FCC Web Documents citing 1.732

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.pdf
  • at 32-34. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Reply, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed June 12, 2009) (``Reply'') at 5, ¶ 11. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320. Reply at 5-6, ¶ 13. Reply at 6, ¶ 13, 13, ¶ 32 (citing APCC v. Radiant, 23 FCC Rcd at 6971-72, ¶ 30). Joint Statement. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Joint Statement at 3, ¶ 16, 4, ¶¶ 17, 20. Joint Statement at 4, ¶¶ 18-19. CCI Communications, LLC's Responses to Complainant's (1) Initial Interrogatories and Requests for Production and (2) Second Set of Interrogatories, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed Jan. 19, 2010) (``CCI's Interrogatory Responses'') at 10. In addition to providing the number of calls at a 30-second
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.pdf
  • AFR at 8 n.30. MetroPCS did not make the assertion until its Response. See Metro Response at 4-5. Indeed, MetroPCS's Application refers to the traffic at issue as intrastate several times. See MetroPCS AFR at ii, 1, 17. Rule 1.720(c) provides: ``Facts must be supported by relevant documentation or affidavit.'' 47 C.F.R.§ 1.720(c). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.721(a)(5), 1.724(g), 1.726(e), 1.732(b) (all requiring that factual assertions in formal complaint proceedings be supported by declarations and/or documents). Given the parties' failure to preserve or support their claim that there is any interstate traffic at issue here, we have no occasion in this adjudicatory proceeding to address whether it would be appropriate for the state commission to determine a rate for any such
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.pdf
  • Chasecom, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 6, 2010) (``Reply''). ; Joint Statement Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv), File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 16, 2010). Letter to Jonathan E. Canis, counsel for the CLECs, and James F. Bendernagel, counsel for AT&T, from Lisa B. Griffin, Deputy Chief, EB/MDRD, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 28, 2010). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 1.732(c) (``In cases in which discovery is not conducted, absent an order by the Commission that briefs be filed, parties may not submit briefs.''); Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures To Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997) (subsequent history omitted) at 22508, ¶¶ 22-23; 22529, ¶ 71; 22534, ¶ 81;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-419A1.txt
  • unclean hands because Marzec has allegedly violated Commission rules in obtaining and operating under her license, and engaged in misconduct in this proceeding. Again, these allegations are irrelevant to a determination of whether Power violated the conditions of his license. Power's Amended Answer asserts several other affirmative defenses. In his final brief, however, Power makes none of these arguments. Section 1.732(b) of the Commission's rules expressly warns that ``all briefs shall include all legal and factual claims and defenses previously set forth in the complaint, answer, and any other pleading submitted in the proceeding. Claims and defenses previously made but not reflected in the briefs will be deemed abandoned.'' Accordingly, we find that Power has waived these affirmative defenses. Marzec Has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1044A1.txt
  • Order. It was subsequently vacated by the Appeals Court Decision. Certain Complainants' Comments at 8. Bureau Order, 8 FCC Rcd 7334, 7335-36 (1993). Certain Complainants' Comments at 15. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.201- 1.364. 47 C.F.R. § 1.722. See Hi Tech Furnace Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 224 F.3d 781, 786 (D.C. Cir. 2000); 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j); 47 C.F.R. § 1.732(g). Certain Complainants' Comments at 17; Kayson and Best Comments at 4. 47 U.S.C. § 415. Id. Id; but see Informal Complaints Filed By Independent Payphone Service Providers Against Various Local Exchange Carriers Seeking Refunds of End User Common Line Charges, File No. 89-170, DA 99-1858, Common Carrier Bureau (rel. Sept. 10, 1999) (``Waiver Order''). In its Waiver Order, the Common
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1829A1.txt
  • the totality of the circumstances relating to the service, a complete record concerning those circumstances is essential. See Qwest Teaming Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 21465-66, ¶ 37; 1-800-AMERITECH Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 23189-90, ¶ 10. AT&T is free to file a separate complaint on this matter. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.201- 1.364. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 1.732(g). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.243(f). 47 C.F.R §§ 1.311-1.325. 47 C.F.R. § 1.729. 47 C.F.R. § 1.47(c). Joint Statement of the Parties Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.733, File No. E-97-28s (May 25, 2001) (``AT&T and U S WEST Joint Statement'') at 6; Joint Statement of Complainant and Defendant, File No. E-97-40s (May 25, 2001) at 4. Although the parties
