FCC Web Documents citing 61.2

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 06 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.pdf
  • requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not ``clear and explicit'' as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern Valley to revise its Tariff within ten days of release of this Order. We decline, however, to declare the Tariff void ab initio or
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.pdf
  • an interstate or foreign telecommunications service''). Complaint, Exhibit B (Tariff) at Original Page No. 8. On the other hand, it defines ``end user'' as an entity that does not pay (an end user ``need not purchase any service provided by [Northern Valley]''). Id. This inconsistency may violate the Commission's requirement that tariffs be ``clear and explicit.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 61.2(a). We do not address this issue, however, because Qwest did not raise it, and both parties assert that the Tariff's ``end user'' definition establishes that Northern Valley may impose charges for calls to or from parties that have not purchased services from Northern Valley. See, e.g., Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., 550 U.S. 45, 52-55 (2007) (citations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1501A1.txt
  • and unreasonable practice, in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. In addition, Rainbow contends: (i) that Bell Atlantic failed to substantially perform or reasonably discharge its duty under the tariff, in violation of section 203(a) of the Act; (ii) that the tariff was ambiguous and should be construed to require the return of the deposit to Rainbow under section 61.2 of the Commission's rules; and (iii) that the tariff was void and should have been rescinded. Finally, Rainbow alleges that Bell Atlantic's failure to provide access to the video dialtone platform by denying it the necessary EPIC interface software was an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Rainbow seeks the return of its $345,600
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1732A1.txt
  • for investigation Iowa Telecom's interstate access tariff revision. DisCUSSION We find that WorldCom raises substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Iowa Telecom's tariff revision that require further investigation. WorldCom questions whether the revision is unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act and whether the language of the revision is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. WorldCom further questions whether Iowa Telecom has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Iowa Telecom's FCC Tariff No. 1, Transmittal No. 22 require further investigation, and suspend it for five
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1886A1.txt
  • access Tariff FCC No. 1. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of BellSouth's tariff revision that require further investigation. They question whether the revision violates a Commission prescription, is unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act, and whether the language of the revision is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Petitioners further question whether BellSouth has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of BellSouth's FCC Tariff No. 1, Transmittal No. 657 require further investigation, and we suspend it for five months.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2039A1.txt
  • this motion. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Petitioners further question whether SBC has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. Finally, certain petitioners claim that SBC's revisions conflict with provisions of the bankruptcy code. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's FCC Tariffs Nos.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2055A1.txt
  • and 16. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Verizon's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Petitioners further question whether Verizon has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. Finally, certain petitioners claim that Verizon's revisions conflict with provisions of the bankruptcy code and FCC and state commission rules regarding discontinuance of service. For these reasons, we conclude that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2140A1.txt
