FCC Web Documents citing 3.23

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A3.txt
  • New GX may purchase insurance to cover this indemnification. Indemnification of Security Directors. 3.22. Except to the extent and under conditions concurred in by the FBI, DOJ, DOD and DHS in writing, operational control of the Domestic Communications Infrastructure will be restricted to the New GX Network Operating Centers located in the United States. Operational Control of New GX Network. 3.23. Security Standards and Practices, and Consultations with U.S. Government. Domestic Communications Companies will maintain or exceed security standards and practices utilized within the U.S. telecommunications industry and will consult with the DOJ and other appropriate U.S. government agencies on steps to maintain or exceed such standards and practices. ' 3.24. Notice of Obligations. Domestic Communications Companies shall instruct appropriate officials,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.txt
  • 0.70 Anyofthelasttwoabove 1.87 4.89 0.63 ReligiousProgramming NetworksShowingPrimarilyReligiousProgramming 0.22 0.26 0.00 "ReligiousProgramming" 0.11 0.05 0.22 OverallTargeting AverageTVContentRating(wherenotedforTV) AverageMPAARating(wherenotedformovies) Observations 265,388 35,448 229,940 Notes:Reportedinthetableistheaverageratingamonghouseholdswithaccesstoaprogram.Thisis alsousedasoneofourmeasuresofProgramQuality.Averageisoverthesamenetworksandtimeperiods describedinthenotestoTable6.ItiscalculatedbytakingtheaverageratinginTable8anddividingby theaverageavailabilityinTable7.SeeSection5.1formoredetails.Source:Authorcalculations. 38 Table10: ProgramProductionbyProgrammingTypeandTime 6:00p.m.-12:00a.m.EST(orequivalent),2weeks/year,2003-2006 Variable 2003 2004 2005 2006 NewsProgramming AnyNews 4.29 3.99 4.07 4.22 NetworkNews 0.60 0.51 0.49 0.46 LocalNews 3.69 3.47 3.58 3.76 PublicAffairsProgramming 2.37 2.13 1.88 1.59 MinorityProgramming NetworksTargetingBlackAudiences 3.26 3.61 3.45 3.23 TargetingLatinoAudiences OnNetworksTargetingLatinoAudiences 7.11 8.07 8.35 8.87 Spanish-LanguageProgramming 2.94 3.01 3.41 4.09 NetworksTargetingOtherDiverseAudiences 2.65 2.55 2.67 2.72 Children'sProgramming "Children'sProgramming" 1.70 1.91 2.15 1.94 GMoviesorTV-Y/TV-Y7TV 3.18 3.28 3.04 2.94 Eitheroftheabove 4.88 5.19 5.19 4.88 FamilyProgramming NetworksTargetingFamilies 11.46 10.89 10.69 10.74 TY-GProgramming 11.35 12.18 11.93 10.94 Arts,Educational,orDocumentaryProgramming 8.32 7.46 7.05 7.62 Eitherofthetwoabove 19.67 19.64 18.98 18.56 AdultProgramming NetworksShowingAdultProgramming 4.84 4.60 4.89 5.52 NC-17MoviesorTV-MA-S/TV-MA-LTV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A5.txt
  • 0 0 0 Maximum 514 42.83 514 42.83 Pr > 0 0.6634 0.6654 Observations 1,013 1,013 Quantity of Public Affairs Mean 49.75 4.15 70.01 5.83 Median 0 0.00 0 0.00 Standard Deviation 539.48 44.96 662.56 55.21 Minimum 0 0 0 0 Maximum 1,183 98.58 1,152 96.00 Pr > 0 0.2488 0.3070 Observations 1,013 1,013 Quantity of Local Public Affairs Mean 3.23 0.27 3.88 0.32 Median 0 0.00 0 0.00 Standard Deviation 88.36 7.36 100.27 8.36 Minimum 0 0 0 0 Maximum 610 50.83 610 50.83 Pr > 0 0.0642 0.0819 Observations 1,013 1,013 II - 35 Table II-4 ­ Independent Variables Ownership Variables Description In-Market Stations Owned by Parent The number of radio stations owned by the station's parent in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.txt
  • 3.10 165 0.62 0.50 0 3.67 100 Average Block, Sports, AM Drive 0.64 0.00 0 7.29 165 0.16 0.00 0 2.00 100 Average Block, Advertisements, Evening 1.18 1.04 0 7.50 169 1.07 0.77 0 7.50 114 Average Block, Entertainment/Leisure/DJ Banter, Evening 0.82 0.25 0 7.39 169 0.62 0.28 0 6.25 114 Average Block, Music, Evening 2.57 2.90 0 11.53 169 3.23 3.25 0 11.53 114 Average Block, News, Evening 0.37 0.00 0 2.83 169 0.12 0.00 0 2.15 114 Average Block, Sports, Evening 0.99 0.00 0 13.08 169 0.34 0.00 0 8.23 114 Midwest Census Region 25% 251 25% 251 South Census Region 40% 251 40% 251 West Census Region 17% 251 17% 251 Notes: 1. "Format 101 Count" counts the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-448A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-448A2.txt
  • with Valcosphere) Operating Frequency: 1200 kHz 160 Degree Radial Point Distance Time Field Strength Desig. (km) Date (local) (mV/m) 1 0.25 11/30/05 1227 399 2 0.50 11/30/05 1230 222 3 0.75 11/30/05 1235 140 4 1.03 11/30/05 1240 110 5 1.35 11/30/05 1242 75.0 6 1.75 11/30/05 1245 58.0 7 2.00 11/30/05 1248 54.0 8 2.50 11/30/05 1253 38.5 9 3.23 11/30/05 1257 30.0 10 4.00 11/30/05 1305 10.0 11 5.00 11/30/05 1315 9.30 12 7.50 11/30/05 1320 6.30 13 9.00 11/30/05 1332 3.20 14 11.10 11/30/05 1338 2.60 15 13.00 11/30/05 1344 1.70 16 15.00 11/30/05 1350 1.30 Figure 1 Sheet 5 of 7 Valcom AM Broadcast Antenna (85 foot with Valcosphere) Operating Frequency: 1200 kHz 215 Degree Radial Point
• 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
  • facing overbuild competition. This specification uses 1,846 observations. We estimated two specifications because we wanted to investigate the difference between incumbent behavior and total cable operator behavior in overbuilt markets. Results The tables below report the estimated regression coefficients. First Regression Estimation: Includes Both Incumbent and Overbuilder in Overbuilt Markets Dependent Variable (Log Price) Estimated Coefficient t-Statistic Log HHI 0.110*** 3.23 Log Income 0.042*** 3.76 Log National Subscribers 0.029*** 14.55 Log Capacity 0.074*** 3.46 Log Density -0.000 0.21 Log Density Squared 0.000 0.03 Overbuild Competition -0.112*** 12.14 Local-into-Local 0.032*** 4.22 Vertical Affiliation -0.071*** 7.84 Log Channels 0.118*** 3.92 2007 0.054*** 9.60 2008 0.106*** 16.66 Constant 0.993*** 3.25 Observations 1993 --- Centered R-Squared 0.46 --- Root Mean Squared Error 0.103 --- Significant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-762A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-762A1.txt
  • Table United States Table FCC Rule Part(s) Region 1 Table Region 2 Table Region 3 Table Federal Table Non-Federal Table 3.025-3.155 AERONAUTICAL MOBILE (OR) 3.025-3.155 AERONAUTICAL MOBILE (OR) US340 3.155-3.2 FIXED MOBILE except aeronautical mobile (R) 5.116 5.117 3.155-3.23 FIXED MOBILE except aeronautical mobile (R) Maritime (80) Private Land Mobile (90) 3.2-3.23 FIXED MOBILE except aeronautical mobile (R) BROADCASTING 5.113 3.23-3.4 FIXED MOBILE except aeronautical mobile BROADCASTING 5.113 5.116 5.118 3.23-3.4 FIXED MOBILE except aeronautical mobile Radiolocation US340 Maritime (80) Aviation (87) Private Land Mobile (90) 3.4-3.5 AERONAUTICAL MOBILE (R) 3.4-3.5 AERONAUTICAL MOBILE (R) US283 US340 Aviation (87) 3.5-3.8 AMATEUR FIXED MOBILE except aeronautical mobile 3.5-3.75 AMATEUR 5.119 3.5-3.9 AMATEUR FIXED MOBILE 3.5-4 3.5-4 AMATEUR Amateur Radio (97) 5.92 3.75-4 AMATEUR
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-7A1_Rcd.pdf
  • should they be a winning bidder for any Auction 90 construction permit, they will be able to build and operate facilities that will fully comply with the Commission's current technical and legal requirements. Participants in Auction 90 should continue such research throughout the auction. For further details regarding due diligence, please refer to the Auction 90 Procedures Public Notice, section I.B.3.23 14.Prohibition of Certain Communications.The Bureaus remind applicants that sections 1.2105(c) and 73.5002(d) of the Commission's rules prohibit applicants for any of the same geographic license areas from communicating with each other about bids, bidding strategies, or settlements, which may include communications regarding the post-auction market structure, unless they have identified each other on their short-form applications as parties with which
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.txt
  • 10-Minute Day Rate 200-Mile Call (Basic Rates) Consumer Price Index: All Goods and Services (1982-1984 = 100)Revenue per Minute Basic Rate 200-Mile Call Charge per Minute 1930 $0.27 $0.35 16.7 $2.74 $3.49 1931 0.27 0.35 15.2 2.95 3.84 1932 0.26 0.35 13.7 3.19 4.26 1933 0.28 0.35 13.0 3.53 4.49 1934 0.27 0.35 13.4 3.38 4.35 1935 0.27 0.35 13.7 3.23 4.26 1936 0.25 0.35 13.9 3.01 4.19 1937 0.22 0.35 14.4 2.51 4.05 1938 0.21 0.26 14.1 2.53 3.01 1939 0.22 0.26 13.9 2.59 3.06 1940 0.21 0.26 14.0 2.50 3.03 1941 0.21 0.26 14.7 2.35 2.89 1942 0.22 0.26 16.3 2.21 2.61 1943 0.21 0.22 17.3 2.03 2.12 1944 0.22 0.22 17.6 2.04 2.08 1945 0.21 0.22 18.0 1.96
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255118A1.txt
  • -0.06*** (4.96) -0.17*** (6.73) Missing Subs -0.51** (2.21) -2.10** (2.12) Vertical Integration 0.00 (0.07) -0.01 (1.15) Spinoff -1.21** (2.40) -1.50*** (2.95) Missing Vertical or Spinoff 0.26 (1.23) -0.22 (1.22) Born before 1984 -0.74 (1.62) -1.08** (2.01) Duration 2 years -1.03*** (3.91) Duration 3 years -0.93*** (3.36) Duration 4 years -0.49* (1.91) Duration 5 years -0.82** (2.43) Duration 6 years -1.92*** (3.23) Duration 7 years -0.44 (1.25) Duration 8 years -0.60 (1.36) Duration 10 years -0.47 (3.47) Duration 12 years -0.35 (0.55) Duration 13 years -1.03 (0.98) Duration 19 years 1.52 (1.29) Constant Observations 305 305 Failures 96 96 Likelihood Ratio -364.60*** -324.91*** * - significant at 10% level, ** - significant at 5% level, *** - significant at 1% level 25
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.txt
  • Speeds Acquired ...................... Table 5.3 Rural Health Care - Disbursements per Person by State ................................... Table 5.4 Rural Health Care Funding Commitments and Disbursements by State .................. Table 5.2 Rural Health Care Funding Disbursements by Funding Year .............................. Table 5.1 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .........................Table 3.7 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by Study Area ...................................Table 3.23 Safety Valve Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ......................................Table 3.8 Safety Valve Support Payments by Study Area ...........................................Table 3.24 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by Applicant & Service Type Table 4.1 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Applicant Type .. Table 4.2 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Service Type .....Table 4.3 Schools
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.txt
  • Speeds Acquired ...................... Table 5.3 Rural Health Care - Disbursements per Person by State ................................... Table 5.4 Rural Health Care Funding Commitments and Disbursements by State .................. Table 5.2 Rural Health Care Funding Disbursements by Funding Year .............................. Table 5.1 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .........................Table 3.7 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by Study Area ...................................Table 3.23 Safety Valve Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ......................................Table 3.8 Safety Valve Support Payments by Study Area ...........................................Table 3.24 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by Applicant & Service Type Table 4.1 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Applicant Type .. Table 4.2 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Service Type .....Table 4.3 Schools
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.txt
  • the 2004 filing. Table 3.19 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.20 shows the number of loops. Table 3.21 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. The next several tables in this section are data for individual study areas. Tables 3.22 through 3.30 are derived from the USAC data. Table 3.22 has HCLS payments. Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Only those study areas that are eligible for these payments, regardless of whether they receive any support, are included in the table. Table 3.24 has safety valve support payments. Only those study areas that are eligible for these payments, regardless of whether they receive any support, are included in the table. Table 3.25 provides,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A6.txt
  • 23,787,269 13.33 20,900,183 11.71 Minnesota 846,891 26,504,960 31.30 16,540,378 19.53 9,964,582 11.77 Mississippi 492,645 38,852,160 78.86 24,419,729 49.57 14,432,431 29.30 Missouri 924,445 43,548,617 47.11 18,099,051 19.58 25,449,566 27.53 Montana 149,995 3,959,885 26.40 2,936,427 19.58 1,023,458 6.82 Nebraska 285,402 7,714,469 27.03 6,360,630 22.29 1,353,839 4.74 Nevada 369,498 4,863,132 13.16 4,429,735 11.99 433,397 1.17 New Hampshire 207,671 2,337,760 11.26 1,667,377 8.03 670,383 3.23 New Jersey 1,367,438 55,698,865 40.73 30,051,243 21.98 25,647,623 18.76 New Mexico 320,234 64,232,969 200.58 22,540,649 70.39 41,692,320 130.19 New York 2,888,233 437,315,692 151.41 181,369,130 62.80 255,946,562 88.62 North Carolina 1,335,954 51,680,388 38.68 35,457,926 26.54 16,222,462 12.14 North Dakota 104,225 3,986,252 38.25 3,164,855 30.37 821,397 7.88 Northern Mariana Is. 11,251 1,242,365 110.42 727,335 64.65 515,031 45.78 Ohio 1,838,285 73,346,272 39.90 39,789,143
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • 564 768 932 1,142 1,441 2004 562 787 956 1,185 1,460 1980 2.61% 2.32% 2.18% 1.81% 1.51% 1981 2.96 2.52 2.24 1.95 1.55 1982 3.18 2.66 2.19 1.97 1.52 1983 3.13 2.82 2.24 2.02 1.55 1984 2.71 2.44 2.21 1.82 1.51 1985 2.72 2.41 2.20 1.81 1.39 1986 2.94 2.62 2.15 1.83 1.43 1987 3.24 2.57 2.31 1.85 1.44 1988 3.23 2.61 2.31 1.82 1.49 1989 3.05 2.61 2.30 1.88 1.43 1990 3.11 2.77 2.37 1.89 1.48 1991 3.08 2.80 2.28 1.84 1.45 1992 3.35 2.77 2.34 1.88 1.46 1993 3.27 2.70 2.45 1.96 1.53 1994 3.17 2.83 2.36 1.95 1.58 1995 3.38 2.71 2.41 1.99 1.55 1996 3.20 2.94 2.46 2.05 1.57 1997 3.24 3.02 2.53 2.09 1.63 1998 3.17