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1132A1.txt
  • the Commission counsel (Amy Goodman) a joint statement of all proposals agreed to and any disputes remaining with respect to the matters listed in 47 C.F.R. § 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv) as a result of the parties' meeting. At the same time, the parties also shall submit a joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts, and key legal issues. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Both joint statements must be hand-delivered (if counsel is located in the Washington, D.C. area), faxed, and e-mailed to the Commission counsel, and filed with the Commission Secretary, on or before April 25, 2003. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.733(b)(2). The parties may submit these two joint statements in a single document, as long as each is separately identified
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-767A1.txt
  • Secretary and the Commission counsel (Amy Goodman) a joint statement of all proposals agreed to and any disputes remaining with respect to the matters listed in 47 C.F.R. §1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv) as a result of the parties' meeting. At the same time, the parties also shall submit a joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts, and key legal issues. See 47 C.F.R. §§1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Both joint statements must be hand-delivered (if counsel is located in the Washington, D.C. area), faxed, and e-mailed to the Commission counsel, and filed with the Commission Secretary, on or before April 18, 2003. See 47 C.F.R. §1.733(b)(2). The parties may submit these two joint statements in a single document, as long as each is separately identified therein.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.txt
  • the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 208) alleging a violation of the Communications Act. Need: These rules result in the effective, efficient, and timely resolution of formal complaints. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(u)(j), 208, 303(r). Section Number and Title: 1.720 General pleading requirements. 1.724 Answers. 1.726 Replies. 1.727 Motions. 1.729 Interrogatories to parties. 1.731 Confidentiality of information produced through discovery. 1.732 Other required written submissions. 1.733 Status conference. 1.734 Specification as to pleadings, briefs, and other documents; subscription. 1.735 Copies; service; separate filings against multiple defendants. Brief Description: Directions on how to file applications, including the place of filing, the amount of fees, who may sign the application, and the number of copies required. Need: These rules provide general directions on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.txt
  • at 32-34. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Reply, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed June 12, 2009) (``Reply'') at 5, ¶ 11. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320. Reply at 5-6, ¶ 13. Reply at 6, ¶ 13, 13, ¶ 32 (citing APCC v. Radiant, 23 FCC Rcd at 6971-72, ¶ 30). Joint Statement. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Joint Statement at 3, ¶ 16, 4, ¶¶ 17, 20. Joint Statement at 4, ¶¶ 18-19. CCI Communications, LLC's Responses to Complainant's (1) Initial Interrogatories and Requests for Production and (2) Second Set of Interrogatories, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed Jan. 19, 2010) (``CCI's Interrogatory Responses'') at 10. In addition to providing the number of calls at a 30-second
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.txt
  • Feb. 14, 2000). 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) (``All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust and unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.''). See Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) (``Joint Statement'') at 2 (``Bell Atlantic and Global NAPs ... have interconnection agreements in the states of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. The parties do not agree on the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-78A1.txt
  • A, at § 1.721(e)(ii). See Appendix A, at § 1.721(e)(iii). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(b)(2)(ii). See First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22529-35, ¶¶ 72-85; 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720, 1.721, 1.722, 1.724, 1.726. 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(b) (emphasis added). See First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22534-35, ¶ 83. 47 C.F.R. § 1.724(g). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.732(h); 1.733(b)(1), (2). See also First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22559-60, ¶ 145; 22602-03, ¶¶ 258-60. First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22602, ¶ 258. First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22603, ¶ 260. To the extent that parties cannot agree on all of the relevant facts and legal issues, they should include in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-112A1.txt
