FCC Web Documents citing 1.735
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1502A1.txt
- respond to inquires regarding the discrepancy on the bill and states that it had not received any notice regarding Glo Gem's dispute with the length of time billed until the complaint was filed in the District Court. Metronet's Initial Brief at 2-3. See AT&T v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 5 FCC Rcd 143, 147 (1990); 47 C.F.R. 1.720 - 1.735. See Answer at 6, 1; Metronet's Initial Brief at 5. Hi-Rim, 13 FCC Rcd 1982, 1989 (1997). Answer at 6-7, 2-7. Glo Gem Productions, Inc. v. Metronet-Telecom, Inc, File No. E-98-30, Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint (filed Oct. 13, 1998). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1502 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1502 @ @& 0 0 0 0 0
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-418A1.txt
- Inc. to form MCI WorldCom, Inc. This Order uses ``MCI'' to refer to the complainant in File No. E-97-40A. On June 30, 2000, U S WEST merged with Qwest Corporation (``Qwest''), and Qwest is now the legal successor to U S WEST. This Order refers to the defendant company in the two proceedings as ``U S WEST.'' Pursuant to section 1.735(a) of the Commission's formal complaint rules (47 C.F.R. 1.735(a)), we have consolidated AT&T's and MCI's actions against U S WEST, because the U S WEST Service challenged in both actions is identical. 47 U.S.C. 271(a) (``Neither a Bell operating company, nor any affiliate of a Bell operating company, may provide interLATA services except as provided in this section.'').
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-558A1.txt
- 1, File No. WB/ENF-F-99-007 (Dec. 18, 2000). Voice Networks, however, has never filed a written notice of the withdrawal of its initial counsel. This attorney, accordingly, continues to be the attorney of record for Voice Networks in this proceeding, and service of papers in this proceeding on this attorney continues to constitute service on Voice Networks. See 47 C.F.R. 1.735(f). U S West Wireless Motion To Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, File No. WB/ENF-F-99-007 (filed January 19, 2001). 47 C.F.R. 1.727(e). U S West Wireless has provided copies of orders by the arbitrator and the court with its motion to dismiss. It appears that the arbitrator on August 21, 2000, ruled that Voice Networks used the call-forwarding feature of
- 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 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 where to file applications, the amount of fees, the number of copies and who may sign the application.
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-674A1.txt
- that paid the EUCL charge. Further, the complaint must state the date on which the complainant filed an informal complaint with the Commission, and attach a copy of such informal complaint. In addition, we waive the requirements of sections 1.724(c), (f), (i), (j), and (k) of the Commission's rules with regard to answers. Finally, we waive the requirements of section 1.735(d) of the Commission's rules to the extent it requires service by hand delivery and permit complainants to serve defendants by overnight mail. All other rules relating to formal complaints apply in their entirety, including sections 1.725-1.736 of the Commission's rules. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47
- 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
- CableCARD, new customer 50 $11.01 3.142 47 $6.71 2.209 DBS subgroup Unwired residence 78 $45.80 1.254 78 $46.68 0.901 Pre-wired residence 78 $34.89 1.295 78 $34.27 1.150 Service reconnection 78 $29.66 0.995 78 $29.18 0.946 CableCARD, existing customer 78 $25.63 1.698 78 $25.91 1.678 CableCARD, new customer 78 $32.79 1.945 78 $33.00 1.858 Wireless MVPD subgroup Unwired residence 33 $53.13 1.735 33 $50.82 1.552 Pre-wired residence 33 $34.27 1.551 33 $30.66 1.572 Service reconnection 33 $29.03 0.811 33 $25.66 0.798 CableCARD, existing customer 33 $31.27 2.877 33 $27.48 2.990 CableCARD, new customer 33 $35.97 2.395 33 $31.63 2.629 Low penetration test subgroup Unwired residence 68 $47.10 1.248 68 $46.23 1.289 Pre-wired residence 68 $33.83 1.440 68 $33.03 1.427 Service reconnection 68