  • investigate Verizon's tariffs, and we suspend for one day and set for investigation Verizon's revisions to its interstate access Tariff FCC Nos. 1 and 11. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Verizon's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules, whether the revisions, including provisioning of the PARTS offering, are unjust, unreasonable, and unreasonably discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the revisions violate Verizon's obligations to provide notice of network changes to affected carriers under section 251(c)(5) of the Act and the Commission's implementing rules. Petitioners further
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2141A1.txt
  • 5. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of NECA's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act, are unreasonably discriminatory in violation of section 202(a) of the Act, and are impermissibly vague in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules. WorldCom further questions whether NECA has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of NECA's FCC Tariff No. 5, Transmittal No. 951 require further investigation, and we suspend it for five months.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2317A1.txt
  • a security deposit, if applicable; and/or 4) a customer represents a significant financial risk based on objective financial standards such as but not limited to Moody's Investor Services, Standard and Poor's, D&B, and ratings issued by independent and non-affiliated regional analysts of financial information.'' WorldCom asserts that the proposed security deposit language is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules and is unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b). Discussion The first issue designated for investigation is whether the revised security deposit provisions applicable to interstate access customers, both new and existing, are reasonable and not so vague as to permit Iowa Telecom to discriminate unreasonably among its interstate access customers, whether they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2318A1.txt
  • of the Customer's estimated billing for service(s), calculated by using an average of the most recent three (3) months of undisputed charges.'' Several carriers petitioned against the BellSouth Transmittal No. 657. These parties allege that the tariff revisions: (1) are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act; (2) are vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules; (3) permit BellSouth too much discretion in determining whether a customer is credit worthy; and (4) have the potential to be anticompetitive because BellSouth could impose unnecessary and burdensome credit requirements on its carrier customers that are also its competitors. US LEC states that a requirement for two months' cash deposit by all network
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2522A1.pdf
  • thirty to seven days the notice period before which Verizon can refuse to process new orders or discontinue service. Several carriers petitioned against the Verizon Transmittal No. 226. These petitioners allege that the tariff revisions: (1) are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, (2) are vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules, and (3) permit Verizon too much discretion in determining whether to require a security deposit or advance payments for services. In addition, several petitioners assert that requiring a security deposit or advance payment from any customer that has ``commenced a voluntary receivership or bankruptcy proceeding (or had a receivership or bankruptcy proceeding initiated against
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2577A1.txt