  • responses, the basis for SBC's objection to such an attestation is unclear. Similarly, as we have noted above, information supported by sworn verification may be ``necessary'' for purposes of 47 U.S.C. § 218. See supra ¶ 7. See NAL Response at 16 (citing FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 138 (1940)). 47 U.S.C. § 208(a). 47 C.F.R. § 1.732(g) (emphasis added). 47 C.F.R. § 1.729(e) (emphasis added). Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 33(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 409(e) (emphasis added). See infra n.46. 47 U.S.C. § 409. 47 U.S.C. § 409(m). LOI at 2, 4. See, e.g., Peninsula Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 16124 (2001) (ordering broadcast licensee to ``submit an affidavit informing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-127A1.txt
  • Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 1, 2000) (Verizon Formal Complaint) at Attachment J. Compare Rooney Affidavit at ¶¶ 5-6, 13-15 with Chronology of Events, Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed Aug. 11, 1999), and Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) at 1-13. Global NAPs also argues that we should reconsider the Order because its underlying policy preference favoring interconnection agreements as the context in which to address compensation for ISP-bound traffic was rejected in the Commission's subsequent ISP
• 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
  • showing that MCI WorldCom made PC changes that were not supposed to result in a carrier change; and two Pacific Bell phone bills intending to show slamming charges billed to Poe and Hughen by WilTel. See SDT Amended Formal Complaint at 19-20. We note that the affidavit of complainant Poe did not contain an original signature. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.732(b). Our rules state that claims and defenses previously made but not reflected in the briefs will be deemed abandoned. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.732(b). See MCI Answer Exhibits 2-3; see also MCI Brief at 17-19. See Letter from M. Christine Ayala, Customer Service Representative, MCI WorldCom to Analyst, FCC dated November 23, 1999; Answer Exhibit 4. See also Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-86A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-86A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-86A1.txt
  • claims that the operator is not charging the presumptively reasonable rate). Wood County also contends that McLeod waived its right to argue the burden of proof issue by purportedly failing to address it in its initial brief. Reply Brief of Wood County Telephone Company, File No. EB-01-MD-004 (filed Sep. 28, 2001) (``Wood County Reply'') at 9 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.732(b) (providing that, unless otherwise directed, all claims and defenses must be included in the parties' briefs or will be deemed abandoned). We do not agree that McLeod was obligated to address the burden of proof issue in its opening brief, because the burden is clearly specified in Commission rules. In any event, McLeod did assert in its initial brief that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-1A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-1A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-1A1.txt
  • CW USA and CW plc, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (rel. Sept. 25, 2001) (``Status Conference Order'') at 2, ¶¶ III.3, III.4; at 4, ¶¶ V.12, V.14. Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608, ¶ 18 & n.51. Reconsideration Petition at 1, 9-13; Reconsideration Reply at 2-5. Reconsideration Petition at 11. Reconsideration Reply at 3. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.733(a)(5); 1.720 (a); 1.732 (c), (d). See Status Conference Order. Reconsideration Petition at 10-11; Reconsideration Reply at 4. Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 22547, ¶ 115 (1997) (``Formal Complaints Order''). Formal Complaints Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22550, ¶
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.txt
  • AFR at 8 n.30. MetroPCS did not make the assertion until its Response. See Metro Response at 4-5. Indeed, MetroPCS's Application refers to the traffic at issue as intrastate several times. See MetroPCS AFR at ii, 1, 17. Rule 1.720(c) provides: ``Facts must be supported by relevant documentation or affidavit.'' 47 C.F.R.§ 1.720(c). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.721(a)(5), 1.724(g), 1.726(e), 1.732(b) (all requiring that factual assertions in formal complaint proceedings be supported by declarations and/or documents). Given the parties' failure to preserve or support their claim that there is any interstate traffic at issue here, we have no occasion in this adjudicatory proceeding to address whether it would be appropriate for the state commission to determine a rate for any such
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.txt