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-225458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-225458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-225458A1.txt
- Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau P.O. Box 358110 Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5110 See Wireline Competition Bureau Fee Filing Guide for all other Common Carrier fees. See Media Bureau Fee Filing Guide for all other Cable Television fees. If a formal complaint is filed against multiple defendants, the complainant(s) must pay a separate filing fee for each defendant in accordance with 1.735 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.735. $ @ $ T7f`;8gKbPNG (c)|)Q@0 ~. -c"Pg c)0O) b"c - !|} 2 un''... }^;u.l jXFDr qvWC`K]Lqb##}J@j!-ыp=܈ 7Z"NzKZߌE F)%3{Rg*w/yD߂z,](n2/cmL \A% g@} W/ x">46/^aУR M(c)tmRXF -6 2[u s t299b~Zt Smap|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N U S nJ(շ r.V2 p{A"8)W~V8 ;'' #''_ ; ?fԜ
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249892A1.pdf
- Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau P.O. Box 358110 Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5110 See Wireline Competition Bureau Fee Filing Guide for all other Common Carrier fees. See Media Bureau Fee Filing Guide for all other Cable Television fees. If a formal complaint is filed against multiple defendants, the complainant(s) must pay a separate filing fee for each defendant in accordance with 1.735 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.735. $ kd T7f`;8gKbPNG (c)|)Q@0 ~. -c"Pg c)0O) b"c - !|} 2 un''... }^;u.l jXFDr qvWC`K]Lqb##}J@j!-ыp=܈ 7Z"NzKZߌE F)%3{Rg*w/yD߂z,](n2/cmL \A% g@} W/ x">46/^aУR M(c)tmRXF -6 2[u s t299b~Zt Smap|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N U S nJ(շ r.V2 p{A"8)W~V8 ;'' #''_ ; ?fԜ _ ە4 > ;Ez] Ee ln`( 0WrG'
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267890A1.pdf
- Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau P.O. Box 358110 Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5110 See Wireline Competition Bureau Fee Filing Guide for all other Common Carrier fees. See Media Bureau Fee Filing Guide for all other Cable Television fees. If a formal complaint is filed against multiple defendants, the complainant(s) must pay a separate filing fee for each defendant in accordance with 1.735 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.735. $ $ kd T7f`;8gKbPNG (c)|)Q@0 ~. -c"Pg c)0O) b"c - !|} 2 un''... }^;u.l jXFDr qvWC`K]Lqb##}J@j!-ыp=܈ 7Z"NzKZߌE F)%3{Rg*w/yD߂z,](n2/cmL \A% g@} W/ x">46/^aУR M(c)tmRXF -6 2[u s t299b~Zt Smap|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N U S nJ(շ r.V2 p{A"8)W~V8 ;'' #''_ ; ?fԜ _ ە4 > ;Ez] Ee ln`(
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280241A1.pdf
- 1. Pole Attachment Complaint Written Request and Form 159 $240.00 TPC See Wireline Competition Bureau Fee Filing Guide for all other Common Carrier fees. See Media Bureau Fee Filing Guide for all other Cable Television fees. If a formal complaint is filed against multiple defendants, the complainant(s) must pay a separate filing fee for each defendant in accordance with 1.735 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.735. > $ $ $> ? T7f`;8gKbPNG (c)|)Q@0 ~. -c"Pg c)0O) b"c - !|} 2 un''... }^;u.l jXFDr qvWC`K]Lqb##}J@j!-ыp=܈ 7Z"NzKZߌE F)%3{Rg*w/yD߂z,](n2/cmL \A% g@} W/ x">46/^aУR M(c)tmRXF -6 2[u s t299b~Zt Smap|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N U S nJ(շ r.V2 p{A"8)W~V8 ;'' #''_ ; ?fԜ _
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289834A1.txt
- of proposed changes in depreciation rates filed by carriers under 43.43 of this chapter; (3) Rate-of-return reports filed by price-cap and rate-of-return incumbent local exchange carriers under 65.600 of this chapter; (4) All applications for common carrier authorizations acted upon by the Enforcement Bureau, and related files; (5) All formal and informal complaints against common carriers filed under 1.711 through 1.735 of this chapter, all documents filed in connection therewith, and all communications related thereto; (6) Annual employment reports filed by common carrier licensees or permittees pursuant to 1.815 of this chapter; (7) Enforcement proceedings and public inquiries and related materials; (8) Cost Allocation Manuals and related materials; (9) Currently effective tariffs filed by Communications Common Carriers pursuant to various FCC