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.txt
  • Speeds Acquired ...................... Table 5.3 Rural Health Care - Disbursements per Person by State ................................... Table 5.4 Rural Health Care Funding Commitments and Disbursements by State .................. Table 5.2 Rural Health Care Funding Disbursements by Funding Year .............................. Table 5.1 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .........................Table 3.7 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by Study Area ...................................Table 3.23 Safety Valve Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ......................................Table 3.8 Safety Valve Support Payments by Study Area ...........................................Table 3.24 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by Applicant & Service Type Table 4.1 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Applicant Type .. Table 4.2 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Service Type .....Table 4.3 Schools
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.txt
  • Speeds Acquired ...................... Table 5.3 Rural Health Care - Disbursements per Person by State ................................... Table 5.4 Rural Health Care Funding Commitments and Disbursements by State .................. Table 5.2 Rural Health Care Funding Disbursements by Funding Year .............................. Table 5.1 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .........................Table 3.7 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by Study Area ...................................Table 3.23 Safety Valve Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ......................................Table 3.8 Safety Valve Support Payments by Study Area ...........................................Table 3.24 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by Applicant & Service Type Table 4.1 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Applicant Type .. Table 4.2 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Service Type .....Table 4.3 Schools
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.txt
  • 2,099 2,885 4,984 1.71 Connecticut 1,222 1,869 3,090 503 227 730 1,724 2,096 3,821 1.31 Delaware 301 468 770 121 56 177 422 524 946 0.32 Dist. of Columbia 379 625 1,004 207 85 292 585 710 1,296 0.44 Florida 5,751 10,221 15,973 2,257 1,772 4,030 8,009 11,994 20,003 6.86 Georgia 2,578 4,937 7,515 1,179 722 1,901 3,757 5,659 9,415 3.23 Guam 41 62 103 17 10 27 58 72 130 0.04 Hawaii 340 631 970 129 96 225 469 726 1,196 0.41 Idaho 392 564 957 171 96 266 563 660 1,223 0.42 Illinois 3,241 6,414 9,654 1,199 955 2,154 4,440 7,369 11,809 4.05 Indiana 1,487 2,761 4,248 556 494 1,050 2,043 3,254 5,298 1.82 Iowa 733 1,268 2,001 300
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A4.txt
  • $17 $19 $18 $18 $14 $42 $34 $30 $31 $31 $31 $32 $34 198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005 2 - 8 Table 2.3 Lifeline Monthly Support by State or Jurisdictio n (As of March 2005) State or Jurisdiction Min.Max.Avg.Min.Max. Avg.Min.Max.Avg.Min.Max.Avg.Min. Max. Avg. Alabama $5.25 $8.25 $8.24 $0.00 $3.50 $3.48 $0.00 $1.75 $1.74 $5.25 $10.00 $9.99 $5.25 $13.50 $13.47 Alaska 6.50 8.25 8.12 0.00 3.50 3.23 0.00 1.75 1.62 6.50 10.00 9.73 6.50 13.50 12.97 American Samoa 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 Arizona 8.05 8.25 8.20 0.00 3.50 2.76 0.00 1.75 1.38 8.05 10.00 9.58 8.05 13.50 12.34 Arkansas 5.25 8.25 7.47 0.00 3.50 0.71 0.00 1.75 0.35 5.25 10.00 7.82 5.25 13.50 8.53 California 3.97
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.txt
  • number of loops per exchange. 43 The data submitted by NECA include payments that would have been made to non-rural carriers if the forward-looking high cost model had not been implemented, which form the basis of the hold-harmless calculations. Consequently the amounts shown in Table 3.6 are a better indication of the actual HCLS payments. 3 - 11 payments. Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Table 3.24 has safety valve support payments. Table 3.25 provides, by non-rural study area, the high cost support using the forward-looking high-cost model support mechanism.44 Table 3.26 has LTS payments. Table 3.27 has ICLS payments. Table 3.28 has IAS payments for price-cap companies. Table 3.29 has LSS payments. Table 3.30 has the total support
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.txt
  • 2,099 2,885 4,984 1.71 Connecticut 1,222 1,869 3,090 503 227 730 1,724 2,096 3,821 1.31 Delaware 301 468 770 121 56 177 422 524 946 0.32 Dist. of Columbia 379 625 1,004 207 85 292 585 710 1,296 0.44 Florida 5,751 10,221 15,973 2,257 1,772 4,030 8,009 11,994 20,003 6.86 Georgia 2,578 4,937 7,515 1,179 722 1,901 3,757 5,659 9,415 3.23 Guam 41 62 103 17 10 27 58 72 130 0.04 Hawaii 340 631 970 129 96 225 469 726 1,196 0.41 Idaho 392 564 957 171 96 266 563 660 1,223 0.42 Illinois 3,241 6,414 9,654 1,199 955 2,154 4,440 7,369 11,809 4.05 Indiana 1,487 2,761 4,248 556 494 1,050 2,043 3,254 5,298 1.82 Iowa 733 1,268 2,001 300
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.txt
  • Speeds Acquired ...................... Table 5.3 Rural Health Care - Disbursements per Person by State ................................... Table 5.4 Rural Health Care Funding Commitments and Disbursements by State .................. Table 5.2 Rural Health Care Funding Disbursements by Funding Year .............................. Table 5.1 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .........................Table 3.7 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by Study Area ...................................Table 3.23 Safety Valve Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ......................................Table 3.8 Safety Valve Support Payments by Study Area ...........................................Table 3.24 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by Applicant & Service Type Table 4.1 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Applicant Type .. Table 4.2 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Service Type .....Table 4.3 5
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.txt
  • Speeds Acquired ...................... Table 5.3 Rural Health Care - Disbursements per Person by State ................................... Table 5.4 Rural Health Care Funding Commitments and Disbursements by State .................. Table 5.2 Rural Health Care Funding Disbursements by Funding Year .............................. Table 5.1 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .........................Table 3.7 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by Study Area ...................................Table 3.23 Safety Valve Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ......................................Table 3.8 Safety Valve Support Payments by Study Area ...........................................Table 3.24 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by Applicant & Service Type Table 4.1 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Applicant Type .. Table 4.2 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Service Type .....Table 4.3 5
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.txt
  • data. In each table, only payments made in 2002 through projections for 2007 are included. Also, only those study areas that received payments for the support mechanism covered by the table for those years are included in the table. Payments for 1998 through 2001 can be found in the 2006 Universal Service Monitoring Report. Table 3.22 has HCLS payments. Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Table 3.24 has safety valve support payments. Table 3.25 provides, by non-rural study area, the high cost support using the forward-looking high-cost model support mechanism.47 Table 3.26 has LTS payments. Table 3.27 has ICLS payments. Table 3.28 has IAS payments for price-cap companies. Table 3.29 has LSS payments. Table 3.30 has the total support
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 596 847 1,035 1,227 1,532 2006 634 862 1,089 1,297 1,551 1980 2.61% 2.32% 2.18% 1.81% 1.51% 1981 2.96 2.52 2.24 1.95 1.55 1982 3.18 2.66 2.19 1.97 1.52 1983 3.13 2.82 2.24 2.02 1.55 1984 2.71 2.44 2.21 1.82 1.51 1985 2.72 2.41 2.20 1.81 1.39 1986 2.94 2.62 2.15 1.83 1.43 1987 3.24 2.57 2.31 1.85 1.44 1988 3.23 2.61 2.31 1.82 1.49 1989 3.05 2.61 2.30 1.88 1.43 1990 3.11 2.77 2.37 1.89 1.48 1991 3.08 2.80 2.28 1.84 1.45 1992 3.35 2.77 2.34 1.88 1.46 1993 3.27 2.70 2.45 1.96 1.53 1994 3.17 2.83 2.36 1.95 1.58 1995 3.38 2.71 2.41 1.99 1.55 1996 3.20 2.94 2.46 2.05 1.57 1997 3.24 3.02 2.53 2.09 1.63 1998 3.17
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A1.pdf
  • Speeds Acquired ...................... Table 5.3 Rural Health Care - Disbursements per Person by State ................................... Table 5.4 Rural Health Care Funding Commitments and Disbursements by State .................. Table 5.2 Rural Health Care Funding Disbursements by Funding Year .............................. Table 5.1 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .........................Table 3.7 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by Study Area ...................................Table 3.23 Safety Valve Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ......................................Table 3.8 Safety Valve Support Payments by Study Area ...........................................Table 3.24 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by Applicant & Service Type Table 4.1 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Applicant Type .. Table 4.2 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Service Type .....Table 4.3 Schools
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A2.pdf
  • Speeds Acquired ...................... Table 5.3 Rural Health Care - Disbursements per Person by State ................................... Table 5.4 Rural Health Care Funding Commitments and Disbursements by State .................. Table 5.2 Rural Health Care Funding Disbursements by Funding Year .............................. Table 5.1 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .........................Table 3.7 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by Study Area ...................................Table 3.23 Safety Valve Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ......................................Table 3.8 Safety Valve Support Payments by Study Area ...........................................Table 3.24 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by Applicant & Service Type Table 4.1 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Applicant Type .. Table 4.2 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Service Type .....Table 4.3 Schools
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A3.pdf
  • 100 New Hampshire 195,539 0.66 34 47 63 80 New Jersey 993,630 3.33 171 240 322 406 New Mexico 76,512 0.26 13 18 25 31 New York 3,043,468 10.21 523 736 985 1,243 North Carolina 797,793 2.68 137 193 258 326 North Dakota 68,351 0.23 12 17 22 28 N. Mariana Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA Ohio 963,094 3.23 166 233 312 393 Oklahoma 361,715 1.21 62 87 117 148 Oregon 305,519 1.02 53 74 99 125 Pennsylvania 1,572,224 5.27 270 380 509 642 Puerto Rico * 0.57 29 41 55 70 Rhode Island 275,526 0.92 47 67 89 113 South Carolina 329,943 1.11 57 80 107 135 South Dakota 135,275 0.45 23 33 44 55 Tennessee 575,957 1.93
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A5.pdf
  • only those study areas that received payments for the support mechanism covered by the table for those years are included in the table. Payments for 1998 through 2001 can be found in the 2006 Universal Service Monitoring Report, and payments for 2002 and 2003 can be found in the 2007 Universal Service Monitoring Report. Table 3.22 has HCLS payments. Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Table 3.24 has safety valve support payments. Table 3.25 provides, by non-rural study area, the high cost support using the forward-looking high-cost model support mechanism. Table 3.26 has LTS payments. Table 3.27 has ICLS payments. Table 3.28 has IAS payments for price-cap companies. Table 3.29 has LSS payments. Table 3.30 has the total support
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.txt
  • Speeds Acquired ...................... Table 5.3 Rural Health Care - Disbursements per Person by State ................................... Table 5.4 Rural Health Care Funding Commitments and Disbursements by State .................. Table 5.2 Rural Health Care Funding Disbursements by Funding Year .............................. Table 5.1 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .........................Table 3.7 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by Study Area ...................................Table 3.23 Safety Valve Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ...................................... Table 3.8 Safety Valve Support Payments by Study Area ........................................... Table 3.24 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by Applicant & Service Type Table 4.1 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Applicant Type .. Table 4.2 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Service Type .....