  • current one-year Treasury Bill. SBC will pay interest only on deposits, not prepayments. Several carriers petitioned against the SBC Transmittal Nos. 1312, 20, 77, 772, and 2906. These parties allege that the tariff revisions: (1) are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and (2) are vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. In addition, ALTS, ASCENT, and WorldCom argue that the $1 million dollar threshold is unjust and unreasonably discriminatory. ALTS, ASCENT, Nextel, Sprint, and WorldCom assert that an entity's credit standing in the investment community has no direct bearing on its ability to pay its bills on a timely basis. ALTS also asserts that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2948A1.txt
  • score as published by Dun & Bradstreet of at least ``average.'' Several carriers petitioned against NECA's Transmittal No. 951. These parties question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act, are unreasonably discriminatory in violation of section 202(a) of the Act, and are impermissibly vague in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules. Discussion The initial issue designated for investigation is whether the revised security deposit provisions applicable to interstate access customers are reasonable and not so vague as to permit carriers participating in the NECA tariff to discriminate unreasonably among interstate access customers, whether they be interexchange carriers, competitive LECs, or business end-user subscribers. The interstate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3196A1.txt
  • the PARTS offering are unreasonably high and unreasonably discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act; whether Verizon's tariff revisions, including provisioning of the PARTS offering, are unjust, unreasonable, and unreasonably discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act; whether the language of the tariff revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules; and whether Verizon is complying with its obligations to provide notice of network changes to affected carriers, under section 251(c)(5) of the Act and the Commission's implementing rules. When Verizon provides information responsive to a particular paragraph, including supporting documents, Verizon is directed to segregate and mark the responsive information as ``Responsive to Paragraph
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3574A1.txt
  • on the filed rate doctrine. According to the complaint, the District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve the issues concerning the filed rate doctrine and the lawfulness of MCIW's tariff. Garin further alleges in the formal complaint that MCIW violated sections 201(b) of the Act and sections 61.25, 61.74, and 61.2 of the Commission's rules by cross-referencing the tariffs of local exchange carriers and by being impermissibly vague in its tariff. Subsequent to that filing by Complainants, the parties to this proceeding reached a settlement of their dispute. On December 17, 2002, Complainant filed a Withdrawal of Formal Complaint, requesting that the Commission allow Garin to simply withdraw its complaint. In
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4048A1.txt
  • 1, 1, 39, and 73. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's tariff transmittals that require further investigation. They question whether SBC's tariff transmittals are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Sprint further questions whether SBC has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's FCC Tariffs Nos. 2, 1, 1, 39 and 73, Transmittal Nos. 1430, 84, 187, 843, and 3022,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2641A1.txt
  • inconsistencies. Specifically, in Form 312 Schedule B, you indicate that the Maximum EIRP Density per Carrier is 24.49 dBW/4 kHz for emission designators 6M00D7W and 7M00D7W. This value is less than and therefore inconsistent with the average values of 29.44 and 29.46 dBW/4 kHz, respectively, as derived from the bandwidth of each emission and Maximum EIRP per carrier values of 61.2 and 61.9 dBW indicated in your application. Given these inconsistencies, we cannot determine the proposed emission power. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 25.112(a)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §25.112(a)(1), and Section 0.261 of the Commission's rules on delegations of authority, 47 C.F.R. §0.261, we dismiss your application without prejudice to refiling. Sincerely, Scott A. Kotler Chief, Systems Analysis Branch Satellite