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290290A1.pdf
- 1. Pole Attachment Complaint Written Request and Form 159 $250.00 TPC See Wireline Competition Bureau Fee Filing Guide for all other Common Carrier fees. See Media Bureau Fee Filing Guide for all other Cable Television fees. If a formal complaint is filed against multiple defendants, the complainant(s) must pay a separate filing fee for each defendant in accordance with 1.735 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.735. $ $ T7f`;8gKbPNG (c)|)Q@0 ~. -c"Pg c)0O) b"c - !|} 2 un''... }^;u.l jXFDr qvWC`K]Lqb##}J@j!-ыp=܈ 7Z"NzKZߌE F)%3{Rg*w/yD߂z,](n2/cmL \A% g@} W/ x">46/^aУR M(c)tmRXF -6 2[u s t299b~Zt Smap|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N U S nJ(շ r.V2 p{A"8)W~V8 ;'' #''_ ; ?fԜ _ ە4 >
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308193A1.pdf
- an association of incumbent local exchange carriers alleging that a rate, term, or condition for a pole attachment is not just and reasonable. See Wireline Competition Bureau Fee Filing Guide for all other Common Carrier fees. If a formal complaint is filed against multiple defendants, the complainant(s) must pay a separate filing fee for each defendant in accordance with 1.735 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.735. $ $ T7f`;8gKbPNG (c)|)Q@0 ~. -c"Pg c)0O) b"c - !|} 2 un''... }^;u.l jXFDr qvWC`K]Lqb##}J@j!-ыp=܈ 7Z"NzKZߌE F)%3{Rg*w/yD߂z,](n2/cmL \A% g@} W/ x">46/^aУR M(c)tmRXF -6 2[u s t299b~Zt Smap|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N U S nJ(շ r.V2 p{A"8)W~V8 ;'' #''_ ; ?fԜ _ ە4 > ;Ez] Ee
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-282A1.txt
- for Stay, Mpower Comm. Corp. et al v. FCC, No. 01-1280 (D.C. Cir. filed Jun. 26, 2001) at 8 n.8, Petitioners' counsel improperly failed to serve the parties (or Commission counsel) on the same day that they submitted the Petition to the Commission, and failed to include a proper proof of service. See 47 C.F.R. 1.47(b), (c), (g), 1.106(f), 1.735(f); Letter from Anthony J. DeLaurentis, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to James F. Bendernagel, Counsel for AT&T, Jonathan E. Canis, Counsel for BTI, and Cheryl A. Tritt, Counsel for Sprint, File Nos. EB-01-MD-001, 002 (Jan. 18, 2001). Because Petitioners submitted the Petition to the Commission Secretary on the last day for filing permitted by the Act and our
- 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
- with supplemental complaints indicates that some confusion exists as to whether, and to what extent, the format and content requirements for initial complaints apply to supplemental complaints for damages. We now recognize that our current rules seek more and different information than is needed to evaluate a supplemental complaint for damages. Accordingly, we amend, in relevant part, sections 1.721 and 1.735 of our rules to specify what is required in supplemental damage complaints. As described below, these changes will streamline the supplemental complaint process by eliminating unnecessary or redundant information, reducing paperwork, and clarifying that additional filing fees are not required. We amend section 1.735 of our rules to make clear that (1) a filing fee need not be paid in
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.txt
- 9 * * * * * 45. Section 1.703 is revised by amending paragraph (c) to read as follows: 1.703 Appearances. * * * * * (c) Commission Counsel. The requirement of paragraph (b) of this section shall not apply to counsel representing the Commission or the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau. * * * * * 46. Section 1.735 is revised by amending paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 1.735 Copies; service; separate filings against multiple defendants. * * * * * (b)(3) If the complaint is filed against a carrier concerning matters within the responsibility of the International Bureau (see 0.261 of this chapter), serve a copy on the Chief, Policy Division, International Bureau; and *