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.txt
  • Speeds Acquired ...................... Table 5.3 Rural Health Care - Disbursements per Person by State ................................... Table 5.4 Rural Health Care Funding Commitments and Disbursements by State .................. Table 5.2 Rural Health Care Funding Disbursements by Funding Year .............................. Table 5.1 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .........................Table 3.7 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by Study Area ...................................Table 3.23 Safety Valve Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ...................................... Table 3.8 Safety Valve Support Payments by Study Area ........................................... Table 3.24 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by Applicant & Service Type Table 4.1 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Applicant Type .. Table 4.2 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Service Type .....
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.txt
  • 369 443 Indiana 292,751 1.02 58 85 114 137 Iowa 250,859 0.88 50 72 97 117 Kansas 349,366 1.22 69 101 136 163 Kentucky 327,737 1.15 65 95 127 153 Louisiana 363,022 1.27 72 105 141 169 Maine 135,213 0.47 27 39 53 63 Maryland 527,181 1.84 104 152 205 246 Massachusetts 865,351 3.03 171 250 336 404 Michigan 923,265 3.23 182 267 359 431 Minnesota 658,897 2.30 130 190 256 307 Mississippi 125,099 0.44 25 36 49 58 Missouri 436,388 1.53 86 126 170 204 Montana 82,330 0.29 16 24 32 38 Nebraska 257,518 0.90 51 74 100 120 Nevada 355,806 1.24 70 103 138 166 New Hampshire 171,449 0.60 34 49 67 80 New Jersey 896,827 3.14 177 259
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A4.txt
  • 10.00 8.95 5.36 13.50 12.30 Utah 8.09 8.25 8.15 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 9.84 10.00 9.90 13.34 13.50 13.40 Vermont 8.15 8.25 8.17 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 9.90 10.00 9.92 13.40 13.50 13.42 Virgin Islands 8.25 8.25 8.25 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 10.00 10.00 10.00 13.50 13.50 13.50 Virginia 6.68 8.25 7.48 0.00 3.50 3.23 0.00 1.75 1.61 6.68 10.00 9.10 6.68 13.50 12.32 Washington 6.97 8.25 7.84 0.00 3.50 2.29 0.00 1.75 1.15 6.97 10.00 8.99 6.97 13.50 11.28 West Virginia 6.50 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 2.75 0.00 1.75 1.37 6.50 10.00 9.62 6.50 13.50 12.37 Wisconsin 6.81 8.25 7.33 0.00 3.50 1.21 0.00 1.75 0.61 6.81 10.00 7.94 6.81 13.50 9.15 Wyoming 8.25
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.txt
  • made to non-rural carriers if the forward-looking high cost model had not been implemented, which form the basis of the hold-harmless calculations. Consequently the amounts shown in Table 3.6 are a better indication of the actual HCLS payments. 3 - 12 payments for 2004 can be found in the 2008 Universal Service Monitoring Report. Table 3.22 has HCLS payments. Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Table 3.24 has safety valve support payments. Table 3.25 provides, by non-rural study area, the high cost support using the forward-looking high-cost model support mechanism. Table 3.26 has LTS payments. Table 3.27 has ICLS payments. Table 3.28 has IAS payments for price-cap companies. Table 3.29 has LSS payments. Table 3.30 has the total support
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.txt
  • 4.37 1974 49.3 0.26 1.12 2.25 0.22 1935 13.7 0.27 4.17 1975 53.8 0.27 1.09 2.23 0.24 1936 13.9 0.25 3.89 1976 56.9 0.29 1.08 2.20 0.25 1937 14.4 0.22 3.24 1977 60.6 0.28 1.01 2.18 0.25 1938 14.1 0.21 3.27 1978 65.2 0.29 0.95 2.09 0.25 1939 13.9 0.22 3.34 1979 72.6 0.29 0.86 1.76 0.26 1940 14.0 0.21 3.23 1980 82.4 0.30 0.79 1.34 0.27 1941 14.7 0.21 3.04 1981 90.9 0.33 0.77 1.21 0.31 1942 16.3 0.22 2.85 1982 96.5 0.34 0.76 1.09 0.32 1943 17.3 0.21 2.62 1983 99.6 0.35 0.75 1.09 0.33 1944 17.6 0.22 2.64 1984 103.9 0.32 0.67 1.05 0.30 1945 18.0 0.21 2.54 1985 107.6 0.31 0.62 1.01 0.29 1946 19.5 0.20 2.18
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • State ......... Table 5.3 Rural Health Care - Disbursements per Person - by State .................................. Table 5.4 Rural Health Care Funding Commitments and Disbursements - by State ................Table 5.2 Rural Health Care Funding Disbursements by Funding Year .............................. Table 5.1 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .........................Table 3.7 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by Study Area ...................................Table 3.23 Safety Valve Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ..................................... Table 3.8 Safety Valve Support Payments by Study Area .......................................... Table 3.24 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by Applicant & Service Type Table 4.1 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Applicant Type . Table 4.2 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Service Type ....
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A2.txt
  • State ......... Table 5.3 Rural Health Care - Disbursements per Person - by State .................................. Table 5.4 Rural Health Care Funding Commitments and Disbursements - by State ................Table 5.2 Rural Health Care Funding Disbursements by Funding Year .............................. Table 5.1 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .........................Table 3.7 Safety Net Additive Support Payments by Study Area ...................................Table 3.23 Safety Valve Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ..................................... Table 3.8 Safety Valve Support Payments by Study Area .......................................... Table 3.24 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by Applicant & Service Type Table 4.1 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Applicant Type . Table 4.2 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Service Type ....
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A3.txt
  • 7.24 2,349 5.37 33 8.17 20,390 7.97 20,183,770 6.39 Utah 811 0.65 269 0.62 4 0.90 2,046 0.80 2,323,130 0.74 Vermont 323 0.26 88 0.20 0 0.06 421 0.16 1,027,573 0.33 Virgin Islands 62 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.04 104 0.04 372,199 0.12 Virginia 3,422 2.75 1,427 3.26 8 1.97 6,242 2.44 9,559,980 3.03 Washington 2,509 2.01 1,020 2.33 13 3.23 5,461 2.14 6,174,868 1.96 West Virginia 752 0.60 195 0.45 1 0.31 1,236 0.48 2,760,450 0.87 Wisconsin 2,336 1.87 765 1.75 5 1.12 3,966 1.55 5,406,144 1.71 Wyoming 218 0.17 54 0.12 1 0.33 457 0.18 746,131 0.24 Total 124,606 100.00% 43,753 100.00% 405 100.00% 255,729 100.00% 315,648,206 100.00% Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. 1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.txt
  • through 2001 can be found in the 2006 Universal Service Monitoring Report, payments for 2002 and 2003 can be found in the 2007 Universal Service Monitoring Report, payments for 2004 can be found in the 2008 Universal Service Monitoring Report, and payments for 2005 can be found in the 2009 Universal Service Monitoring Report. Table 3.22 has HCLS payments. Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Table 3.24 has safety valve support payments. Table 3.25 provides, by non-rural study area, the high cost support using the forward-looking high-cost model support mechanism. Table 3.26 has LTS payments. Table 3.27 has ICLS payments. Table 3.28 has IAS payments for price-cap companies. Table 3.29 has LSS payments. Table 3.30 has the total support
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311775A1.txt
  • California 6.60 3.42 1.71 8.31 11.74 8.03 3.50 1.75 9.78 13.28 6.61 3.43 1.71 8.32 11.75 Colorado 8.21 3.49 1.75 9.96 13.46 8.25 3.50 1.75 10.00 13.50 8.21 3.49 1.75 9.96 13.46 Connecticut 7.48 1.18 0.59 8.07 9.25 7.48 3.50 1.75 9.23 12.73 7.48 2.55 1.28 8.76 11.31 Delaware 8.13 0.00 0.00 8.13 8.13 8.13 3.50 1.75 9.88 13.38 8.13 3.23 1.61 9.74 12.97 District of Columbia 5.59 3.50 1.75 7.34 10.84 5.59 3.47 1.73 7.32 10.79 5.59 3.48 1.74 7.33 10.80 Florida 8.19 3.50 1.75 9.94 13.44 8.19 3.50 1.75 9.94 13.44 8.19 3.50 1.75 9.94 13.44 Georgia 8.25 3.38 1.69 9.94 13.32 8.25 3.50 1.75 10.00 13.49 8.25 3.47 1.73 9.98 13.45 Guam 8.25 3.50 1.75 10.00 13.50 NA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-187A1.txt
  • Cleared (all troubles) within 24 Hours MR-4-05 % Out of Service > 2 Hours MR-4-06 % Out of Service > 4 Hours MR-4-07 % Out of Service > 12 Hours MR-4-08 % Out of Service > 24 Hours MR-5-01 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days DISAGGREGATED METRICS Metric 1-5000 % Final Trunk Groups Exceeding Blocking Standard 0 0 0 0 3.23 0 0 0 0 0 1 NP-1-02-5000 % FTG Exceeding Blocking Std. -(No Exceptions) 0 0 0 0 3.23 0 0 0 0 0 1 NP-1-03-5000 Number FTG Exceeding Blocking Std. - 2 Months 0 0 0 0 0 1 NP-1-04-5000 Number FTG Exceeding Blocking Std. - 3 Months 0 0 0 0 0 1 NP-2 - Collocation Performance -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
  • 2.00 2.11 2.00 1 - 106006Avg Resp Pre-Order Rej/Fail Inq EDI-CORBA: Rndtrp 3.30 tbd 4.90 tbd 3.89 tbd 8.75 tbd 3.64 tbd 1 - 106007Avg Resp Pre-Order Mech Loop Qual Actual - EDI- CORBA: Rndtrp 10.7610.34 16.23 9.60 11.2011.94 17.8112.10 15.6812.17 1 - 106008Avg Resp Pre-Order Mech Loop Qual Design - EDI- CORBA: Rndtrp 1.42 2.58 2.32 2.27 1.69 2.41 3.23 2.89 2.75a d 2 - 200100Resale Res 0.17 0.33 0.13 0.33 0.12 0.33 0.16 0.33 0.15 0.33 2 - 200200Elct Resale Bus 0.15 0.33 0.03 0.33 0.03 0.33 0.05 0.33 0.14 0.33 2 - 201101Elct 8.0 dB and 5.5 dB Loop 0.07 0.33 0.06 0.33 0.08 0.33 0.30 0.33 0.08 0.33 2 - 201200Elct 2 Digital ISDN 0.02 0.33 0.02
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.txt
  • 2.71 2.30 3.57 1.42 1,5 A.2.1.6.1.1ISDN/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (days)22.03 11.80 17.78 8.33 21.29 10.00 5.68 11.51 12.00 1,2,3,5 B - 7 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] May June July August September Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-331 Florida Performance Metric Data A.2.1.6.1.2ISDN/<10 circuits/Non-Dispatch/FL (days) 2.20 1.20 2.52 1.44 3.23 5.78 2.86 2.61 2.10 2,3,5 A.2.1.6.2.1ISDN/>=10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (days) 11.50 13.33 23.75 27.02 36.00 26.43 8.67 4,5 A.2.1.6.2.2ISDN/>=10 circuits/Non-Dispatch/FL (days) 3.20 9.55 4.61 13.00 23.91 10.58 3.00 3,5 % Jeopardies - Mechanized A.2.4.1 Residence/FL (%) 0.53% 0.24% 0.53% 0.29% 0.53% 0.22% 0.60% 0.31% 0.47% 0.27% A.2.4.2 Business/FL (%) 1.52% 0.68% 1.52% 0.38% 1.31% 0.83% 1.53% 1.32% 1.47% 1.39% A.2.4.3 Design (Specials)/FL