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1348A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Data RO22 Sud-Est 17 2846792 91.3 23999 8430No Data RO3 Macroregiunea trei 16 5542528 157.5 74612 13462No Data RO31 Sud - Muntenia 12 3329794 99.6 27083 8133No Data RO32 Bucuresti - Ilfov 21 2212735 1259.4 47529 21480No Data RO4 Macroregiunea patru 10 4239994 70.6 38983 9194No Data RO41 Sud-Vest Oltenia 11 2307868 81 17688 7664No Data RO42 Vest 10 1932126 61.2 21295 11022No Data Singapore 86 4839400 6814 127666 23288 SK0 Slovakia 35 5387001 110 86375 16138 15 SK01 Bratislavský kraj 39 602416 293 23589 39410 29 SK02 Západné Slovensko 35 1863498 124 28152 15204 12 12025 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1348 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (avg population per square meter) GDP total (US$m), PPP (puchashing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1348A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1348A3.txt
  • Data RO22 Sud-Est 17 2846792 91.3 23999 8430No Data RO3 Macroregiunea trei 16 5542528 157.5 74612 13462No Data RO31 Sud - Muntenia 12 3329794 99.6 27083 8133No Data RO32 Bucuresti - Ilfov 21 2212735 1259.4 47529 21480No Data RO4 Macroregiunea patru 10 4239994 70.6 38983 9194No Data RO41 Sud-Vest Oltenia 11 2307868 81 17688 7664No Data RO42 Vest 10 1932126 61.2 21295 11022No Data Singapore 86 4839400 6814 127666 23288 SK0 Slovakia 35 5387001 110 86375 16138 15 SK01 Bratislavský kraj 39 602416 293 23589 39410 29 SK02 Západné Slovensko 35 1863498 124 28152 15204 12 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1348 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (avg population per square meter) GDP total (US$m), PPP (puchashing power
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-922A1.txt
  • 1 and 2 for ``Regulations, Rates and Charges Applying to the Provision of Access Service for Connection to Interstate Communications Facilities and Services.'' The proposed tariff is scheduled to become effective on May 24, 2010. Because the tariff does not specify the charges for the services it provides, we reject Transmittal No. 4 as patently unlawful, in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.25 of the Commission's rules and section 203 of the Communications Act. II. BACKGROUND All American filed the above-referenced tariff on May 7, 2010 to become effective on May 24, 2010. Section 7 of the tariff lists applicable rate elements and states that ``[t]he Company's rates for recurring services are set at or below the rates for equivalent services''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1132A1.txt
  • definitions in response to the Commission's Qwest v. Northern Valley order. The proposed tariff is scheduled to become effective on June 29, 2011. Because the tariff revisions do not comply with the requirements of the Qwest v. Northern Valley decision for the reasons described below, we reject Transmittal No. 5 as patently unlawful, in violation of the Commission's order, section 61.2 of the Commission's rules, and section 201(b) of the Act. II. BACKGROUND Northern Valley's tariff revisions modify two definitions in its FCC Tariff No. 3, ``End User'' and ``Customer of an Interstate or Foreign Telecommunications Service,'' in response to the Commission's Qwest v. Northern Valley order. In the Qwest v. Northern Valley order, the Commission concluded that, to the extent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-207249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-207249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-207249A1.txt
