting to be a formal complaint . . . does not state a cause of action under the Communications Act.'' 47 C.F.R. § 1.728(a). The complaint does not state a cause of action under the Communications Act because the Commission does not, in this case, have the authority to act in the absence of relevant rules. See Brand X, 545 U.S. at 976, 996. See, e.g., Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities; Universal Service Obligations of Broadband Providers; Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-303A1.txt
  • any particular species of forward-looking cost methodology, such as TELRIC. There is thus no inconsistency between the Eighth Circuit's decision and our rationale for dismissing these complaints. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and Section 1.728(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.728(a), that the formal complaints filed by AT&T Corporation, MCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmissions Services, Inc., ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Applications of NYNEX Corp., Transferor, and Bell Atlantic Corp., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of NYNEX Corp. and its Subsidiaries, Memorandum Opinion and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-182A1.txt
  • Blumenthal Ostroff & Markham, dated December 7, 2000 (stating, for example, that the complaint fails to comply with section 1.721(a)(12) which requires that each copy of the complaint filed with the Commission contain a Formal Complaint Intake Form and that the complaint does not include a summary or table of contents as required by section 1.49(b)-(c)). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.728(a). Amended Formal Complaint at 1. Id. Id. MCI WorldCom Answer at 17. See American Message Centers v. FCC, 50 F.3d 35, 41 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citing Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed Where Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1806, ¶ 8 (1988)); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.720; Amendment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-284A1.txt
  • of jurisdiction over this action. The dismissal of the instant Complaint without prejudice should thus clarify that section 207 poses no bar to TelePacific proceeding in the District Court. ordering clause ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and section 1.728 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.728, that the Complaint that TelePacific filed against Tel-America is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Amended Formal Complaint, File No. EB-04-MD-005 (filed May 20, 2004) (``Complaint''). TelePacific's original complaint was filed on May 5, 2004. 47 U.S.C. § 208. 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). See, e.g., In the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.txt
  • any sections ``of the Communications Act and/or order and/or regulation of the Commission alleged to have been violated.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 1.721(a)(4). Additionally, our rules require dismissal in instances such as this one where a ``document purporting to be a formal complaint . . . does not state a cause of action under the Communications Act.'' 47 C.F.R. § 1.728(a). The complaint does not state a cause of action under the Communications Act because the Commission does not, in this case, have the authority to act in the absence of relevant rules. See Brand X, 545 U.S. at 976, 996. See, e.g., Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities; Universal Service Obligations of Broadband Providers; Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A6.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A6.txt
  • any sections ``of the Communications Act and/or order and/or regulation of the Commission alleged to have been violated.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 1.721(a)(4). Additionally, our rules require dismissal in instances such as this one where a ``document purporting to be a formal complaint . . . does not state a cause of action under the Communications Act.'' 47 C.F.R. § 1.728(a). The complaint does not state a cause of action under the Communications Act because the Commission does not, in this case, have the authority to act in the absence of relevant rules. See Brand X, 545 U.S. at 976, 996. See, e.g., Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities; Universal Service Obligations of Broadband Providers; Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-56A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-56A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-56A1.txt
  • prior notice. NJ Rate Counsel/NASUCA Comments at 28. Petitioners advance their own interest in the timeliest possible review of the petition by notifying the relevant Bureau before filing. See Verizon Reply at 6-7 (arguing that the Commission should quickly deny defective petitions in order to conserve Commission and industry resources). Summary denial is without prejudice to refiling. Cf. 47 C.F.R. §1.728 (providing for dismissal of defective formal complaints). See Access Point Comments at 9-11 (arguing that the Commission should deny duplicative or repetitious petitions). It is entirely appropriate for a petitioner to amend and refile a defective petition, or one that has been found unsupported or unpersuasive. For that matter, the Commission may sua sponte incorporate a forbearance petition record in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.wp
  • prescribed under Sections 1.720 - 1.736 of the Commission's rules. Commission staff may grant waivers of, or exceptions to, particular requirements under Sections 1.720 - 1.736 for good cause shown; provided, however, that such waiver authority may not be exercised in a manner that relieves, or has the effect of relieving, a complainant of the obligation under sections 1.720 and 1.728 of the rules to allege facts which, if true, are sufficient to constitute a violation or violations of section 255 of the Act or this subpart. 6.22Formal complaints based on unsatisfied informal complaints A formal complaint filing based on an unsatisfied informal complaint filed pursuant to subsection 4.16 of this subpart shall be deemed to relate back to the filing