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-46A1.txt
- read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155 2. Section 0.453 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(F) to read as follows: 0.453 Public reference rooms. * * * * * (a) * * * (2) * * * (ii) * * * (F) All formal complaints against common carriers filed under 1.711 through 1.735 of this chapter, all documents filed in connection therewith and all communications related thereto. * * * * * 3. Add the following new paragraph (f)(4) to Section 0.457: 0.457 Records not routinely available for public inspection. (f) * * * * * (4) Informal complaints filed under 1.711 through 1.735 of this chapter, all documents filed in
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-150A1.txt
- Format and content of complaints. * * * * * (a) (13) A declaration, under penalty of perjury, by the complainant or complainant's counsel describing the amount, method, and date of the complainant's payment of the filing fee required under 1.1106(1)(c) or (d) and the complainant's 10-digit FCC Registration Number, if any; * * * * * 5. Section 1.735 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: 1.735 Copies; service; separate filings against multiple defendants. * * * * * (b)The complainant shall file an original copy of the complaint, accompanied by the correct fee, in accordance with part I, subpart G (see 1.1106) and, on the same day: * * *
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-207A1.txt
- the complaint provisions of the Act or the Commission's rules, did not name any Verizon entity as a particular target of their actions, and did not request the specific remedy of monetary damages against a particular defendant, which remedy ``can only be obtained from the Commission within the parameters established by Sections 206-209 of the Act and Sections 1.711 through 1.735 of the Commission's rules.'' The same is true of OCI's Interim and Supplement Requests (except that those did pertain to Verizon). Because OCI's submissions lacked the fundamental traits of an informal complaint, the Commission plainly and correctly did not handle OCI's submissions as an informal complaint under the Commission's rules. OCI never asked the Commission to treat its submissions as
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.txt
- prohibit it from acting in an unjust or unreasonable manner or otherwise favoring particular entities in the provision of ``like'' services provided to other entities. By virtue of the relief granted, AT&T may detariff the specified broadband services, but the Section 201 and 202 standards and the formal complaint process in Section 208 of the Act and Sections 1.720 through 1.735 of the Commission's rules will continue to apply to those service offerings. We expect that any complaint pertaining to services covered by this Order will be resolved within five months, as prescribed by Section 208 (b)(1) of the Act. We also find that continued application of our dominant carrier discontinuance rules to the AT&T-specified broadband services is not necessary to
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.txt
- from acting in an unjust or unreasonable manner or otherwise favoring particular entities in the provision of ``like'' services provided to other entities. By virtue of the relief granted, Embarq and Frontier may detariff the specified broadband services, but the section 201 and 202 standards and the formal complaint process in section 208 of the Act and sections 1.720 through 1.735 of the Commission's rules will continue to apply to those service offerings. We expect that any complaint pertaining to services covered by this Order will be resolved within five months, as prescribed by section 208(b)(1) of the Act. We also find that continued application of our dominant carrier discontinuance rules to the petitioner-specified broadband services is not necessary to ensure
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.txt