  • 60.4 3998.51 6189.0175 1720 G7DDT 59.2 3984.505 6191.9425 328 G7DDT 61 3975.0875 6206.32 1720 G7DDT 58.2 4082.6025 6208.3225 1720 G7DDT 58.9 3983.6375 6208.8175 874 G7DDT 56.3 3975.92 6210.325 1720 G7DDT 59.8 3985.64 6215.5225 874 G7DDT 56.3 4021.01 6220.945 1720 G7DDT 59.8 4071.92 6222.475 874 G7DDT 56.7 3989.8025 6228.37 1720 G7DDT 58.4 3980.51 6228.5275 1720 G7DDT 59 4058.0825 6230.3725 1720 G7DDT 61.2 4015.4525 6234.1525 874 G7DDT 56.1 4013.675 6235.975 437 G7DDT 54.4 4136.17 6237.5275 437 G7DDT 52.3 3986.9 6239.395 437 G7DDT 54.1 4017.6125 6243.805 1720 G7DDT 57.9 3662.0525 6245.335 874 G7DDT 55.3 4023.125 6246.01 1720 G7DDT 57.8 3990.5225 6246.415 874 G7DDT 55.9 4022.0675 6250.69 874 G7DDT 57.4 3993.335 6268.165 1720 G7DDT 58.1 3974.0975 6269.695 874 G7DDT 55.3 3631.97 6275.23 1720 G7DDT 60.6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.txt
  • Carolina 2,653 2,849 3,053 3,393 720 3,070 3,790 1.41 42.9 South Dakota 488 584 602 635 154 562 716 0.27 46.6 Tennessee 3,467 3,880 4,302 4,553 884 4,044 4,928 1.84 42.2 Texas 12,871 14,563 15,943 17,576 4,095 14,937 19,032 7.09 47.9 Utah 1,112 1,284 1,443 1,557 344 1,447 1,790 0.67 61.0 Vermont 424 547 575 602 140 544 684 0.25 61.2 Virgin Islands 74 93 101 109 26 96 122 0.05 48.3 Virginia 5,061 5,646 6,179 6,576 1,443 5,577 7,020 2.61 38.7 Washington 3,995 4,438 4,613 5,080 1,213 4,490 5,703 2.12 42.7 West Virginia 1,143 1,240 1,337 1,383 304 1,133 1,437 0.54 25.8 Wisconsin 3,258 3,621 3,927 4,234 883 3,837 4,719 1.76 44.9 Wyoming 366 402 449 462 109 404 513
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243430A1.txt
  • 5 6 97.5 26.2 80.7 25.5 76.3 35.7 69.3 47.0 I 8 I 105.0 I 48.7 I 7 85.2 46.4 9 122.3 48.7 10 11 ~ 123.8 40.3 105.0 39.7 12 13 86.0 33.0 81.0 40.0 C. 15 Not applicable. Description of groups required in the case of non-simultaneous emissions 14 15 4 156.3 20.8 66.3 18.2 16 17 149.8 61.2 134.4 58.6 18 19 ~~ ~ 87.3 21.1 92.5 15.6 D. Overall link characteristics 1) Connection between Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth frequencies in the network: 5 6 BSS-19T 5 BSS-19A BSS-19T 6 BSS-19A 12 13 14 BSS-19T 12 BSS-19A BSS-19T 13 BSS-19A BSS-19T 14 BSS- 19A 15 16 17 18 19 BSS-19T 15 BSS-19A BSS-19T 16 BSS-19A BSS-19T 17 BSS-19A BSS-19T
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.txt
  • 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Percent Change 1997 to 2002 Australia $11.0 $15.9 $19.9 $21.8 $25.5 $40.1 $47.4 $81.6 $100.5 $74.4 $36.5 -9.2% Brazil 5.6 6.4 7.7 10.6 14.8 17.9 26.6 26.1 26.1 32.6 22.1 23.5 Canada 39.5 42.0 55.4 59.8 60.6 67.1 60.2 88.0 98.0 86.4 70.8 5.5 China 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.9 5.8 12.7 32.6 61.2 84.1 56.9 887.3 Colombia 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.7 6.0 7.0 15.3 18.2 23.7 12.9 15.8 127.1 Dominican Republic 1.9 1.7 2.5 4.1 5.2 6.4 4.8 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.1 -4.6 Egypt 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.1 1.4 4.8 2.3 2.2 2.1 94.5 El Salvador 1.8 0.3 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 2.2 3.8 7.3 4.4 2.3 67.4 France 12.1 13.6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.txt
  • 141.8 154.9 197.9 237.4 298.1 331.6 669.3 1,016.7 38.5 France 263.7 304.9 362.8 442.6 511.0 560.3 577.1 539.4 725.5 653.5 681.4 4.8 Germany 572.6 604.1 662.3 782.4 1,008.3 1,153.4 1,466.4 1,251.4 886.9 1,057.4 1,501.9 0.0 Greece 75.6 82.1 86.5 91.3 97.5 115.3 183.8 213.8 259.9 172.9 203.6 8.5 Guatemala 93.8 105.4 115.1 128.0 127.3 144.7 189.8 233.1 368.9 909.1 1,455.9 61.2 Haiti 52.9 62.8 73.6 79.2 93.6 99.6 135.9 94.4 67.3 107.8 231.8 9.5 Hong Kong 143.2 213.9 315.8 539.7 677.3 565.3 193.0 163.3 278.1 171.2 232.6 -11.5 India 134.2 191.6 285.7 428.0 583.3 749.7 960.1 1,243.5 1,332.7 1,512.2 1,319.4 12.9 Israel 162.7 195.7 214.3 239.8 214.2 220.4 363.8 307.3 267.8 309.5 536.5 11.6 Italy 229.7 250.9 279.4 336.3 476.6 515.1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262086A1.txt
  • 105.8 21.9 NH New Jersey 3,003.9 218.2 2,785.7 1,903.5 882.4 370.8 124.9 288.5 784.2 98.2 NJ New Mexico 495.3 40.7 454.6 322.3 132.3 70.3 22.0 26.8 119.1 13.2 NM New York 7,726.8 469.0 7,257.8 4,923.2 2,334.3 755.0 218.2 1,084.9 2,058.1 276.1 NY North Carolina 2,303.5 296.7 2,006.8 1,454.8 555.8 278.1 75.3 112.8 466.2 89.7 NC North Dakota 98.4 7.3 91.1 61.2 29.9 11.2 6.9 9.0 27.1 2.8 ND Ohio 3,026.7 319.4 2,707.3 2,024.9 682.8 311.5 155.9 135.9 603.3 79.5 OH Oklahoma 818.2 144.5 673.7 482.5 192.0 94.6 27.9 52.0 174.5 17.4 OK Oregon 964.6 86.8 877.8 626.9 250.9 119.0 44.1 55.1 218.2 32.8 OR Pennsylvania 3,525.1 237.0 3,288.1 2,393.2 895.1 415.5 104.0 271.7 791.2 103.9 PA Rhode Island 295.3 19.4 275.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.txt