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-182A1.html
  • Blumenthal Ostroff & Markham, dated December 7, 2000 (stating, for example, that the complaint fails to comply with section 1.721(a)(12) which requires that each copy of the complaint filed with the Commission contain a Formal Complaint Intake Form and that the complaint does not include a summary or table of contents as required by section 1.49(b)-(c)). 11 See 47 C.F.R. 1.728(a). 12 Amended Formal Complaint at 1. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 MCI WorldCom Answer at 17. 16 See American Message Centers v. FCC, 50 F.3d 35, 41 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citing Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed Where Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1806, 8 (1988)); see also 47
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-284A1.html
  • jurisdiction over this action. The dismissal of the instant Complaint without prejudice should thus clarify that section 207 poses no bar to TelePacific proceeding in the District Court.32 III. ORDERING CLAUSE 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and section 1.728 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.728, that the Complaint that TelePacific filed against Tel-America is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary _________________________ 1 Amended Formal Complaint, File No. EB-04-MD-005 (filed May 20, 2004) (``Complaint''). TelePacific's original complaint was filed on May 5, 2004. 247 U.S.C. 208. 347 U.S.C. 201(b). 4See, e.g., In the Matter
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2040A1.html
  • Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, from Kathy Baker and Keith Liljestrand, representatives of Pulsar, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 15, 2009) ("Pulsar Memorandum"). Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 22, 2009) ("January 22 Letter"). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720, 1.724, 1.728. January 22 Letter at 2. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and Kathy Baker, representatives of Pulsar, from Jacqueline Spindler, FCC, File No. EB-08-MD-011 (Jan. 27, 2009) ("January 27 Letter"). January 27 Letter at 3. Letter to Albert H. Kramer and Jacob S. Farber, counsel for APCC, and Keith Liljestrand and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00303.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00303.txt
  • any particular species of forward-looking cost methodology, such as TELRIC. There is thus no inconsistency between the Eighth Circuit's decision and our rationale for dismissing these complaints. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and Section 1.728(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.728(a), that the formal complaints filed by AT&T Corporation, MCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmissions Services, Inc., ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Applications of NYNEX Corp., Transferor, and Bell Atlantic Corp., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of NYNEX Corp. and its Subsidiaries, Memorandum Opinion and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-c.pdf
  • variable. 37 Table 4: 1997 Listening and Stations, by Type of Stations and Listening All Listening Non- Black Listening Black Listening Non- Hisp. Listening Hispanic Listening All Listening Non- Black Listening Black Listening Non- Hisp. Listening Hispanic Listening Dep. Var. = AQH*100 Dep. Var.= ln(AQH/(1-AQH)) Constant 14.142* (0.215) 12.586* (0.436) 15.067* (0.813) 14.829* (0.522) 17.474* (0.882) -1.801* (0.016) -1.923* (0.034) -1.728* (0.058) -1.748* (0.039) -1.566* (0.062) All Stations 0.067* (0.008) 0.005* (0.0006) Non-Black- Targeted Stations 0.120* (0.015) 0.068* (0.028) 0.009* (0.001) 0.005* (0.002) Black-Targeted Stations 0.038 (0.051) 0.313* (0.096) 0.003 (0.004) 0.022* (0.007) Non-Hispanic- Targeted Stations 0.044* (0.019) -0.027 (0.032) 0.003* (0.001) -0.002 (0.002) Hispanic-Targeted Stations -0.023 (0.042) 0.152* (0.072) -0.001 (0.003) 0.011* (0.005) R-sq 0.2120 0.3921 0.1347 0.1049 0.0958 0.2106
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.wp
  • prescribed under Sections 1.720 - 1.736 of the Commission's rules. Commission staff may grant waivers of, or exceptions to, particular requirements under Sections 1.720 - 1.736 for good cause shown; provided, however, that such waiver authority may not be exercised in a manner that relieves, or has the effect of relieving, a complainant of the obligation under sections 1.720 and 1.728 of the rules to allege facts which, if true, are sufficient to constitute a violation or violations of section 255 of the Act or this subpart. 6.22Formal complaints based on unsatisfied informal complaints A formal complaint filing based on an unsatisfied informal complaint filed pursuant to subsection 4.16 of this subpart shall be deemed to relate back to the filing
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-f01.pdf
  • $97 0.025.8 0.0 0.074.2 10,626 0.058.1 0.0 3.638.3 Pacific Islands (Palau) $1,635,830 0.043.612.522.021.9 $346,352 0.030.4 6.9 6.256.5 $491,564 0.039.6 0.042.917.4 2,778,906 0.030.016.013.840.2 Papua New Guinea $736,559 0.032.520.044.0 3.5 $75,631 0.030.0 0.065.8 4.2 $26,823 0.086.3 0.010.0 3.7 1,665,529 0.013.425.356.7 4.7 Solomon Islands $662,846 0.011.856.330.2 1.6 $817 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $2,099 0.0100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 480,857 0.012.629.953.1 4.4 Tonga $5,864,750 0.054.1 1.728.615.6 $279,036 0.011.5 0.040.148.5 $254,776 0.098.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 6,338,512 0.048.3 1.834.715.2 Tuvalu $2,198,087 0.0 0.390.7 0.0 9.0 $1,611 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $0 848,860 0.0 0.472.9 0.026.7 Vanuatu $3,618,580 0.0 6.592.4 0.0 1.1 $2,699 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $851 0.040.8 0.0 0.059.2 1,224,828 0.0 5.191.7 0.0 3.2 Wallis and Futuna $382,742 0.0 2.596.9 0.0 0.5 $99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000326.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000326.txt
  • delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint filed by Genesis Communications International, Inc. against Pacific Bell on February 2, 1998, IS DENIED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 208, and Section 1.728(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.728(a), and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111 and 0.311, and in light of our action herein, that the Request for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum filed by Pacific Bell on September 29, 1998, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000418.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000418.txt
  • Commission against carriers within two years from the time the cause of action accrues ... .''). We therefore do not consider the telephone bills from Roger and Robin Barnes that list additional WorldCom charges, since these charges occurred in 1994, outside the statute of limitations period for this case. See supra note 13 and accompanying text. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.728(a) (where a formal complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, ``any amendment or supplement to such document will be considered a new filing which must be made within the statutory periods of limitations of actions contained in section 415 of the Communications Act.''). See Affidavit of Richard E. Jesmonth, counsel for complainants, dated July 2, 1999 at 2.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00303.doc
  • any particular species of forward-looking cost methodology, such as TELRIC. There is thus no inconsistency between the Eighth Circuit's decision and our rationale for dismissing these complaints. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and Section 1.728(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.728(a), that the formal complaints filed by AT&T Corporation, MCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmissions Services, Inc., ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Applications of NYNEX Corp., Transferor, and Bell Atlantic Corp., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of NYNEX Corp. and its Subsidiaries, Memorandum Opinion and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-182A1.html
  • Blumenthal Ostroff & Markham, dated December 7, 2000 (stating, for example, that the complaint fails to comply with section 1.721(a)(12) which requires that each copy of the complaint filed with the Commission contain a Formal Complaint Intake Form and that the complaint does not include a summary or table of contents as required by section 1.49(b)-(c)). 11 See 47 C.F.R. 1.728(a). 12 Amended Formal Complaint at 1. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 MCI WorldCom Answer at 17. 16 See American Message Centers v. FCC, 50 F.3d 35, 41 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citing Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed Where Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1806, 8 (1988)); see also 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-284A1.html
  • jurisdiction over this action. The dismissal of the instant Complaint without prejudice should thus clarify that section 207 poses no bar to TelePacific proceeding in the District Court.32 III. ORDERING CLAUSE 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and section 1.728 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.728, that the Complaint that TelePacific filed against Tel-America is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary _________________________ 1 Amended Formal Complaint, File No. EB-04-MD-005 (filed May 20, 2004) (``Complaint''). TelePacific's original complaint was filed on May 5, 2004. 247 U.S.C. 208. 347 U.S.C. 201(b). 4See, e.g., In the Matter
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00303.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00303.txt
  • any particular species of forward-looking cost methodology, such as TELRIC. There is thus no inconsistency between the Eighth Circuit's decision and our rationale for dismissing these complaints. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and Section 1.728(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.728(a), that the formal complaints filed by AT&T Corporation, MCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmissions Services, Inc., ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Applications of NYNEX Corp., Transferor, and Bell Atlantic Corp., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of NYNEX Corp. and its Subsidiaries, Memorandum Opinion and
• http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-c.pdf
  • variable. 37 Table 4: 1997 Listening and Stations, by Type of Stations and Listening All Listening Non- Black Listening Black Listening Non- Hisp. Listening Hispanic Listening All Listening Non- Black Listening Black Listening Non- Hisp. Listening Hispanic Listening Dep. Var. = AQH*100 Dep. Var.= ln(AQH/(1-AQH)) Constant 14.142* (0.215) 12.586* (0.436) 15.067* (0.813) 14.829* (0.522) 17.474* (0.882) -1.801* (0.016) -1.923* (0.034) -1.728* (0.058) -1.748* (0.039) -1.566* (0.062) All Stations 0.067* (0.008) 0.005* (0.0006) Non-Black- Targeted Stations 0.120* (0.015) 0.068* (0.028) 0.009* (0.001) 0.005* (0.002) Black-Targeted Stations 0.038 (0.051) 0.313* (0.096) 0.003 (0.004) 0.022* (0.007) Non-Hispanic- Targeted Stations 0.044* (0.019) -0.027 (0.032) 0.003* (0.001) -0.002 (0.002) Hispanic-Targeted Stations -0.023 (0.042) 0.152* (0.072) -0.001 (0.003) 0.011* (0.005) R-sq 0.2120 0.3921 0.1347 0.1049 0.0958 0.2106