- prohibit Qwest from acting in an unjust or unreasonable manner or otherwise favoring particular entities in the provision of ``like'' services provided to other entities. By virtue of the relief granted, Qwest may detariff the specified broadband services, but the section 201 and 202 standards and the formal complaint process in section 208 of the Act and sections 1.720 through 1.735 of the Commission's rules will continue to apply to those service offerings. We expect that any complaint pertaining to services covered by this Order will be resolved within five months, as prescribed by section 208(b)(1) of the Act. We also find that continued application of our dominant carrier discontinuance rules to the petitioner-specified broadband services is not necessary to ensure
- http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.txt
- of the record, are available for inspection in accordance with 0.453 and 0.455. * * * * * 4. Section 0.453 is amended by revising subparagraph (c)(5) to read as follows: 0.453 Public reference rooms. * * * * * (c) * * * (5) All formal and informal carrier-to-carrier complaints against common carriers filed under 1.711 through 1.735 of this chapter, all documents filed in connection therewith, and all communications related thereto; * * * * * 5. Section 0.459 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (f) to read as follows: 0.459 Requests that materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection. (a)(1) Procedures applicable to filings in non-electronic proceedings. Any person
- http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97387.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97387.wp
- Act because they are not the "carrier" with respect to the SMS; and (v) that the BOCs did not have proper authorization from the Commission before constructing the SMS in violation of Section 214(a) of the Act. Id. at 10563. See Notice of Formal Complaint, File No. E-94-57 (Com. Car. Bur. Enf. Div., Apr. 21, 1994); 47 15 C.F.R. 1.735(d). Notice of Formal Complaint, supra; 47 C.F.R. 1.1208. 16 Letter from Russell D. Lukas to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, dated May 2, 1994, File 17 No. E-94-57 ("Lukas Letter"). The docket indicates that this letter was served on the Commission by mail, and was received on May 6, 1994. This letter also indicates that it was served
- http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/spanish/informalcomplaint.html http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/spanish/informalcomplaint.pdf
- con las normas especficas del procedimiento, presentarse ante la FCC y presentar documentacin que trate los aspectos legales. Las partes involucradas en la queja normalmente son representadas por abogados o expertos en la ley de comunicaciones y las normas procesales de la FCC. Toda la informacin sobre este tipo de quejas la puede encontrar en las secciones 1.720 a la 1.735 de las normas de la FCC, localizadas en 47 C.F.R. 1.720- 1.735. Tambin puede visitar el sitio Web de la Oficina para el Cumplimiento de la Ley en [20]www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/laction.html (en ingls). Quejas sobre el servicio telefnico local o cable Si tiene problemas con su servicio telefnico local, incluyendo la asistencia para directorios, o el servicio telefnico dentro de su estado,
- http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01418.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01418.html
- Inc. to form MCI WorldCom, Inc. This Order uses ``MCI'' to refer to the complainant in File No. E-97-40A. On June 30, 2000, U S WEST merged with Qwest Corporation (``Qwest''), and Qwest is now the legal successor to U S WEST. This Order refers to the defendant company in the two proceedings as ``U S WEST.'' Pursuant to section 1.735(a) of the Commission's formal complaint rules (47 C.F.R. 1.735(a)), we have consolidated AT&T's and MCI's actions against U S WEST, because the U S WEST Service challenged in both actions is identical. 47 U.S.C. 271(a) (``Neither a Bell operating company, nor any affiliate of a Bell operating company, may provide interLATA services except as provided in this section.'').