  • July 61.8 88.9 34.5 40.4 75.9 64.5 61.9 65.5 August 62.0 88.8 34.3 41.9 76.1 64.6 62.9 60.3 September 61.3 88.8 34.4 38.1 78.6 67.2 65.8 68.8 October 61.1 88.7 35.5 35.1 75.8 64.3 62.7 59.8 November 60.0 88.5 32.9 34.4 73.3 62.4 59.8 47.7 December 59.5 88.3 31.9 33.7 73.4 60.0 61.7 46.1 2004January 59.2 88.2 32.1 32.0 74.0 61.2 62.6 43.1 February 58.3 87.2 30.4 32.7 74.5 60.0 64.6 41.7 March 58.4 88.1 30.5 30.4 73.3 60.5 62.4 35.8 April 57.8 87.5 29.4 31.0 72.9 60.9 60.9 39.6 May 57.1 86.9 28.5 30.2 71.6 60.5 58.4 39.5 June 57.4 87.1 28.7 30.9 72.5 60.2 60.6 38.8 July 57.0 87.0 27.6 31.4 71.5 59.8 58.5 40.4 August 57.1 86.7 27.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A9.txt
  • July 61.8 88.9 34.5 40.4 75.9 64.5 61.9 65.5 August 62.0 88.8 34.3 41.9 76.1 64.6 62.9 60.3 September 61.3 88.8 34.4 38.1 78.6 67.2 65.8 68.8 October 61.1 88.7 35.5 35.1 75.8 64.3 62.7 59.8 November 60.0 88.5 32.9 34.4 73.3 62.4 59.8 47.7 December 59.5 88.3 31.9 33.7 73.4 60.0 61.7 46.1 2004January 59.2 88.2 32.1 32.0 74.0 61.2 62.6 43.1 February 58.3 87.2 30.4 32.7 74.5 60.0 64.6 41.7 March 58.4 88.1 30.5 30.4 73.3 60.5 62.4 35.8 April 57.8 87.5 29.4 31.0 72.9 60.9 60.9 39.6 May 57.1 86.9 28.5 30.2 71.6 60.5 58.4 39.5 June 57.4 87.1 28.7 30.9 72.5 60.2 60.6 38.8 July 57.0 87.0 27.6 31.4 71.5 59.8 58.5 40.4 August 57.1 86.7 27.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264309A1.txt
  • 11.5 5.9 $15,601 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 89.6 279,527,222 56.8 7.5 12.2 13.5 10.0 El Salvador $165,984,847 33.2 34.1 9.2 9.5 14.0 $7,478,573 34.9 4.6 35.9 13.7 10.9 $602,858 0.0 12.2 0.3 0.0 87.5 1,665,799,218 32.6 32.8 5.9 9.8 18.8 Guatemala $431,452,856 71.5 14.2 6.0 1.9 6.5 $6,320,838 16.6 2.7 30.7 25.7 24.4 $1,378,374 0.0 23.4 0.1 0.0 76.6 2,882,032,949 61.2 16.5 7.3 2.1 12.8 Honduras $144,530,976 15.0 5.6 58.6 15.3 5.5 $5,444,994 20.0 0.0 37.9 32.7 9.3 $9,105 0.0 0.0 47.2 0.0 52.8 609,239,439 11.0 3.7 65.9 13.5 6.0 Mexico $856,295,408 24.9 14.8 36.9 10.2 13.1 $68,343,712 20.3 1.7 69.3 4.2 4.6 $547,660 0.0 18.7 18.3 0.0 63.0 12,562,145,227 21.8 13.0 40.9 3.9 20.4 Nicaragua $54,496,904 55.5 9.5 13.3 13.0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266596A1.txt
  • 99.3 99.5 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 118-268 91.5 93.3 96.7 97.9 98.2 99.2 98.1 99.1 99.7 99.8 99.8 99.8 67-118 85.9 89.3 95.0 97.5 98.0 98.8 95.0 97.1 99.1 99.7 99.7 99.8 41-67 76.1 83.3 91.5 96.0 97.5 98.8 87.9 94.4 97.8 99.0 99.3 99.5 25-41 65.0 73.1 87.6 92.6 95.5 98.1 80.0 87.6 95.6 97.7 98.5 99.3 15-25 50.1 61.2 77.8 88.0 91.4 96.6 69.4 80.4 90.8 95.7 96.8 98.9 6-15 38.5 52.1 69.4 82.7 86.2 95.8 61.9 76.2 86.4 93.2 95.0 98.4 Fewer Than 6 27.5 43.3 59.7 73.5 74.8 88.3 49.9 67.9 80.9 88.9 91.8 96.2 Dec 2003 $53,494 to $291,938 96.1% 96.8% 98.3% 98.7% 98.8% 99.1 % 99.8% 99.6% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8 % 99.8% $43,617 to $53,478
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • July 61.8 88.9 34.5 40.4 75.9 64.5 61.9 65.5 August 62.0 88.8 34.3 41.9 76.1 64.6 62.9 60.3 September 61.3 88.8 34.4 38.1 78.6 67.2 65.8 68.8 October 61.1 88.7 35.5 35.1 75.8 64.3 62.7 59.8 November 60.0 88.5 32.9 34.4 73.3 62.4 59.8 47.7 December 59.5 88.3 31.9 33.7 73.4 60.0 61.7 46.1 2004January 59.2 88.2 32.1 32.0 74.0 61.2 62.6 43.1 February 58.3 87.2 30.4 32.7 74.5 60.0 64.6 41.7 March 58.4 88.1 30.5 30.4 73.3 60.5 62.4 35.8 April 57.8 87.5 29.4 31.0 72.9 60.9 60.9 39.6 May 57.1 86.9 28.5 30.2 71.6 60.5 58.4 39.5 June 57.4 87.1 28.7 30.9 72.5 60.2 60.6 38.8 July 57.0 87.0 27.6 31.4 71.5 59.8 58.5 40.4 August 57.1 86.7 27.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272545A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272545A2.txt