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-48A1.txt
  • in cumulative interference. However, XSI demonstrated that if only one UWB transmitter was placed within the inner ring used in NTIA's analysis the emission from that single UWB transmitter would dominate the signal at the victim receiver. DOD provided mathematical analyses of possible cumulative interference from UWB operation to its SEEK Skyhook radar system, operating at 3.15 GHz and at 3.23 GHz. The SEEK Skyhook is a surveillance radar positioned 12,000 feet above mean sea level operating with a range of 278 km at an altitude of 3660 meters. It currently is used to detect low flying aircraft for drug interdiction at Cudjoe Key, Florida and operates with a narrow 40 dBi antenna tilted at -1.5 degrees. Based on these specifications,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A2.txt
  • Mean Time To Repair - Total 8.2 7.82 7.1 7.01 6.9 7.23 7.8 7.45 5 MR-4-04-3200 % Cleared (all troubles) within 24 Hours 95 100 97 97 98 98 97 100 5 MR-4-06-3200 % Out of Service > 4 Hours 67 65 63 59.7 61 61.22 59 72.92 5 MR-4-08-3200 % Out of Service > 24 Hours 4.4 0 2.7 3.23 2.1 2.04 2.5 0 5 MR-5 - Repeat Trouble Reports MR-5-01-3200 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days 23 7.5 19 6.06 18 10 17 13.46 18 6.9 TRUNKING Ordering OR 1 - Order Confirmation Timeliness OR-1-12-5020 % On Time FOC (<= 192 Forecasted Trunks) 100 100 62.5 100 90.9 1,3,4 OR-1-12-5030 % On Time FOC (> 192 and Unforecasted Trunks)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-189A1.txt
  • 529 0 R 532 0 R 535 0 R ] >> endobj 577 0 obj << /Parent 568 0 R /Count 1 /Type /Pages /Kids [ 538 0 R ] >> endobj 578 0 obj << /CreationDate (D:20070327123158-04'00') /Author (Nathan.Wheeler) /Creator (PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2) /Producer (Acrobat Distiller 7.0 \(Windows\)) /ModDate (D:20070327143629-03'00') /Title (Microsoft Word - ATT BellSouth FINAL REDACTED PUBLIC _3.23.07_.doc) >> endobj 579 0 obj << /Type /Metadata /Subtype /XML /Length 1950 >> stream endstream endobj xref 0 580 0000000000 65535 f 0000012163 00000 n 0000012315 00000 n 0000012505 00000 n 0000016501 00000 n 0000016653 00000 n 0000016858 00000 n 0000020573 00000 n 0000020725 00000 n 0000020902 00000 n 0000023947 00000 n 0000024102 00000 n 0000024293 00000 n
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.txt
  • and/or physical access to facilities and personnel requested. The Companies 17 may request a meeting to discuss the scope of the U.S. Government agency's request or other reasonable concerns, and the U.S. Government agency shall meet with the Companies as soon as possible, but the meeting request shall not excuse the Domestic Companies' obligation to comply within the forty-eight hours. 3.23. Establishment of Security Committee of TELPRI Board. The TELPRI board of directors shall establish a Security Committee to oversee the Domestic Companies' implementation of and compliance with this Agreement. The Security Committee shall be comprised solely of directors ("Security Directors") who are U.S. citizens; who, if not already in possession of U.S. security clearances, are reasonably believed to be eligible
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fc99418a.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fc99418a.txt
  • Databook, 1996, at 38-40; 1997, at 39-41; 1998, at 38-42; and 1999, at 50-55. TABLE C-3 1999 Concentration in the National Market for the Purchase of Video Programming(1) Rank Company Percent of Subscribers(2) 1 AT&T 20.50 2 Time Warner 15.95 3 DirecTV 9.23 4 Comcast 8.26 Top 4 53.94 5 MediaOne 5.84 6 Cox 4.67 7 Charter 3.60 8 EchoStar 3.23 Top 8 71.28 9 Adelphia 2.01 10 Century 1.66 Top 10 74.95 Top 25 84.92 Top 50 89.58 HHI 923(3) Notes: (1) MSO subscriber totals as of June 1999, and as reported in Paul Kagan Assocs., Inc., Top Cable System Operators as of June 1999, Cable TV Investor, August 20, 1999, at 10-12. There is no double counting of subscribers.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.txt
  • 80.19 percent of the total MVPD subscribers. At the same time, non-cable MVPDs continued to increase their share of the MVPD market which translates into increased program purchasing in that market. For example, DirecTV's share of the MVPD market increased from 9.23 percent in 1999 to 10.28 percent in 2000. Similarly, the share of EchoStar, another non-cable MVPD, increased from 3.23 percent in 1999 to 5.11 percent in 2000. The top four purchasers of video programming for distribution to the household or MDU market are AT&T (with a share of 19.07 percent of all MVPD subscribers), Time Warner (with a share of 14.92 percent), DirecTV (with a share of 10.28 percent), and Comcast (with a share of 8.43 percent). The share
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.txt
  • averaging more than four months (June-September 1999) 2.43 days for competing carrier orders versus 1.09 days for Bell Atlantic orders, for a difference of 1.34 days. Meanwhile, UNE platform dispatch orders took from 2.6 to 3.6 days longer, averaging over the four months 6.49 days for competing carriers orders versus 3.26 days for Bell Atlantic orders, for a difference of 3.23 days. Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Decl. Attach. D; Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Reply Decl. Attach. C. The Carrier to Carrier report also contains data about how many orders were completed within "X" number of days for Bell Atlantic and competitive LEC customers, with metrics provided for "X" ranging from one to six days (the "Percent Completed within 'X' Days" metrics). Bell Atlantic
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • No Dispatch ­ Other 0.28 NA 0.04 NA PR-4-05-3140 % Missed Appt. ­ Verizon ­ No Dispatch - Platform 0.28 0 0.04 0 0.07 0 0.03 0 0.02 0 PR-6 - Installation Quality PR-6-01-3100 % Installation Troubles reported within 30 Days - Loop 2.59 0 2.31 0 PR-6-01-3112 % Installation Troubles reported within 30 Days - Loop 1.98 1.11 2.27 3.23 1.87 0.93 PR-6-01-3121 % Installation Troubles reported within 30 Days - Platform 2.59 0 2.31 0 1.98 0 2.27 2.29 1.87 0 PR-6-02-3112 % Installation Troubles reported within 7 Days - Loop 1.47 0 1.41 0 PR-6-02-3121 % Installation Troubles reported within 7 Days - Platform 1.47 0 1.41 0 PR-6-02-3520 % Installation Troubles reported within 7 Days - Hot
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fc99418a.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fc99418a.txt
  • Databook, 1996, at 38-40; 1997, at 39-41; 1998, at 38-42; and 1999, at 50-55. TABLE C-3 1999 Concentration in the National Market for the Purchase of Video Programming(1) Rank Company Percent of Subscribers(2) 1 AT&T 20.50 2 Time Warner 15.95 3 DirecTV 9.23 4 Comcast 8.26 Top 4 53.94 5 MediaOne 5.84 6 Cox 4.67 7 Charter 3.60 8 EchoStar 3.23 Top 8 71.28 9 Adelphia 2.01 10 Century 1.66 Top 10 74.95 Top 25 84.92 Top 50 89.58 HHI 923(3) Notes: (1) MSO subscriber totals as of June 1999, and as reported in Paul Kagan Assocs., Inc., Top Cable System Operators as of June 1999, Cable TV Investor, August 20, 1999, at 10-12. There is no double counting of subscribers.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.txt
  • 80.19 percent of the total MVPD subscribers. At the same time, non-cable MVPDs continued to increase their share of the MVPD market which translates into increased program purchasing in that market. For example, DirecTV's share of the MVPD market increased from 9.23 percent in 1999 to 10.28 percent in 2000. Similarly, the share of EchoStar, another non-cable MVPD, increased from 3.23 percent in 1999 to 5.11 percent in 2000. The top four purchasers of video programming for distribution to the household or MDU market are AT&T (with a share of 19.07 percent of all MVPD subscribers), Time Warner (with a share of 14.92 percent), DirecTV (with a share of 10.28 percent), and Comcast (with a share of 8.43 percent). The share
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.txt
  • averaging more than four months (June-September 1999) 2.43 days for competing carrier orders versus 1.09 days for Bell Atlantic orders, for a difference of 1.34 days. Meanwhile, UNE platform dispatch orders took from 2.6 to 3.6 days longer, averaging over the four months 6.49 days for competing carriers orders versus 3.26 days for Bell Atlantic orders, for a difference of 3.23 days. Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Decl. Attach. D; Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Reply Decl. Attach. C. The Carrier to Carrier report also contains data about how many orders were completed within "X" number of days for Bell Atlantic and competitive LEC customers, with metrics provided for "X" ranging from one to six days (the "Percent Completed within 'X' Days" metrics). Bell Atlantic
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2002/fcc02331.pdf
  • 2.71 2.30 3.57 1.42 1,5 A.2.1.6.1.1ISDN/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (days)22.03 11.80 17.78 8.33 21.29 10.00 5.68 11.51 12.00 1,2,3,5 B - 7 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] May June July August September Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-331 Florida Performance Metric Data A.2.1.6.1.2ISDN/<10 circuits/Non-Dispatch/FL (days) 2.20 1.20 2.52 1.44 3.23 5.78 2.86 2.61 2.10 2,3,5 A.2.1.6.2.1ISDN/>=10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (days) 11.50 13.33 23.75 27.02 36.00 26.43 8.67 4,5 A.2.1.6.2.2ISDN/>=10 circuits/Non-Dispatch/FL (days) 3.20 9.55 4.61 13.00 23.91 10.58 3.00 3,5 % Jeopardies - Mechanized A.2.4.1 Residence/FL (%) 0.53% 0.24% 0.53% 0.29% 0.53% 0.22% 0.60% 0.31% 0.47% 0.27% A.2.4.2 Business/FL (%) 1.52% 0.68% 1.52% 0.38% 1.31% 0.83% 1.53% 1.32% 1.47% 1.39% A.2.4.3 Design (Specials)/FL
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ldrpt101.pdf
  • Average Revenue per International Domestic Minute for Interstate and Minute for Interstate and Calls 1/ Calls International Calls International Calls Restated Restated in 1999 in 1999 Dollars Dollars 1930 $0.27 $2.74 1965 $0.24 $1.27 1931 0.27 2.95 1966 0.24 1.25 1932 0.26 3.19 1967 0.24 1.21 1933 0.28 3.53 1968 0.24 1.13 1934 0.27 3.38 1969 0.24 1.09 1935 0.27 3.23 1970 0.23 0.99 1936 0.25 3.01 1971 0.25 1.01 1937 0.22 2.51 1972 0.24 0.97 1938 0.21 2.53 1973 0.25 0.95 1939 0.22 2.59 1974 0.26 0.87 1940 0.21 2.50 1975 0.27 0.85 1941 0.21 2.35 1976 0.29 0.83 1942 0.22 2.21 1977 0.28 0.78 1943 0.21 2.03 1978 0.29 0.73 1944 0.22 2.04 1979 0.29 0.67 1945 0.21 1.96