- http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01282.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01282.html
- for Stay, Mpower Comm. Corp. et al v. FCC, No. 01-1280 (D.C. Cir. filed Jun. 26, 2001) at 8 n.8, Petitioners' counsel improperly failed to serve the parties (or Commission counsel) on the same day that they submitted the Petition to the Commission, and failed to include a proper proof of service. See 47 C.F.R. 1.47(b), (c), (g), 1.106(f), 1.735(f); Letter from Anthony J. DeLaurentis, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to James F. Bendernagel, Counsel for AT&T, Jonathan E. Canis, Counsel for BTI, and Cheryl A. Tritt, Counsel for Sprint, File Nos. EB-01-MD-001, 002 (Jan. 18, 2001). Because Petitioners submitted the Petition to the Commission Secretary on the last day for filing permitted by the Act and our
- http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-674A1.html
- the EUCL charge. Further, the complaint must state the date on which the complainant filed an informal complaint with the Commission, and attach a copy of such informal complaint. 22. In addition, we waive the requirements of sections 1.724(c), (f), (i), (j), and (k) of the Commission's rules29 with regard to answers. 23. Finally, we waive the requirements of section 1.735(d) of the Commission's rules30 to the extent it requires service by hand delivery and permit complainants to serve defendants by overnight mail. 24. All other rules relating to formal complaints apply in their entirety, including sections 1.725- 1.736 of the Commission's rules.31 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 25. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications
- http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-207A1.html
- the complaint provisions of the Act or the Commission's rules, did not name any Verizon entity as a particular target of their actions, and did not request the specific remedy of monetary damages against a particular defendant, which remedy ``can only be obtained from the Commission within the parameters established by Sections 206-209 of the Act and Sections 1.711 through 1.735 of the Commission's rules.''68 The same is true of OCI's Interim and Supplement Requests (except that those did pertain to Verizon).69 25. Because OCI's submissions lacked the fundamental traits of an informal complaint, the Commission plainly and correctly did not handle OCI's submissions as an informal complaint under the Commission's rules. OCI never asked the Commission to treat its submissions
- http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97387.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97387.wp
- Act because they are not the "carrier" with respect to the SMS; and (v) that the BOCs did not have proper authorization from the Commission before constructing the SMS in violation of Section 214(a) of the Act. Id. at 10563. See Notice of Formal Complaint, File No. E-94-57 (Com. Car. Bur. Enf. Div., Apr. 21, 1994); 47 15 C.F.R. 1.735(d). Notice of Formal Complaint, supra; 47 C.F.R. 1.1208. 16 Letter from Russell D. Lukas to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, dated May 2, 1994, File 17 No. E-94-57 ("Lukas Letter"). The docket indicates that this letter was served on the Commission by mail, and was received on May 6, 1994. This letter also indicates that it was served
- http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001502.doc
- respond to inquires regarding the discrepancy on the bill and states that it had not received any notice regarding Glo Gem's dispute with the length of time billed until the complaint was filed in the District Court. Metronet's Initial Brief at 2-3. See AT&T v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 5 FCC Rcd 143, 147 (1990); 47 C.F.R. 1.720 - 1.735. See Answer at 6, 1; Metronet's Initial Brief at 5. Hi-Rim, 13 FCC Rcd 1982, 1989 (1997). Answer at 6-7, 2-7. Glo Gem Productions, Inc. v. Metronet-Telecom, Inc, File No. E-98-30, Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint (filed Oct. 13, 1998). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1502 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1502 @& & % b
- http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/fcc96382.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/fcc96382.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/fcc96382.wp
- ``[t]he remedies available under the Communications Act, including the provisions of sections 207 and 208, are available to enforce compliance with the provisions of section 255.'' Telecommunications Act of 1996, Conference Report, Report 104-230, 104th Congress, 2d Session, Feb. 1, 1996, at 135. 30. 47 C.F.R. 1.701-1.825. The rules pertinent to complaint proceedings are found at Section 1.711 through Section 1.735 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.711-1.735. The Commission will shortly initiate a separate rulemaking proceeding concerning the process for formal complaints, to consider the effect of the 1996 Act on this process, and as part of that proceeding will consider general measures intended to expedite determination of complaints. We do not anticipate that the rulemaking generally considering the formal
- http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992033.doc
- When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997), 63 F.R. 990 (1998). The previously effective rules are applicable in the case of this formal complaint, which was filed prior to that date. All references to formal complaint rules are to the rules as they were in effect prior to March 18, 1998. Sections 1.720 through 1.735 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720 - 1.735. Complainants argue, at paragraph II of their "Opposition To Defendants' Motion To Dismiss and Amended Motion For Summary Decision," that their motion for summary decision is permitted by Section 1.251(a)(1) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.251(a)(1). However, that section is applicable only to hearing proceedings. 47 C.F.R. 1.732.