  • 11.8 0.0 4.157.2 27.0 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines $3,125,343 10.4 0.014.918.5 56.2 $70,201 0.0 0.0 8.912.2 79.0 $16,956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 18,436,529 10.9 0.014.125.6 49.4 Trinidad and Tobago $37,328,121 52.7 0.0 0.312.0 35.0 $1,435,764 25.4 0.0 8.310.1 56.2 $289,140 72.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 27.6 412,530,904 62.2 0.0 2.1 6.4 29.3 Turks and Caicos Islands $2,535,638 9.1 0.0 0.029.7 61.2 $125,088 0.0 0.0 0.034.2 65.8 $1,297 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 99.9 15,401,945 9.3 0.0 0.025.3 65.4 Virgin Islands, British $3,241,457 1.5 0.0 8.210.9 79.4 $447,739 0.0 0.060.9 5.6 33.5 $13,891 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 24,816,136 1.6 0.038.6 8.9 50.9 Navassa Island $0 $0 $0 0 Puerto Rico $3,219 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $70 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $0 57,136 0.0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277784A1.txt
  • 93.3 96.7 97.9 98.2 99.2 99.3 98.1 99.1 99.7 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 67-118 85.9 89.3 95.0 97.5 98.0 98.8 99.0 95.0 97.1 99.1 99.7 99.7 99.8 99.8 41-67 76.1 83.3 91.5 96.0 97.5 98.8 99.1 87.9 94.4 97.8 99.0 99.3 99.5 99.5 25-41 65.0 73.1 87.6 92.6 95.5 98.1 98.6 80.0 87.6 95.6 97.7 98.5 99.3 99.5 15-25 50.1 61.2 77.8 88.0 91.4 96.6 97.8 69.4 80.4 90.8 95.7 96.8 98.9 99.1 6-15 38.5 52.1 69.4 82.7 86.2 95.8 97.2 61.9 76.2 86.4 93.2 95.0 98.4 98.7 Fewer Than 6 27.5 43.3 59.7 73.5 74.8 88.3 89.8 49.9 67.9 80.9 88.9 91.8 96.2 96.8 Dec 2003 $53,494 to $291,938 96.1% 96.8% 98.3% 98.7% 98.8% 99.1 % 99.4 % 99.8% 99.6%
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284321A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284321A2.txt
  • 0.518.5 66.4 $1,403,257 0.0 4.8 0.032.2 62.9 $397,523 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 124,126,780 0.0 5.2 0.619.5 74.7 Paraguay $5,804,588 0.019.9 1.7 7.7 70.7 $342,408 0.015.6 0.023.9 60.5 $14,881 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 41,901,120 0.022.1 3.312.2 62.4 Peru $65,903,166 0.014.2 0.927.3 57.5 $3,410,913 0.014.6 0.012.8 72.5 $5,365,638 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 1,389,679,727 0.0 4.6 1.524.1 69.7 Suriname $6,902,343 0.0 7.5 0.031.3 61.2 $212,771 0.0 0.0 0.030.5 69.5 $90,348 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 46,368,028 0.0 3.1 0.040.5 56.4 Uruguay $11,260,103 0.018.9 0.213.1 67.7 $385,082 0.013.9 0.019.6 66.5 $288,540 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 97.3 121,085,826 0.011.7 0.318.3 69.6 Venezuela $43,909,469 1.740.4 0.310.9 46.7 $3,298,920 0.0 7.7 0.070.2 22.1 $367,868 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 465,306,986 0.720.9 0.227.7 50.5 South America $589,982,403 0.125.6 0.816.6 56.9 $37,098,987
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • July 61.8 88.9 34.5 40.4 75.9 64.5 61.9 65.5 August 62.0 88.8 34.3 41.9 76.1 64.6 62.9 60.3 September 61.3 88.8 34.4 38.1 78.6 67.2 65.8 68.8 October 61.1 88.7 35.5 35.1 75.8 64.3 62.7 59.8 November 60.0 88.5 32.9 34.4 73.3 62.4 59.8 47.7 December 59.5 88.3 31.9 33.7 73.4 60.0 61.7 46.1 2004January 59.2 88.2 32.1 32.0 74.0 61.2 62.6 43.1 February 58.3 87.2 30.4 32.7 74.5 60.0 64.6 41.7 March 58.4 88.1 30.5 30.4 73.3 60.5 62.4 35.8 April 57.8 87.5 29.4 31.0 72.9 60.9 60.9 39.6 May 57.1 86.9 28.5 30.2 71.6 60.5 58.4 39.5 June 57.4 87.1 28.7 30.9 72.5 60.2 60.6 38.8 July 57.0 87.0 27.6 31.4 71.5 59.8 58.5 40.4 August 57.1 86.7 27.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291391A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291391A2.txt
  • $6,943,415 0.0 34.1 0.8 10.7 54.3 $453,294 0.0 0.6 0.0 6.8 92.6 $22,304 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 70,805,593 0.0 11.1 1.4 14.0 73.5 Croatia $5,018,426 0.0 16.2 10.4 16.5 56.9 $105,397 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.4 69.6 $3,583 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 58,052,283 0.0 6.1 31.7 21.1 41.1 Czech Republic $10,655,238 0.0 39.6 2.1 13.0 45.3 $283,121 0.0 33.4 0.0 5.4 61.2 $23,701 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 101,661,497 0.0 20.6 3.7 13.5 62.3 Estonia $2,311,227 0.0 2.4 2.9 57.3 37.4 $30,357 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.8 5.2 $474 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 16,595,458 0.0 1.2 20.6 37.9 40.3 Georgia $2,674,880 0.0 11.7 0.8 50.5 37.0 $27,884 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.0 43.0 $532 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 33,862,787 0.0 6.1 1.6 54.4 37.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.txt