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/pntris03.pdf
  • 1996 1.20 85.6% 93.6% 93.9% 8.0% * 0.3% 94.4% 97.3% 97.4% 3.0% * 0.0% Rhode Island 1987 3.40 86.4% 87.6% 92.9% 1.2% 5.2% 94.0% 94.6% 97.4% 0.5% 2.8% South Carolina 1995 3.49 66.1% 76.2% 87.4% 10.1% * 11.2%* 85.1% 92.0% 94.0% 6.9% * 2.0% South Dakota 1988 0.00 84.6% 90.5% 86.9% 5.9% -3.6% 93.0% 94.7% 94.6% 1.7% -0.2% Tennessee 1992 3.23 71.1% 89.3% 87.7% 18.2% * -1.6% 87.1% 94.1% 93.8% 7.1% * -0.4% Texas 1988 3.16 74.0% 79.6% 88.1% 5.6% * 8.5%* 88.4% 91.0% 94.5% 2.6% * 3.4%* Utah 1987 3.50 81.5% 98.3% 92.8% 16.8% * -5.6% 92.4% 97.5% 97.6% 5.1% * 0.2% Vermont 1986 3.48 75.3% 84.6% 93.1% 9.3% * 8.6%* 91.5% 93.9% 96.5% 2.4% 2.6% Virginia 1988 3.35 80.4%
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • 559 671 825 975 1,227 2000 575 705 860 1,004 1,305 1980 2.61% 2.32% 2.18% 1.81% 1.51% 1981 2.96 2.52 2.24 1.95 1.55 1982 3.18 2.66 2.19 1.97 1.52 1983 3.13 2.82 2.24 2.02 1.55 1984 2.71 2.44 2.21 1.82 1.51 1985 2.72 2.41 2.20 1.81 1.39 1986 2.94 2.62 2.15 1.83 1.43 1987 3.24 2.57 2.31 1.85 1.44 1988 3.23 2.61 2.31 1.82 1.49 1989 3.05 2.61 2.30 1.88 1.43 1990 3.11 2.77 2.37 1.89 1.48 1991 3.08 2.80 2.28 1.84 1.45 1992 3.35 2.77 2.34 1.88 1.46 1993 3.27 2.70 2.45 1.96 1.53 1994 3.17 2.83 2.36 1.95 1.58 1995 3.38 2.71 2.41 1.99 1.55 1996 3.20 2.94 2.46 2.05 1.57 1997 3.24 3.02 2.53 2.09 1.63 1998 3.17
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • 575 705 860 1,004 1,305 2001 558 727 906 1,054 1,343 1980 2.61% 2.32% 2.18% 1.81% 1.51% 1981 2.96 2.52 2.24 1.95 1.55 1982 3.18 2.66 2.19 1.97 1.52 1983 3.13 2.82 2.24 2.02 1.55 1984 2.71 2.44 2.21 1.82 1.51 1985 2.72 2.41 2.20 1.81 1.39 1986 2.94 2.62 2.15 1.83 1.43 1987 3.24 2.57 2.31 1.85 1.44 1988 3.23 2.61 2.31 1.82 1.49 1989 3.05 2.61 2.30 1.88 1.43 1990 3.11 2.77 2.37 1.89 1.48 1991 3.08 2.80 2.28 1.84 1.45 1992 3.35 2.77 2.34 1.88 1.46 1993 3.27 2.70 2.45 1.96 1.53 1994 3.17 2.83 2.36 1.95 1.58 1995 3.38 2.71 2.41 1.99 1.55 1996 3.20 2.94 2.46 2.05 1.57 1997 3.24 3.02 2.53 2.09 1.63 1998 3.17
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref04.pdf
  • 558 727 906 1,054 1,343 2002 584 741 928 1,150 1,433 1980 2.61% 2.32% 2.18% 1.81% 1.51% 1981 2.96 2.52 2.24 1.95 1.55 1982 3.18 2.66 2.19 1.97 1.52 1983 3.13 2.82 2.24 2.02 1.55 1984 2.71 2.44 2.21 1.82 1.51 1985 2.72 2.41 2.20 1.81 1.39 1986 2.94 2.62 2.15 1.83 1.43 1987 3.24 2.57 2.31 1.85 1.44 1988 3.23 2.61 2.31 1.82 1.49 1989 3.05 2.61 2.30 1.88 1.43 1990 3.11 2.77 2.37 1.89 1.48 1991 3.08 2.80 2.28 1.84 1.45 1992 3.35 2.77 2.34 1.88 1.46 1993 3.27 2.70 2.45 1.96 1.53 1994 3.17 2.83 2.36 1.95 1.58 1995 3.38 2.71 2.41 1.99 1.55 1996 3.20 2.94 2.46 2.05 1.57 1997 3.24 3.02 2.53 2.09 1.63 1998 3.17
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
  • 584 741 928 1,150 1,433 2003 564 768 932 1,142 1,441 1980 2.61% 2.32% 2.18% 1.81% 1.51% 1981 2.96 2.52 2.24 1.95 1.55 1982 3.18 2.66 2.19 1.97 1.52 1983 3.13 2.82 2.24 2.02 1.55 1984 2.71 2.44 2.21 1.82 1.51 1985 2.72 2.41 2.20 1.81 1.39 1986 2.94 2.62 2.15 1.83 1.43 1987 3.24 2.57 2.31 1.85 1.44 1988 3.23 2.61 2.31 1.82 1.49 1989 3.05 2.61 2.30 1.88 1.43 1990 3.11 2.77 2.37 1.89 1.48 1991 3.08 2.80 2.28 1.84 1.45 1992 3.35 2.77 2.34 1.88 1.46 1993 3.27 2.70 2.45 1.96 1.53 1994 3.17 2.83 2.36 1.95 1.58 1995 3.38 2.71 2.41 1.99 1.55 1996 3.20 2.94 2.46 2.05 1.57 1997 3.24 3.02 2.53 2.09 1.63 1998 3.17
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend200.pdf
  • 10-Minute Day Rate 200-Mile Call (Basic Rates) Consumer Price Index: All Goods and Services (1982-1984 = 100)Revenue per Minute Basic Rate 200-Mile Call Charge Per Minute 1930 $0.27 $0.35 16.7 $2.74 $3.49 1931 0.27 0.35 15.2 2.95 3.84 1932 0.26 0.35 13.7 3.19 4.26 1933 0.28 0.35 13.0 3.53 4.49 1934 0.27 0.35 13.4 3.38 4.35 1935 0.27 0.35 13.7 3.23 4.26 1936 0.25 0.35 13.9 3.01 4.19 1937 0.22 0.35 14.4 2.51 4.05 1938 0.21 0.26 14.1 2.53 3.01 1939 0.22 0.26 13.9 2.59 3.06 1940 0.21 0.26 14.0 2.50 3.03 1941 0.21 0.26 14.7 2.35 2.89 1942 0.22 0.26 16.3 2.21 2.61 1943 0.21 0.22 17.3 2.03 2.12 1944 0.22 0.22 17.6 2.04 2.08 1945 0.21 0.22 18.0 1.96
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend502.pdf
  • 3,571,501 4,464,420 0.06 Natel, LLC 2,969,460 32,328,437 6,210,580 0.08 Network Communications International Corporation 602,192 4,678,608 22,511,210 0.30 Network Plus, Inc. 52,349,790 285,783,529 123,965,138 1.63 NOS Communications, Inc. 212,290,432 1,472,891,113 165,120,818 2.17 PT-1 Long Distance, Inc. 78,541,109 757,991,006 157,698,970 2.07 Qwest Communications International, Inc. 171,136,482 896,913,622 269,322,437 3.54 RSL Communications, Ltd. 76,559,675 494,779,123 87,753,004 1.15 SBC Communications, Inc. 155,892,803 958,935,045 245,482,309 3.23 Sprint 128,787,531 535,675,084 187,301,965 2.46 Startec Global Communications Corporation 182,387,847 1,137,904,906 238,480,277 3.14 Talk America Inc. 34,109,422 269,946,745 78,519,215 1.03 Teligent, Inc. 4,685,446 13,874,197 3,997,173 0.05 Telstar International, Inc. 21,823,718 190,597,808 46,551,474 0.61 Touch America, Inc. 20,351,438 243,045,764 24,813,137 0.33 UniPlex Telecom Technologies, Inc. 4,828,535 30,157,186 10,799,817 0.14 United States Cellular Corporation 9,797,601 20,165,187 9,878,144 0.13 VarTec Telecom, Inc. 18,093,124
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend504.pdf
  • 11.70 13.00 12.72 Rhode Island 7.75 7.75 7.75 3.40 3.40 3.40 1.70 1.70 1.70 9.45 9.45 9.45 12.85 12.85 12.85 South Carolina 7.61 7.75 7.75 0.00 3.50 3.49 0.00 1.75 1.74 7.61 9.50 9.49 7.61 13.00 12.98 South Dakota 5.25 7.75 7.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.25 7.75 7.03 5.25 7.75 7.03 Tennessee 7.28 7.75 7.71 0.00 3.50 3.23 0.00 1.75 1.62 7.28 9.50 9.33 7.28 13.00 12.56 Texas 5.25 7.75 7.13 0.00 3.50 3.16 0.00 1.75 1.58 5.25 9.50 8.71 5.25 13.00 11.87 Utah 7.75 7.75 7.75 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 9.50 9.50 9.50 13.00 13.00 13.00 Vermont 7.75 7.75 7.75 2.70 3.50 3.48 1.35 1.75 1.74 9.10 9.50 9.49 11.80 13.00 12.97 Virginia 7.26 7.75
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf
  • 2,180 2,825 5,005 1.72 Connecticut 1,212 1,875 3,087 560 231 791 1,772 2,106 3,878 1.33 Delaware 294 397 692 134 47 181 429 444 873 0.30 Dist. of Columbia 398 628 1,027 234 75 308 632 703 1,335 0.46 Florida 5,362 9,264 14,626 2,320 1,638 3,958 7,682 10,902 18,585 6.38 Georgia 2,541 4,947 7,488 1,233 696 1,929 3,774 5,643 9,417 3.23 Guam 38 59 96 17 10 26 55 68 123 0.04 Hawaii 351 622 972 144 93 238 495 715 1,210 0.42 Idaho 396 559 955 191 89 279 587 648 1,235 0.42 Illinois 3,199 6,405 9,604 1,347 960 2,307 4,546 7,365 11,911 4.09 Indiana 1,494 2,706 4,201 614 469 1,083 2,109 3,175 5,284 1.81 Iowa 761 1,328 2,089 352
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend801.pdf
  • 10-Minute Day Rate 200-Mile Call (Basic Rates) Consumer Price Index: All Goods and Services (1982-1984 = 100)Revenue per Minute Basic Rate 200-Mile Call Charge per Minute 1930 $0.27 $0.35 16.7 $2.74 $3.49 1931 0.27 0.35 15.2 2.95 3.84 1932 0.26 0.35 13.7 3.19 4.26 1933 0.28 0.35 13.0 3.53 4.49 1934 0.27 0.35 13.4 3.38 4.35 1935 0.27 0.35 13.7 3.23 4.26 1936 0.25 0.35 13.9 3.01 4.19 1937 0.22 0.35 14.4 2.51 4.05 1938 0.21 0.26 14.1 2.53 3.01 1939 0.22 0.26 13.9 2.59 3.06 1940 0.21 0.26 14.0 2.50 3.03 1941 0.21 0.26 14.7 2.35 2.89 1942 0.22 0.26 16.3 2.21 2.61 1943 0.21 0.22 17.3 2.03 2.12 1944 0.22 0.22 17.6 2.04 2.08 1945 0.21 0.22 18.0 1.96
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend803.pdf
  • 11.70 13.00 12.72 Rhode Island 7.75 7.75 7.75 3.40 3.40 3.40 1.70 1.70 1.70 9.45 9.45 9.45 12.85 12.85 12.85 South Carolina 7.61 7.75 7.75 0.00 3.50 3.49 0.00 1.75 1.74 7.61 9.50 9.49 7.61 13.00 12.98 South Dakota 5.25 7.75 7.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.25 7.75 7.03 5.25 7.75 7.03 Tennessee 7.28 7.75 7.71 0.00 3.50 3.23 0.00 1.75 1.62 7.28 9.50 9.33 7.28 13.00 12.56 Texas 5.25 7.75 7.13 0.00 3.50 3.16 0.00 1.75 1.58 5.25 9.50 8.71 5.25 13.00 11.87 Utah 7.75 7.75 7.75 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 9.50 9.50 9.50 13.00 13.00 13.00 Vermont 7.75 7.75 7.75 2.70 3.50 3.48 1.35 1.75 1.74 9.10 9.50 9.49 11.80 13.00 12.97 Virginia 7.26 7.75
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-2.pdf
  • 11.70 13.00 12.72 Rhode Island 7.75 7.75 7.75 3.40 3.40 3.40 1.70 1.70 1.70 9.45 9.45 9.45 12.85 12.85 12.85 South Carolina 7.61 7.75 7.75 0.00 3.50 3.49 0.00 1.75 1.74 7.61 9.50 9.49 7.61 13.00 12.98 South Dakota 5.25 7.75 7.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.25 7.75 7.03 5.25 7.75 7.03 Tennessee 7.28 7.75 7.71 0.00 3.50 3.23 0.00 1.75 1.62 7.28 9.50 9.33 7.28 13.00 12.56 Texas 5.25 7.75 7.13 0.00 3.50 3.16 0.00 1.75 1.58 5.25 9.50 8.71 5.25 13.00 11.87 Utah 7.75 7.75 7.75 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 9.50 9.50 9.50 13.00 13.00 13.00 Vermont 7.75 7.75 7.75 2.70 3.50 3.48 1.35 1.75 1.74 9.10 9.50 9.49 11.80 13.00 12.97 Virginia 7.26 7.75
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-3.pdf
  • for 1997 through 2001 in the 2002 filing. Table 3.19 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.20 shows the number of loops. Table 3.21 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. Table 3.22 shows the HCLS payments for 1999 through 2003. The next several tables in this section are data for individual study areas. Tables 3.23 through 3.30 are derived from the quarterly USAC filings of projected payments. Table 3.23 has HCLS payments.40 Table 3.24 has safety net additive support payments. Only those study areas begin until 2003. 38 These are the carriers that settle on a cost basis. Costs for the remaining ILECs, which settle on an average schedule basis, are attributed by NECA on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-intro.pdf