  • Chasecom, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 6, 2010) (``Reply''). ; Joint Statement Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv), File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 16, 2010). Letter to Jonathan E. Canis, counsel for the CLECs, and James F. Bendernagel, counsel for AT&T, from Lisa B. Griffin, Deputy Chief, EB/MDRD, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 28, 2010). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 1.732(c) (``In cases in which discovery is not conducted, absent an order by the Commission that briefs be filed, parties may not submit briefs.''); Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures To Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997) (subsequent history omitted) at 22508, ¶¶ 22-23; 22529, ¶ 71; 22534, ¶ 81;
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011044.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011044.html
  • Order. It was subsequently vacated by the Appeals Court Decision. Certain Complainants' Comments at 8. Bureau Order, 8 FCC Rcd 7334, 7335-36 (1993). Certain Complainants' Comments at 15. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.201- 1.364. 47 C.F.R. § 1.722. See Hi Tech Furnace Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 224 F.3d 781, 786 (D.C. Cir. 2000); 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j); 47 C.F.R. § 1.732(g). Certain Complainants' Comments at 17; Kayson and Best Comments at 4. 47 U.S.C. § 415. Id. Id; but see Informal Complaints Filed By Independent Payphone Service Providers Against Various Local Exchange Carriers Seeking Refunds of End User Common Line Charges, File No. 89-170, DA 99-1858, Common Carrier Bureau (rel. Sept. 10, 1999) (``Waiver Order''). In its Waiver Order, the Common
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-112A1.html
  • responses, the basis for SBC's objection to such an attestation is unclear. 30 Similarly, as we have noted above, information supported by sworn verification may be ``necessary'' for purposes of 47 U.S.C. 218. See supra 7. 31 See NAL Response at 16 (citing FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 138 (1940)). 32 47 U.S.C. 208(a). 33 47 C.F.R. 1.732(g) (emphasis added). 34 47 C.F.R. 1.729(e) (emphasis added). 35 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 33(b)(1). 36 47 U.S.C. 409(e) (emphasis added). 37 See infra n.46. 38 47 U.S.C. 409. 39 47 U.S.C. 409(m). 40 LOI at 2, 4. 41 See, e.g., Peninsula Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 16124 (2001) (ordering broadcast licensee to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-127A1.html
  • Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 1, 2000) (Verizon Formal Complaint) at Attachment J. 47 Compare Rooney Affidavit at 5-6, 13-15 with Chronology of Events, Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed Aug. 11, 1999), and Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB- 00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) at 1-13. 48 Global NAPs also argues that we should reconsider the Order because its underlying policy preference favoring interconnection agreements as the context in which to address compensation for ISP-bound traffic was rejected in the Commission's
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-182A1.html
  • that MCI WorldCom made PC changes that were not supposed to result in a carrier change; and two Pacific Bell phone bills intending to show slamming charges billed to Poe and Hughen by WilTel. See SDT Amended Formal Complaint at 19-20. 24 We note that the affidavit of complainant Poe did not contain an original signature. 25 See 47 C.F.R. 1.732(b). 26 Our rules state that claims and defenses previously made but not reflected in the briefs will be deemed abandoned. See 47 C.F.R. 1.732(b). 27 See MCI Answer Exhibits 2-3; see also MCI Brief at 17-19. 28 See Letter from M. Christine Ayala, Customer Service Representative, MCI WorldCom to Analyst, FCC dated November 23, 1999; Answer Exhibit 4. See also
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-86A1.html
  • claims that the operator is not charging the presumptively reasonable rate). 38 Wood County also contends that McLeod waived its right to argue the burden of proof issue by purportedly failing to address it in its initial brief. Reply Brief of Wood County Telephone Company, File No. EB-01-MD-004 (filed Sep. 28, 2001) (``Wood County Reply'') at 9 (citing 47 C.F.R. 1.732(b) (providing that, unless otherwise directed, all claims and defenses must be included in the parties' briefs or will be deemed abandoned). We do not agree that McLeod was obligated to address the burden of proof issue in its opening brief, because the burden is clearly specified in Commission rules. In any event, McLeod did assert in its initial brief that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1132A1.html