- http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/spanish/informalcomplaint.html http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/spanish/informalcomplaint.pdf
- con las normas especficas del procedimiento, presentarse ante la FCC y presentar documentacin que trate los aspectos legales. Las partes involucradas en la queja normalmente son representadas por abogados o expertos en la ley de comunicaciones y las normas procesales de la FCC. Toda la informacin sobre este tipo de quejas la puede encontrar en las secciones 1.720 a la 1.735 de las normas de la FCC, localizadas en 47 C.F.R. 1.720- 1.735. Tambin puede visitar el sitio Web de la Oficina para el Cumplimiento de la Ley en [20]www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/laction.html (en ingls). Quejas sobre el servicio telefnico local o cable Si tiene problemas con su servicio telefnico local, incluyendo la asistencia para directorios, o el servicio telefnico dentro de su estado,
- http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01418.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01418.html
- Inc. to form MCI WorldCom, Inc. This Order uses ``MCI'' to refer to the complainant in File No. E-97-40A. On June 30, 2000, U S WEST merged with Qwest Corporation (``Qwest''), and Qwest is now the legal successor to U S WEST. This Order refers to the defendant company in the two proceedings as ``U S WEST.'' Pursuant to section 1.735(a) of the Commission's formal complaint rules (47 C.F.R. 1.735(a)), we have consolidated AT&T's and MCI's actions against U S WEST, because the U S WEST Service challenged in both actions is identical. 47 U.S.C. 271(a) (``Neither a Bell operating company, nor any affiliate of a Bell operating company, may provide interLATA services except as provided in this section.'').
- http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01282.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01282.html
- for Stay, Mpower Comm. Corp. et al v. FCC, No. 01-1280 (D.C. Cir. filed Jun. 26, 2001) at 8 n.8, Petitioners' counsel improperly failed to serve the parties (or Commission counsel) on the same day that they submitted the Petition to the Commission, and failed to include a proper proof of service. See 47 C.F.R. 1.47(b), (c), (g), 1.106(f), 1.735(f); Letter from Anthony J. DeLaurentis, Attorney, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, to James F. Bendernagel, Counsel for AT&T, Jonathan E. Canis, Counsel for BTI, and Cheryl A. Tritt, Counsel for Sprint, File Nos. EB-01-MD-001, 002 (Jan. 18, 2001). Because Petitioners submitted the Petition to the Commission Secretary on the last day for filing permitted by the Act and our
- http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-674A1.html
- the EUCL charge. Further, the complaint must state the date on which the complainant filed an informal complaint with the Commission, and attach a copy of such informal complaint. 22. In addition, we waive the requirements of sections 1.724(c), (f), (i), (j), and (k) of the Commission's rules29 with regard to answers. 23. Finally, we waive the requirements of section 1.735(d) of the Commission's rules30 to the extent it requires service by hand delivery and permit complainants to serve defendants by overnight mail. 24. All other rules relating to formal complaints apply in their entirety, including sections 1.725- 1.736 of the Commission's rules.31 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 25. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications
- http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-207A1.html
- the complaint provisions of the Act or the Commission's rules, did not name any Verizon entity as a particular target of their actions, and did not request the specific remedy of monetary damages against a particular defendant, which remedy ``can only be obtained from the Commission within the parameters established by Sections 206-209 of the Act and Sections 1.711 through 1.735 of the Commission's rules.''68 The same is true of OCI's Interim and Supplement Requests (except that those did pertain to Verizon).69 25. Because OCI's submissions lacked the fundamental traits of an informal complaint, the Commission plainly and correctly did not handle OCI's submissions as an informal complaint under the Commission's rules. OCI never asked the Commission to treat its submissions