  • .......................................................................... Table 1.17 High-Cost Loop Fund Formulas ....................................................................... Table 3.2 High-Cost Loop Support - 2001 Data - by Jurisdiction...................................... Table 3.17 High-Cost Loop Support - 2001 Data - by Study Area .......................................Table 3.31 High-Cost Loop Support Payment History ............................................................ Table 3.3 High-Cost Loop Support Payment Projections by Jurisdiction............................ Table 3.8 High-Cost Loop Support Payment Projections by Study Area ............................ Table 3.23 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Jurisdiction.........................................Table 3.22 High-Cost Loop Support Payments by Study Area ........................................... Table 3.37 High-Cost Loop Support - Percentage Changes - by Jurisdiction....................... Table 3.18 High-Cost Loop Support - Percentage Changes - by Study Area ........................ Table 3.32 High-Cost Model Support Payment Projections by Jurisdiction ....................... Table 3.10 High-Cost Programs Fund Size Projections and Actuals ................................. Table
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-1.pdf
  • 236 587 1,236 2,067 3,303 1.13 Louisiana 1,045 2,383 3,427 430 330 760 1,475 2,713 4,187 1.43 Maine 375 715 1,090 178 99 276 553 814 1,366 0.47 Maryland 1,799 3,041 4,841 735 462 1,197 2,534 3,503 6,037 2.07 Massachusetts 1,949 3,746 5,695 894 539 1,433 2,843 4,285 7,128 2.44 Michigan 2,294 5,246 7,540 944 971 1,915 3,238 6,217 9,455 3.23 Minnesota 1,304 2,485 3,789 591 395 986 1,895 2,880 4,776 1.63 Mississippi 641 1,476 2,117 281 181 463 922 1,658 2,580 0.88 Missouri 1,467 2,786 4,253 685 503 1,187 2,152 3,289 5,441 1.86 Montana 278 425 703 116 89 205 395 513 908 0.31 Nebraska 450 940 1,389 222 185 408 672 1,125 1,797 0.61 Nevada 762 979 1,741 298
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-3.pdf
  • Table 3.19 shows the number of loops. Table 3.20 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. Table 3.21 shows the HCLS payments for 2000 through 2004. The next several tables in this section are data for individual study areas. Tables 3.22 through 3.29 are derived from the quarterly USAC filings of projected payments. Table 3.22 has HCLS payments.41 Table 3.23 has safety net additive support payments. Only those study areas 39 These are the carriers that settle on a cost basis. Costs for the remaining ILECs, which settle on an average schedule basis, are attributed by NECA on the basis of those carriers' average number of loops per exchange. 40 The data submitted by NECA included payments that would have
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-6.pdf
  • 1996 1.20 85.6% 93.6% 93.9% 8.0% * 0.3% 94.4% 97.3% 97.4% 3.0% * 0.0% Rhode Island 1987 3.40 86.4% 87.6% 92.9% 1.2% 5.2% 94.0% 94.6% 97.4% 0.5% 2.8% South Carolina 1995 3.49 66.1% 76.2% 87.4% 10.1% * 11.2%* 85.1% 92.0% 94.0% 6.9% * 2.0% South Dakota 1988 0.00 84.6% 90.5% 86.9% 5.9% -3.6% 93.0% 94.7% 94.6% 1.7% -0.2% Tennessee 1992 3.23 71.1% 89.3% 87.7% 18.2% * -1.6% 87.1% 94.1% 93.8% 7.1% * -0.4% Texas 1988 3.16 74.0% 79.6% 88.1% 5.6% * 8.5%* 88.4% 91.0% 94.5% 2.6% * 3.4%* Utah 1987 3.50 81.5% 98.3% 92.8% 16.8% * -5.6% 92.4% 97.5% 97.6% 5.1% * 0.2% Vermont 1986 3.48 75.3% 84.6% 93.1% 9.3% * 8.6%* 91.5% 93.9% 96.5% 2.4% 2.6% Virginia 1988 3.35 80.4%
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-intro.pdf
  • 5.3 Rural Health Care - Disbursements per Person by State ................................... Table 5.4 Rural Health Care Funding Commitments and Disbursements by State .................. Table 5.2 Rural Health Care Funding Disbursements by Funding Year .............................. Table 5.1 Safety Net Additive Support Payment Projections by State or Jurisdiction ........... Table 3.7 Safety Net Additive Support Payment Projections by Study Area ..................... Table 3.23 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by Applicant & Service Type Table 4.1 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Applicant Type .. Table 4.2 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements by State & Service Type .....Table 4.3 Schools & Libraries Commitments & Disbursements per Student by State ..........Table 4.5 Schools & Libraries Commitments per Student ........................................... Table
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-0.pdf
  • Interstate Access - Total Premium .......................................... Table 8.10 Non-operating Items - Total ................................................................................ Table 11.10 Non-Traffic Sensitive Revenue Requirement - Unseparated - by State ..............Table 3.11 Non-Traffic Sensitive Revenue Requirement - Unseparated - by Study Area ....Table 3.21 NTS Revenue Requirement per Loop - by State ................................................ Table 3.13 NTS Revenue Requirement per Loop - by Study Area ...................................... Table 3.23 Other Operating Income or Loss ......................................................................... Table 11.8 Penetration - Households .................................................................................... Chart 6.1 Penetration - Individual Adults ........................................................................... Chart 6.8 Penetration by Household Size ........................................................................... Table 6.6 Penetration by Household Size - Critical Values ................................................ Table 6.12 Penetration by Household Size - March 1998 ..................................................... Chart 6.5 Penetration by Householder's Age ...................................................................... Table 6.7 Penetration by Householder's Age -
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-3.pdf
  • the entry "ERR" indicates that the USF was zero in the first year and positive in the second year. Tables 3.21 through 3.24 present individual study area data for the historical information filed for 1992 through 1996 in the 1997 filing. Table 3.21 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.22 shows the number of loops. Table 3.23 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. Table 3.24 shows the Universal Service Fund payments. In compiling the historical data, it is necessary to account for changes that have occurred in the study areas over time. These changes are noted in Table 3.25.15 In cases where study areas have merged, the pre-merger data for all of the merged study
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrd99-0.pdf
  • Minutes of Use - Interstate Access - Tier 1 .............................................................Table 8.1 Non-operating Items - Total ....................................................................................Table 11.10 Non-Traffic Sensitive Revenue Requirement - Unseparated - by State ....................Table 3.11 Non-Traffic Sensitive Revenue Requirement - Unseparated - by Study Area ...........Table 3.21 NTS Revenue Requirement per Loop - by State ......................................................Table 3.13 NTS Revenue Requirement per Loop - by Study Area ............................................Table 3.23 Other Operating Income or Loss .............................................................................Table 11.8 Penetration - Households ........................................................................................Chart 6.1 Penetration - Individual Adults ................................................................................Chart 6.8 Penetration by Household Size ...............................................................................Table 6.5 3 Index of Tables and Charts Penetration by Household Size - Critical Values .....................................................Table 6.10 Penetration by Household Size - Average 1999 ......................................................Chart 6.5 Penetration by Householder's Age ..........................................................................Table 6.6 Penetration by Householder's Age - Critical
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrd99-3.pdf
  • the entry "INFINITE" indicates that the USF was zero in the first year and positive in the second year. Tables 3.21 through 3.24 present individual study area data for the historical information filed for 1994 through 1998 in the 1999 filing. Table 3.21 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.22 shows the number of loops. Table 3.23 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. Table 3.24 shows the Universal Service Fund payments. an average schedule basis, are attributed by NECA on the basis of those carriers' average number of loops per exchange. 3 - 6 In compiling the historical data, it is necessary to account for changes that have occurred in the study areas over time.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrj99-0.pdf
  • Interstate Access - Total Premium .......................................... Table 8.10 Non-operating Items - Total ................................................................................ Table 11.10 Non-Traffic Sensitive Revenue Requirement - Unseparated - by State ..............Table 3.11 Non-Traffic Sensitive Revenue Requirement - Unseparated - by Study Area ....Table 3.21 NTS Revenue Requirement per Loop - by State ................................................ Table 3.13 NTS Revenue Requirement per Loop - by Study Area ...................................... Table 3.23 Other Operating Income or Loss ......................................................................... Table 11.8 Penetration - Households .................................................................................... Chart 6.1 Penetration - Individual Adults ........................................................................... Chart 6.8 Penetration by Household Size ........................................................................... Table 6.6 Penetration by Household Size - Critical Values ................................................ Table 6.12 Penetration by Household Size - March 1998 ..................................................... Chart 6.5 Penetration by Householder's Age ...................................................................... Table 6.7 Penetration by Householder's Age -
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrj99-3.pdf
  • the entry "ERR" indicates that the USF was zero in the first year and positive in the second year. Tables 3.21 through 3.24 present individual study area data for the historical information filed for 1993 through 1997 in the 1998 filing. Table 3.21 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirements for each year. Table 3.22 shows the number of loops. Table 3.23 shows the unseparated NTS revenue requirement per loop. Table 3.24 shows the Universal Service Fund payments. 3 - 5 In compiling the historical data, it is necessary to account for changes that have occurred in the study areas over time. These changes are noted in Table 3.25.14 In cases where study areas have merged, the pre-merger data for all of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs01-0.pdf