  • Secretary and the Commission counsel (Amy Goodman) a joint statement of all proposals agreed to and any disputes remaining with respect to the matters listed in 47 C.F.R. 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv) as a result of the parties' meeting. At the same time, the parties also shall submit a joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts, and key legal issues. See 47 C.F.R. 1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Both joint statements must be hand-delivered (if counsel is located in the Washington, D.C. area), faxed, and e-mailed to the Commission counsel, and filed with the Commission Secretary, on or before April 25, 2003. See 47 C.F.R. 1.733(b)(2). The parties may submit these two joint statements in a single document, as long as each is separately identified therein.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-767A1.html
  • Secretary and the Commission counsel (Amy Goodman) a joint statement of all proposals agreed to and any disputes remaining with respect to the matters listed in 47 C.F.R. 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv) as a result of the parties' meeting. At the same time, the parties also shall submit a joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts, and key legal issues. See 47 C.F.R. 1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Both joint statements must be hand-delivered (if counsel is located in the Washington, D.C. area), faxed, and e- mailed to the Commission counsel, and filed with the Commission Secretary, on or before April 18, 2003. See 47 C.F.R. 1.733(b)(2). The parties may submit these two joint statements in a single document, as long as each is separately identified
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-1A1.html
  • USA and CW plc, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (rel. Sept. 25, 2001) (``Status Conference Order'') at 2, III.3, III.4; at 4, V.12, V.14. 27 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608, 18 & n.51. 28 Reconsideration Petition at 1, 9-13; Reconsideration Reply at 2-5. 29 Reconsideration Petition at 11. 30 Reconsideration Reply at 3. 31 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.733(a)(5); 1.720 (a); 1.732 (c), (d). 32 See Status Conference Order. 33 Reconsideration Petition at 10-11; Reconsideration Reply at 4. 34 Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 22547, 115 (1997) (``Formal Complaints Order''). 35 Formal Complaints Order, 12 FCC Rcd
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • AFR at 8 n.30. MetroPCS did not make the assertion until its Response. See Metro Response at 4-5. Indeed, MetroPCS's Application refers to the traffic at issue as intrastate several times. See MetroPCS AFR at ii, 1, 17. Rule 1.720(c) provides: "Facts must be supported by relevant documentation or affidavit." 47 C.F.R.S: 1.720(c). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.721(a)(5), 1.724(g), 1.726(e), 1.732(b) (all requiring that factual assertions in formal complaint proceedings be supported by declarations and/or documents). Given the parties' failure to preserve or support their claim that there is any interstate traffic at issue here, we have no occasion in this adjudicatory proceeding to address whether it would be appropriate for the state commission to determine a rate for any such
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1192A1.html
  • at 32-34. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Reply, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed June 12, 2009) ("Reply") at 5, P: 11. See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1320. Reply at 5-6, P: 13. Reply at 6, P: 13, 13, P: 32 (citing APCC v. Radiant, 23 FCC Rcd at 6971-72, P: 30). Joint Statement. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Joint Statement at 3, P: 16, 4, P:P: 17, 20. Joint Statement at 4, P:P: 18-19. CCI Communications, LLC's Responses to Complainant's (1) Initial Interrogatories and Requests for Production and (2) Second Set of Interrogatories, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed Jan. 19, 2010) ("CCI's Interrogatory Responses") at 10. In addition to providing the number of calls at a 30-second
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-5A1.html
  • EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 6, 2010) ("Reply"). See supra note 7; Joint Statement Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv), File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 16, 2010). Letter to Jonathan E. Canis, counsel for the CLECs, and James F. Bendernagel, counsel for AT&T, from Lisa B. Griffin, Deputy Chief, EB/MDRD, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 28, 2010). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. S: 1.732(c) ("In cases in which discovery is not conducted, absent an order by the Commission that briefs be filed, parties may not submit briefs."); Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures To Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997) (subsequent history omitted) at 22508, P:P: 22-23; 22529, P: 71; 22534, P: 81;
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.txt