  • Assistance - Payments - by State ...........................................................Table 2.9 LinkUp Assistance - Payments - by Study Area .................................................Table 2.10 LinkUp Assistance - Subscribers - by State .........................................................Table 2.8 Local Switching Support - Payment History .......................................................... Table 3.6 Local Switching Support - Payment Projections - by Jurisdiction ......................... Table 3.10 Local Switching Support - Payment Projections - by Study Area .......................... Table 3.23 Long-Term Support - Payment History ..................................................................Table 3.5 Long-Term Support - Payment Projections - by Jurisdiction ................................. Table 3.9 Long-Term Support - Payment Projections - by Study Area ..................................Table 3.22 Loops - by Jurisdiction .......................................................................Table 3.18 Loops - by Study Area ........................................................................Table 3.30 Low-Income Program Dollars by State ........................................................ Table 2.2 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .............................................. Table 2.3 Low-Income
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs02-0.pdf
  • Support - Payment Projections - by Study Area .......................... Table 3.28 Long-Term Support Mechanism ­ Net Dollar Flow by State .......................... Table 3.15 Long-Term Support - Payment History .................................................................. Table 3.6 Long-Term Support - Payment Projections - by Jurisdiction ................................. Table 3.9 Long-Term Support - Payment Projections - by Study Area .................................. Table 3.27 Loops - by Jurisdiction ....................................................................... Table 3.23 Loops - by Study Area ........................................................................ Table 3.35 Low-Income Program Dollars by State ........................................................ Table 2.2 Low-Income Program Dollars by Study Area .............................................. Table 2.3 Low-Income Programs Fund Size Projections ............................................ Table 2.4 Low-Income Support Programs ­ Net Dollar Flow by State ........................... Table 2.13 Minutes - Dial Equipment - Interstate ................................................................. Table 8.9 Minutes - Dial Equipment - Local
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/95socc.pdf
  • 3.12 17.4 NC NORTH DAKOTA (1.7) 3.2 (4.9) (4.3) (0.6) (1.17) (0.65) (0.58) (2.40) 1.8 ND OHIO 447.8 203.0 244.9 209.2 35.7 1.11 0.89 0.57 2.58 33.1 OH OKLAHOMA 78.2 55.9 22.3 15.4 6.9 (0.18) (0.05) 0.02 (0.21) 7.1 OK OREGON 55.6 39.0 16.6 14.6 2.0 (3.75) (1.66) (0.90) (6.30) 8.3 OR PENNSYLVANIA 624.4 432.3 192.1 139.8 37.7 6.96 0.65 3.23 10.84 26.9 PA RHODE ISLAND 27.3 7.5 19.8 15.2 4.6 0.02 (0.15) 0.00 (0.13) 4.7 RI SOUTH CAROLINA 86.1 34.7 51.4 47.7 3.8 (0.25) (0.23) (0.06) (0.54) 4.3 SC SOUTH DAKOTA (0.3) 4.2 (4.5) (4.0) (0.5) (1.02) (0.73) (0.49) (2.24) 1.8 SD TENNESSEE 166.6 54.5 112.1 98.5 13.6 (0.20) 0.06 (0.19) (0.32) 13.9 TN TEXAS 514.9 355.8 159.0 122.2 36.8
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/96socc.pdf
  • 10BELL ATLANTIC - VIRGINIA, INC. 43.38% 56.62% 7.16 4.90 11.18% 11BELL ATLANTIC - WASHINGTON, D.C., INC. 37.02% 62.98% 4.85 3.39 7.51% 12BELL ATLANTIC - WEST VIRGINIA, INC. 41.55% 58.45% 7.76 5.14 11.02% 13BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. 37.88% 62.12% 7.15 4.90 10.74% NYNEX CORPORATION: 14NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. 38.36% 61.64% 8.37 5.56 11.90% 15NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO. 44.88% 55.12% 4.30 3.23 8.21% PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP: 16NEVADA BELL 31.41% 68.59% 5.25 3.92 10.53% 17PACIFIC BELL 40.79% 59.21% 5.32 4.06 8.00% 18SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. 38.35% 61.65% 6.15 4.42 10.17% 19U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 40.63% 59.37% 4.49 3.20 7.17% 20CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONE CO. 32.96% 67.04% 9.50 6.53 9.37% 21THE SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE CO. 36.92% 63.08% 6.39 4.44 9.35% 22ALIANT COMMUNICATIONS CO.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/97socc.pdf
  • D.C., INC. 32.38% 67.62% 5.57 3.75 8.07% 14BELL ATLANTIC - WEST VIRGINIA, INC. 41.37% 58.63% 8.09 5.46 12.38% 15BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. 33.59% 66.41% 7.81 5.30 11.42% SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC. 16NEVADA BELL 27.58% 72.42% 3.75 2.83 9.14% 17PACIFIC BELL 45.82% 54.18% 1.76 1.64 5.81% 18SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. 41.63% 58.37% 5.03 3.69 8.73% 19U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 38.98% 61.02% 4.61 3.23 7.20% 20CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONE CO. 33.19% 66.81% 7.10 4.94 10.89% 21THE SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE CO. 34.68% 65.32% 6.20 4.27 9.09% 22ALIANT COMMUNICATIONS CO. 19.99% 80.01% 14.65 9.31 13.75% ALLTEL CORPORATION: 23ALLTEL GEORGIA COMMUNICATIONS CORP. 37.05% 62.95% 7.24 5.00 11.36% 24ALLTEL PENNSYLVANIA, INC. 32.11% 67.89% 7.66 5.67 12.84% 25THE WESTERN RESERVE TELEPHONE CO. 39.39% 60.61% 6.89 4.99 13.42% 26CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/98SOCC.PDF
  • FOR LONG DISTANCE MESSAGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE UNITED STATES-OVERSEAS DIAL STATION DIAL STATION COUNTRY STANDARD ECONOMY COUNTRY STANDARD ECONOMY ARGENTINA $2.30 $1.58 JAMAICA $1.90 $1.56 AUSTRALIA 1.80 1.24 JAPAN (INCLUDING OKINAWA) 1.73 1.25 AUSTRIA 1.72 1.23 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 2.16 1.52 BAHAMAS 1.37 1.10 NETHERLANDS 1.57 1.02 BELGIUM 1.84 1.18 NIGERIA, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF 2.33 1.84 BERMUDA 1.48 1.23 PAKISTAN 4.92 3.23 BRAZIL 2.19 1.60 PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF 2.09 1.60 CHILE 2.08 1.63 PERU 2.37 1.66 CHINA, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF 3.10 2.40 PHILIPPINES 2.59 1.74 COLOMBIA 2.22 1.62 POLAND, REPUBLIC OF 1.88 1.51 COSTA RICA 1.96 1.46 PORTUGAL (INCLUDING AZORES 1.96 1.27 DENMARK 1.74 1.14 AND MADEIRA ISLANDS) DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1.89 1.58 SAUDI ARABIA 2.50 1.96 ECUADOR 2.20 1.81 SINGAPORE, REPUBLIC OF
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/scard97.pdf
  • 301 109 (3) LCI International Worldwide Telecommunications 0.23 252 1,103 (6) LDM Systems Inc. 8.63 246 29 (9) Long Distance Services (Virginia) 7.26 791 109 (3) Long Distance Services, Inc. (Michigan) 4.14 451 109 (3) Matrix Telecom 1.38 150 109 (3) MCI Telecommunications Corporation 0.17 2,815 16,372 (6) Midcom Communications, Inc. 0.91 136 149 (6) National Accounts Long Distance, Inc. 3.23 352 109 (3) National Telecom, USA 1.37 149 109 (3) National Telephone And Communications, Inc. 54 Nationwide Long Distance, Inc. 3.55 387 109 (3) Network Service Center 1.73 189 109 (3) OAN Services, Inc. 2.13 1,396 655 (4) Omega Telecommunications 63 One -2- One Communications 88 Operator Communications, Inc. 10.16 1,107 109 (3) OPTICOM Operator Services aka One Call 5.61
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • No Dispatch ­ Other 0.28 NA 0.04 NA PR-4-05-3140 % Missed Appt. ­ Verizon ­ No Dispatch - Platform 0.28 0 0.04 0 0.07 0 0.03 0 0.02 0 PR-6 - Installation Quality PR-6-01-3100 % Installation Troubles reported within 30 Days - Loop 2.59 0 2.31 0 PR-6-01-3112 % Installation Troubles reported within 30 Days - Loop 1.98 1.11 2.27 3.23 1.87 0.93 PR-6-01-3121 % Installation Troubles reported within 30 Days - Platform 2.59 0 2.31 0 1.98 0 2.27 2.29 1.87 0 PR-6-02-3112 % Installation Troubles reported within 7 Days - Loop 1.47 0 1.41 0 PR-6-02-3121 % Installation Troubles reported within 7 Days - Platform 1.47 0 1.41 0 PR-6-02-3520 % Installation Troubles reported within 7 Days - Hot
• http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/041210/community_reinvestment_act.pdf
  • fiscal 1989 - 1998 are as follows: 15 Weighted Realized Rate of Return on Invested Capital for SBIC Program Licensees Fiscal Years 1977 to 1998 Bank Debent- Part. All Owned ure Sec. All SBIC Fiscal Reg Regular Regular Regular All Program Year SBICs SBICs SBICs SBICs SSBICs Licensees 1989 8.42 8.00 -- 8.32 7.96 8.28 1990 14.77 6.39 -- 12.95 3.23 12.19 1991 5.31 (4.38) -- 3.54 (1.38) 3.18 1992 11.89 1.50 -- 10.46 4.34 10.04 1993 17.01 14.09 -- 16.66 0.58 15.70 1994 16.03 0.63 -- 14.32 4.37 13.80 1995 8.54 5.41 (15.59) 7.96 4.50 7.80 1996 14.51 11.59 (6.70) 13.58 0.83 3.46 1997 19.78 10.02 7.32 18.05 8.11 17.59 1998 21.42 10.33 7.85 19.36 5.54 18.89 Realized Rate of
• http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/adopted-recommendations/CommunityReinvestmentAct.doc
  • from fiscal 1989 - 1998 are as follows: Weighted Realized Rate of Return on Invested Capital for SBIC Program Licensees Fiscal Years 1977 to 1998 Bank Debent- Part. All Owned ure Sec. All SBIC Fiscal Reg Regular Regular Regular All Program Year SBICs SBICs SBICs SBICs SSBICs Licensees 1989 8.42 8.00 -- 8.32 7.96 8.28 1990 14.77 6.39 -- 12.95 3.23 12.19 1991 5.31 (4.38) -- 3.54 (1.38) 3.18 1992 11.89 1.50 -- 10.46 4.34 10.04 1993 17.01 14.09 -- 16.66 0.58 15.70 1994 16.03 0.63 -- 14.32 4.37 13.80 1995 8.54 5.41 (15.59) 7.96 4.50 7.80 1996 14.51 11.59 (6.70) 13.58 0.83 3.46 1997 19.78 10.02 7.32 18.05 8.11 17.59 1998 21.42 10.33 7.85 19.36 5.54 18.89 Realized Rate of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477systemguide.pdf