  • Feb. 14, 2000). 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) (``All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust and unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.''). See Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) (``Joint Statement'') at 2 (``Bell Atlantic and Global NAPs ... have interconnection agreements in the states of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. The parties do not agree on the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • after that date, either party gives a 90-day notice of termination. Id. at 36, Section 21; see also Global NAPs Answer, File No. E-99-22 (filed July 28, 1999) (Global NAPs Answer) at Attachment C. See Bell Atlantic-Global NAPs Interconnection Agreement at 14, Section 5.7.2; see also Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), File No. E-99-22 (filed August 10, 1999) (Joint Statement) at 2. Bell Atlantic-Global NAPs Interconnection Agreement at 14, Section 5.7.1. According to section 252 of the Act, "reciprocal compensation" arrangements must (1) provide for the "mutual and reciprocal recovery by each carrier of costs associated with the transport and termination on each carrier's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99381.doc
  • after that date, either party gives a 90-day notice of termination. Id. at 36, Section 21; see also Global NAPs Answer, File No. E-99-22 (filed July 28, 1999) (Global NAPs Answer) at Attachment C. See Bell Atlantic-Global NAPs Interconnection Agreement at 14, Section 5.7.2; see also Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), File No. E-99-22 (filed August 10, 1999) (Joint Statement) at 2. Bell Atlantic-Global NAPs Interconnection Agreement at 14, Section 5.7.1. According to section 252 of the Act, "reciprocal compensation" arrangements must (1) provide for the "mutual and reciprocal recovery by each carrier of costs associated with the transport and termination on each carrier's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000419.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000419.txt
  • unclean hands because Marzec has allegedly violated Commission rules in obtaining and operating under her license, and engaged in misconduct in this proceeding. Again, these allegations are irrelevant to a determination of whether Power violated the conditions of his license. Power's Amended Answer asserts several other affirmative defenses. In his final brief, however, Power makes none of these arguments. Section 1.732(b) of the Commission's rules expressly warns that ``all briefs shall include all legal and factual claims and defenses previously set forth in the complaint, answer, and any other pleading submitted in the proceeding. Claims and defenses previously made but not reflected in the briefs will be deemed abandoned.'' Accordingly, we find that Power has waived these affirmative defenses. Marzec Has
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00383.doc
  • Feb. 14, 2000). 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) (``All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust and unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.''). See Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) (``Joint Statement'') at 2 (``Bell Atlantic and Global NAPs ... have interconnection agreements in the states of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. The parties do not agree on the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992033.doc
  • "Motion for Summary Decision" with a supporting brief and affidavit. Defendants filed an opposition thereto on May 21, 1997. Although the submission of a motion for summary decision is not specifically contemplated in the Commission's procedural rules governing formal complaints, we will accept this pleading and defendants' opposition thereto as in the nature of "other written submissions" permitted by Section 1.732 of the Commission's Rules. On March 10, 1997, pursuant to Section 1.729 of the Commission's Rules, defendants served interrogatories on complainants. Complainants did not submit their responses or objections thereto in a timely manner, and on April 18, 1997 defendants filed a "Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, or in the Alternative, to Compel a Response to Interrogatories." Complainants
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011044.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011044.html
  • Order. It was subsequently vacated by the Appeals Court Decision. Certain Complainants' Comments at 8. Bureau Order, 8 FCC Rcd 7334, 7335-36 (1993). Certain Complainants' Comments at 15. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.201- 1.364. 47 C.F.R. § 1.722. See Hi Tech Furnace Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 224 F.3d 781, 786 (D.C. Cir. 2000); 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j); 47 C.F.R. § 1.732(g). Certain Complainants' Comments at 17; Kayson and Best Comments at 4. 47 U.S.C. § 415. Id. Id; but see Informal Complaints Filed By Independent Payphone Service Providers Against Various Local Exchange Carriers Seeking Refunds of End User Common Line Charges, File No. 89-170, DA 99-1858, Common Carrier Bureau (rel. Sept. 10, 1999) (``Waiver Order''). In its Waiver Order, the Common
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-112A1.html
  • responses, the basis for SBC's objection to such an attestation is unclear. 30 Similarly, as we have noted above, information supported by sworn verification may be ``necessary'' for purposes of 47 U.S.C. 218. See supra 7. 31 See NAL Response at 16 (citing FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 138 (1940)). 32 47 U.S.C. 208(a). 33 47 C.F.R. 1.732(g) (emphasis added). 34 47 C.F.R. 1.729(e) (emphasis added). 35 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 33(b)(1). 36 47 U.S.C. 409(e) (emphasis added). 37 See infra n.46. 38 47 U.S.C. 409. 39 47 U.S.C. 409(m). 40 LOI at 2, 4. 41 See, e.g., Peninsula Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 16124 (2001) (ordering broadcast licensee to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-127A1.html
  • Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 1, 2000) (Verizon Formal Complaint) at Attachment J. 47 Compare Rooney Affidavit at 5-6, 13-15 with Chronology of Events, Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed Aug. 11, 1999), and Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB- 00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) at 1-13. 48 Global NAPs also argues that we should reconsider the Order because its underlying policy preference favoring interconnection agreements as the context in which to address compensation for ISP-bound traffic was rejected in the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-182A1.html
  • that MCI WorldCom made PC changes that were not supposed to result in a carrier change; and two Pacific Bell phone bills intending to show slamming charges billed to Poe and Hughen by WilTel. See SDT Amended Formal Complaint at 19-20. 24 We note that the affidavit of complainant Poe did not contain an original signature. 25 See 47 C.F.R. 1.732(b). 26 Our rules state that claims and defenses previously made but not reflected in the briefs will be deemed abandoned. See 47 C.F.R. 1.732(b). 27 See MCI Answer Exhibits 2-3; see also MCI Brief at 17-19. 28 See Letter from M. Christine Ayala, Customer Service Representative, MCI WorldCom to Analyst, FCC dated November 23, 1999; Answer Exhibit 4. See also
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-86A1.html
  • claims that the operator is not charging the presumptively reasonable rate). 38 Wood County also contends that McLeod waived its right to argue the burden of proof issue by purportedly failing to address it in its initial brief. Reply Brief of Wood County Telephone Company, File No. EB-01-MD-004 (filed Sep. 28, 2001) (``Wood County Reply'') at 9 (citing 47 C.F.R. 1.732(b) (providing that, unless otherwise directed, all claims and defenses must be included in the parties' briefs or will be deemed abandoned). We do not agree that McLeod was obligated to address the burden of proof issue in its opening brief, because the burden is clearly specified in Commission rules. In any event, McLeod did assert in its initial brief that
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1132A1.html
  • Secretary and the Commission counsel (Amy Goodman) a joint statement of all proposals agreed to and any disputes remaining with respect to the matters listed in 47 C.F.R. 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv) as a result of the parties' meeting. At the same time, the parties also shall submit a joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts, and key legal issues. See 47 C.F.R. 1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Both joint statements must be hand-delivered (if counsel is located in the Washington, D.C. area), faxed, and e-mailed to the Commission counsel, and filed with the Commission Secretary, on or before April 25, 2003. See 47 C.F.R. 1.733(b)(2). The parties may submit these two joint statements in a single document, as long as each is separately identified therein.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-767A1.html
  • Secretary and the Commission counsel (Amy Goodman) a joint statement of all proposals agreed to and any disputes remaining with respect to the matters listed in 47 C.F.R. 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv) as a result of the parties' meeting. At the same time, the parties also shall submit a joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts, and key legal issues. See 47 C.F.R. 1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Both joint statements must be hand-delivered (if counsel is located in the Washington, D.C. area), faxed, and e- mailed to the Commission counsel, and filed with the Commission Secretary, on or before April 18, 2003. See 47 C.F.R. 1.733(b)(2). The parties may submit these two joint statements in a single document, as long as each is separately identified
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-1A1.html
  • USA and CW plc, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (rel. Sept. 25, 2001) (``Status Conference Order'') at 2, III.3, III.4; at 4, V.12, V.14. 27 Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7608, 18 & n.51. 28 Reconsideration Petition at 1, 9-13; Reconsideration Reply at 2-5. 29 Reconsideration Petition at 11. 30 Reconsideration Reply at 3. 31 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.733(a)(5); 1.720 (a); 1.732 (c), (d). 32 See Status Conference Order. 33 Reconsideration Petition at 10-11; Reconsideration Reply at 4. 34 Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 22547, 115 (1997) (``Formal Complaints Order''). 35 Formal Complaints Order, 12 FCC Rcd