  • Service-Location Address Data 3-22 Form 477 System Guide 2/17/2010 iii 3.18 Printing, Checking or Sa ving a Submission 3-22 3.19 Submitting a Valid Form 477 3-23 3.20 Re-Opening a Previously-Submitted Form 477 3-24 3.21 Submission where Census Tract Values do not Add to State Totals 3-25 3.22 Submission where Census Tract Percent ages do not Add to State Percentage 3-25 3.23 Deleting an "Original ­ In Progress" Submission 3-26 APPENDIX A..................................................................................................................... ..........................A1 APPENDIX B..................................................................................................................... ..........................B1 Form 477 System Guide 2/17/2010 iv Table of Figures Figure 1 - "Create Ne w Form 477" options....................................................................................... ..........3-7 Figure 2 - Form 477 Submissi on Menu............................................................................................ ...........3-8 Figure 3 - Entering Da ta on Part I.A........................................................................................... ...............3-11 Figure 4 - Part I.B Broadband Data............................................................................................. .............3-13
• http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/clearinghouse/plans/University_of_Washington_Emergency_Response_Management_Plan_4-2009.pdf
  • Liaison(s) 3.8 6 News and Information Services (PIO) 3.9 7 Operations Section Chief 3.11 8 UW Police 3.14 9 Facilities Services 3.15 10 Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) 3.16 11 Health Sciences Administration 3.17 12 Medical Triage/First Aid Centers 3.18 13 Communications/Computing (UW Technology) 3.19 14 Pre-Entry Assessment Team (PEAT) Liaison 3.20 15 Care and Shelter 3.21 16 Student Life 3.23 17 Emergency Staff Services 3.24 18 Planning Section Chief 3.2_ 19 Situation Status 3.__ 20 ATC-20 Team Liaison (Building Inspectors) 3.__ 21 Damage Assessment 3.__ 22 Emergency Projects 3.__ 23 Real Estate 3.__ 24 Logistics Section Chief 3.__ E EM ME ER RG GE EN NC CY Y R REESSPPO ON NS SE E M MAANNAAG GE EM ME EN
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/aol-tw/exparte/aol_response082800.pdf
  • finalized exactly how its DSL services will operate in combination with NorthPoint, AOL's current agreement with Verizon will remain in place. Further, AOL is optimistic that Verizon's acquisition of NorthPoint will facilitate a commercially attractive arrangement for AOL with the DSL offerings of this nationwide CLEC, thereby advancing AOL's efforts to offer the nationwide DSL footprint it has eagerly pursued. 3.23In your July 17, 2000 response to question 2.8(d), AOL indicates that it is "actively exploring new opportunities to provide its services as broadly as possible." Please explain these "new opportunities" in greater detail. AOL has continued to seek to provide the AOL service over as many distribution platforms as possible in order to reach the widest number of consumers over
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/aol-tw/tseng_comment051100.pdf
  • 28.45 $ 35.56 $ 42.67 $ 49.78 $ 56.90 $ 64.01 $ Sensitivity 100.0% 35.46 $ 44.32 $ 53.19 $ 62.05 $ 70.92 $ 79.78 $ Analysis for Year 2000 Scenario PPPoE 3 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% *High* Percentage of 20.0% 1.27 $ 1.59 $ 1.91 $ 2.23 $ 2.55 $ 2.87 $ (Portland) Subscribers 50.0% 2.58 $ 3.23 $ 3.88 $ 4.52 $ 5.17 $ 5.82 $ On-Line 80.0% 3.90 $ 4.87 $ 5.84 $ 6.82 $ 7.79 $ 8.76 $ 100.0% 4.77 $ 5.96 $ 7.15 $ 8.35 $ 9.54 $ 10.73 $ Internet Cable Modem Penetration Rates Internet Cable Modem Penetration Rates Open Access Cable Network 29 Section 5. Conclusions Section 5.1. Technical Conclusions What is
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/documents/1998PDFs/4302C98.PDF
  • 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123 Samplerecords: 1523,"LBIL","B11a",100.0, 2,"XQ" 1524,"LBIL","B11a",101.0,"SeriesC,3-1/4% ","04011952","04011995", 3000, -234, 0, 1525,"LBIL","B11a",102.0,"SeriesD,3-1/4% ","07151955","07151995", 455, -156, 0, 1526,"LBIL","B11a",190.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 3455, -390, 0, 1527,"LBIL","B11b",200.0, 0,"XQ" 1528,"LBIL","B11c",300.0, 1,"XQ" 1529,"LBIL","B11c",301.0,"SeriesI,6% ","06011969","06011905", 1000, 234, 125, 1530,"LBIL","B11c",310.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 1000, 234, 125, 1531,"LBIL","B11d",400.0, 1,"XQ" 1532,"LBIL","B11d",401.0,"SeriesK,7-5/8% ","12101973","12101904", 5000, 1234, 725, 1533,"LBIL","B11d",410.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 5000, 1234, 725, 1534,"LBIL","B11",500.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 9455, 1468, 850, 1 1 1 0 1 2 456789012345678901233467 Continuationofsamplerecords: 3.25, 4.25,"XQ" 3.23, 3.50,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" 6.23, 6.50,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" 7.23, 8.50,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" FCCReport43-02-AutomatedReportSpecifications December1998 Page74of108 RECORDTYPEB12-NETDEFERREDINCOMETAXESDATARECORD Field Item Example Position Description 1 RecordNumber 1535 1-4 Thesequentialnumberofthisrecord withinthisdatafileplus1000. Format:Rightjustifiedandspacefilled. 2 COSA "LBIL" 6-11 TheCOSAcodeforthefilingentity. Format:Includequotationmarks. 3 RecordType "B12" 13-18 AlwayscontainstheletterBcapitalized andthenumber12withnospacebetweenthem. Format:Includequotationmarks. 4 RowNumber 100.0 20-25 RownumberasidentifiedontheReportDefinition. Validranges:100.0to450.0 Format:Rightjustifiedandspacefilled. withonedecimalplace. Sinceallapplicablenumbersareintegers, append.0totherownumber. 5 Column(b)data 21728 27-35 Thisfieldcontainsthedatacorresponding tocolumn(b)asshownintheFormSection oftheReportDefinition. Format:Rightjustifiedandspacefilled. Enter-99999inallrowswhereafield isdesignatedbyN/A.Allotherfields mustbepopulated.Iftherearenodata applicabletoanopenfield,enterzero.
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/documents/1998PDFs/4302S98.PDF
  • 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123 Samplerecords: 1523,"LBIL","B11a",100.0, 2,"XQ" 1524,"LBIL","B11a",101.0,"SeriesC,3-1/4% ","04011952","04011995", 3000, -234, 0, 1525,"LBIL","B11a",102.0,"SeriesD,3-1/4% ","07151955","07151995", 455, -156, 0, 1526,"LBIL","B11a",190.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 3455, -390, 0, 1527,"LBIL","B11b",200.0, 0,"XQ" 1528,"LBIL","B11c",300.0, 1,"XQ" 1529,"LBIL","B11c",301.0,"SeriesI,6% ","06011969","06011905", 1000, 234, 125, 1530,"LBIL","B11c",310.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 1000, 234, 125, 1531,"LBIL","B11d",400.0, 1,"XQ" 1532,"LBIL","B11d",401.0,"SeriesK,7-5/8% ","12101973","12101904", 5000, 1234, 725, 1533,"LBIL","B11d",410.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 5000, 1234, 725, 1534,"LBIL","B11",500.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 9455, 1468, 850, 1 1 1 0 1 2 456789012345678901233467 Continuationofsamplerecords: 3.25, 4.25,"XQ" 3.23, 3.50,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" 6.23, 6.50,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" 7.23, 8.50,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" FCCReport43-02-AutomatedReportSpecifications December1998 Page74of108 RECORDTYPEB12-NETDEFERREDINCOMETAXESDATARECORD Field Item Example Position Description 1 RecordNumber 1535 1-4 Thesequentialnumberofthisrecord withinthisdatafileplus1000. Format:Rightjustifiedandspacefilled. 2 COSA "LBIL" 6-11 TheCOSAcodeforthefilingentity. Format:Includequotationmarks. 3 RecordType "B12" 13-18 AlwayscontainstheletterBcapitalized andthenumber12withnospacebetweenthem. Format:Includequotationmarks. 4 RowNumber 100.0 20-25 RownumberasidentifiedontheReportDefinition. Validranges:100.0to450.0 Format:Rightjustifiedandspacefilled. withonedecimalplace. Sinceallapplicablenumbersareintegers, append.0totherownumber. 5 Column(b)data 21728 27-35 Thisfieldcontainsthedatacorresponding tocolumn(b)asshownintheFormSection oftheReportDefinition. Format:Rightjustifiedandspacefilled. Enter-99999inallrowswhereafield isdesignatedbyN/A.Allotherfields mustbepopulated.Iftherearenodata applicabletoanopenfield,enterzero.
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/documents/1999PDFs/4302C99.PDF
  • 0, 1527,"LBIL","B11b", 200.0, 0,"XQ" 1528,"LBIL","B11c", 300.0, 1,"XQ" 1529,"LBIL","B11c", 301.0,"Series I, 6% ","06011969","06011905", 1000, 234, 125, 1530,"LBIL","B11c", 310.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 1000, 234, 125, 1531,"LBIL","B11d", 400.0, 1,"XQ" 1532,"LBIL","B11d", 401.0,"Series K, 7 ­ 5/8% ","12101973","12101904", 5000, 1234, 725, 1533,"LBIL","B11d", 410.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 5000, 1234, 725, 1534,"LBIL","B11 ", 500.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 9455, 1468, 850, 1 1 1 0 1 2 456789012345678901233467 Continuation of sample records: 3.25, 4.25,"XQ" 3.23, 3.50,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" 6.23, 6.50,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" 7.23, 8.50,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" FCC Report 43-02 ­ Automated Report Specifications December 1999 Page 77 of 122 RECORD TYPE B12 ­ NET DEFERRED INCOME TAXES DATA RECORD FieldItem Example Position Description 1 Record Number 1535 1 ­ 4 The sequential number of this record within this data file plus 1000. Format: Right justified and space
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/documents/1999PDFs/4302S99.PDF
  • 0, 1527,"LBIL","B11b", 200.0, 0,"XQ" 1528,"LBIL","B11c", 300.0, 1,"XQ" 1529,"LBIL","B11c", 301.0,"Series I, 6% ","06011969","06011905", 1000, 234, 125, 1530,"LBIL","B11c", 310.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 1000, 234, 125, 1531,"LBIL","B11d", 400.0, 1,"XQ" 1532,"LBIL","B11d", 401.0,"Series K, 7 ­ 5/8% ","12101973","12101904", 5000, 1234, 725, 1533,"LBIL","B11d", 410.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 5000, 1234, 725, 1534,"LBIL","B11 ", 500.0,"N/A ","00000000","00000000", 9455, 1468, 850, 1 1 1 0 1 2 456789012345678901233467 Continuation of sample records: 3.25, 4.25,"XQ" 3.23, 3.50,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" 6.23, 6.50,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" 7.23, 8.50,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" -99999.00,-99999.00,"XQ" FCC Report 43-02 ­ Automated Report Specifications December 1999 Page 77 of 122 RECORD TYPE B12 ­ NET DEFERRED INCOME TAXES DATA RECORD FieldItem Example Position Description 1 Record Number 1535 1 ­ 4 The sequential number of this record within this data file plus 1000. Format: Right justified and space