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • AFR at 8 n.30. MetroPCS did not make the assertion until its Response. See Metro Response at 4-5. Indeed, MetroPCS's Application refers to the traffic at issue as intrastate several times. See MetroPCS AFR at ii, 1, 17. Rule 1.720(c) provides: "Facts must be supported by relevant documentation or affidavit." 47 C.F.R.S: 1.720(c). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.721(a)(5), 1.724(g), 1.726(e), 1.732(b) (all requiring that factual assertions in formal complaint proceedings be supported by declarations and/or documents). Given the parties' failure to preserve or support their claim that there is any interstate traffic at issue here, we have no occasion in this adjudicatory proceeding to address whether it would be appropriate for the state commission to determine a rate for any such
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1192A1.html
  • at 32-34. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Answer, Legal Analysis at 33. Reply, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed June 12, 2009) ("Reply") at 5, P: 11. See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1320. Reply at 5-6, P: 13. Reply at 6, P: 13, 13, P: 32 (citing APCC v. Radiant, 23 FCC Rcd at 6971-72, P: 30). Joint Statement. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.732(h), 1.733(b)(1)(v), 1.733(b)(2). Joint Statement at 3, P: 16, 4, P:P: 17, 20. Joint Statement at 4, P:P: 18-19. CCI Communications, LLC's Responses to Complainant's (1) Initial Interrogatories and Requests for Production and (2) Second Set of Interrogatories, File No. EB-09-MD-005 (filed Jan. 19, 2010) ("CCI's Interrogatory Responses") at 10. In addition to providing the number of calls at a 30-second
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-5A1.html
  • EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 6, 2010) ("Reply"). See supra note 7; Joint Statement Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 1.733(b)(1)(i)-(iv), File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 16, 2010). Letter to Jonathan E. Canis, counsel for the CLECs, and James F. Bendernagel, counsel for AT&T, from Lisa B. Griffin, Deputy Chief, EB/MDRD, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed July 28, 2010). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. S: 1.732(c) ("In cases in which discovery is not conducted, absent an order by the Commission that briefs be filed, parties may not submit briefs."); Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures To Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997) (subsequent history omitted) at 22508, P:P: 22-23; 22529, P: 71; 22534, P: 81;
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.txt
  • Feb. 14, 2000). 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) (``All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust and unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.''). See Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts, and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc., File No. EB-00-MD-009 (filed June 27, 2000) (``Joint Statement'') at 2 (``Bell Atlantic and Global NAPs ... have interconnection agreements in the states of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. The parties do not agree on the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • after that date, either party gives a 90-day notice of termination. Id. at 36, Section 21; see also Global NAPs Answer, File No. E-99-22 (filed July 28, 1999) (Global NAPs Answer) at Attachment C. See Bell Atlantic-Global NAPs Interconnection Agreement at 14, Section 5.7.2; see also Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts and Key Legal Issues Pursuant to Section 1.732(h) and Joint Statement Pursuant to Section 1.733(7)(b)(2), File No. E-99-22 (filed August 10, 1999) (Joint Statement) at 2. Bell Atlantic-Global NAPs Interconnection Agreement at 14, Section 5.7.1. According to section 252 of the Act, "reciprocal compensation" arrangements must (1) provide for the "mutual and reciprocal recovery by each carrier of costs associated with the transport and termination on each carrier's
• http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/clearinghouse/references/minneapolis-bridge-report.pdf
  • where capacity must be augmented to meet the desired GoS. In the Figure 18, the allowable region is identified for a range of utilizations and channels. Table 3 - Capacity for GoS of WC =1 sec versus Offered Load and Utilization (Call Dur 5.927 sec) Number of Channels N Offered Load A= /µ (erlang) System Utilization = /(Nµ) (%) 7 1.732 24.7% 10 6.061 60.6% 15 10.505 70.0% 20 15.007 75.0% 25 19.625 78.5% 30 24.242 80.8% 32 Figure 17 ­ Capacity Region Figure 18 ­ Operational Region For the second example we follow the same procedure. The results are shown in Table 4, and displayed in the charts that follow. To show the usefulness of these charts, a system operating