  • 82.1 August 86.0 84.3 63.9 76.3 101.6 90.0 81.1 September 86.5 85.2 63.5 77.6 101.5 88.9 80.5 October 84.9 83.4 63.3 75.5 102.7 88.0 80.2 November 82.2 79.0 62.6 70.4 101.3 90.5 79.3 December 83.7 81.3 62.1 73.5 98.7 89.6 78.7 2009January 82.7 79.9 61.8 71.9 94.5 89.8 78.3 February 81.1 77.6 61.6 69.3 93.5 90.1 77.9 March 80.0 76.2 61.2 67.6 93.8 90.0 77.3 April 79.5 75.9 60.1 67.7 94.3 88.7 76.0 May 78.5 75.3 59.3 67.2 97.7 86.8 74.8 June 79.1 76.8 58.6 69.3 99.7 84.8 73.8 July 80.2 78.7 57.8 72.0 100.1 83.3 72.4 Table 7.5 Monthly Producer Price Indices - Continued (December 2003 = 100) Note: The values for the last several months are subject to revision.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A9.txt
  • 82.1 August 86.0 84.3 63.9 76.3 101.6 90.0 81.1 September 86.5 85.2 63.5 77.6 101.5 88.9 80.5 October 84.9 83.4 63.3 75.5 102.7 88.0 80.2 November 82.2 79.0 62.6 70.4 101.3 90.5 79.3 December 83.7 81.3 62.1 73.5 98.7 89.6 78.7 2009January 82.7 79.9 61.8 71.9 94.5 89.8 78.3 February 81.1 77.6 61.6 69.3 93.5 90.1 77.9 March 80.0 76.2 61.2 67.6 93.8 90.0 77.3 April 79.5 75.9 60.1 67.7 94.3 88.7 76.0 May 78.5 75.3 59.3 67.2 97.7 86.8 74.8 June 79.1 76.8 58.6 69.3 99.7 84.8 73.8 July 80.2 78.7 57.8 72.0 100.1 83.3 72.4 Table 7.5 Monthly Producer Price Indices - Continued (December 2003 = 100) Note: The values for the last several months are subject to revision.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296480A1.txt
  • 100 Ohio 23,540 45.8 960 1.9 147 0.3 1,138 2.2 560 1.1 24,999 48.7 51,343 Oklahoma 6,572 34.1 526 2.7 49 0.3 438 2.3 215 1.1 11,483 59.5 19,283 Oregon 7,746 50.7 64 0.4 122 0.8 405 2.7 222 1.5 6,706 43.9 15,266 Pennsylvania 28,414 49.2 168 0.3 691 1.2 1,575 2.7 430 0.7 26,521 45.9 57,799 Puerto Rico 3,671 61.2 0 0.0 40 0.7 169 2.8 79 1.3 2,041 34.0 5,999 Rhode Island 3,101 59.7 3 0.1 55 1.1 117 2.2 27 0.5 1,895 36.5 5,198 South Carolina 8,725 48.0 687 3.8 109 0.6 636 3.5 334 1.8 7,699 42.3 18,189 South Dakota 1,405 23.8 24 0.4 10 0.2 88 1.5 78 1.3 4,296 72.8 5,901 Tennessee 12,973 49.6 843
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301505A1.txt
  • 552.5 258.4 85.6 190.8 534.8 17.8 ME Maryland 8,998.0 555.9 8,442.0 5,686.6 2,755.5 1,169.5 408.6 1,167.6 2,745.7 9.8 MD Massachusetts 11,727.8 543.6 11,184.2 7,098.8 4,085.4 1,250.9 588.9 2,168.2 4,008.0 77.4 MA Michigan 13,834.4 448.0 13,386.5 10,292.1 3,094.4 1,867.3 649.6 569.3 3,086.2 8.2 MI Minnesota 5,049.3 80.5 4,968.9 3,504.9 1,464.0 714.2 217.0 527.8 1,459.0 5.0 MN Mississippi 4,131.3 57.1 4,074.2 3,013.0 1,061.2 732.5 125.3 193.6 1,051.4 9.8 MS Missouri 8,380.9 183.1 8,197.8 5,785.8 2,412.1 1,303.1 365.7 735.7 2,404.5 7.5 MO Montana 938.8 (6.9) 945.7 632.8 312.9 150.0 68.2 94.1 312.3 0.6 MT Nebraska 2,200.6 33.5 2,167.0 1,469.8 697.2 293.4 172.0 228.3 693.7 3.5 NE Nevada 2,772.4 25.2 2,747.2 2,039.0 708.1 370.1 232.7 101.4 704.2 3.9 NV New Hampshire 2,326.9 52.9 2,274.0 1,488.4
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.txt
  • 100 Ohio 23,540 45.8 960 1.9 147 0.3 1,138 2.2 560 1.1 24,999 48.7 51,343 Oklahoma 6,572 34.1 526 2.7 49 0.3 438 2.3 215 1.1 11,483 59.5 19,283 Oregon 7,746 50.7 64 0.4 122 0.8 405 2.7 222 1.5 6,706 43.9 15,266 Pennsylvania 28,414 49.2 168 0.3 691 1.2 1,575 2.7 430 0.7 26,521 45.9 57,799 Puerto Rico 3,671 61.2 0 0.0 40 0.7 169 2.8 79 1.3 2,041 34.0 5,999 Rhode Island 3,101 59.7 3 0.1 55 1.1 117 2.2 27 0.5 1,895 36.5 5,198 South Carolina 8,725 48.0 687 3.8 109 0.6 636 3.5 334 1.8 7,699 42.3 18,189 South Dakota 1,405 23.8 24 0.4 10 0.2 88 1.5 78 1.3 4,296 72.8 5,901 Tennessee 12,973 49.6 843
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • 82.1 August 86.0 84.3 63.9 76.3 101.6 90.0 81.1 September 86.5 85.2 63.5 77.6 101.5 88.9 80.5 October 84.9 83.4 63.3 75.5 102.7 88.0 80.2 November 82.2 79.0 62.6 70.4 101.3 90.5 79.3 December 83.7 81.3 62.1 73.5 98.7 89.6 78.7 2009January 82.7 79.9 61.8 71.9 94.5 89.8 78.3 February 81.1 77.6 61.6 69.3 93.5 90.1 77.9 March 80.0 76.2 61.2 67.6 93.8 90.0 77.3 April 79.5 75.9 60.1 67.7 94.3 88.7 76.0 May 78.5 75.3 59.3 67.2 97.7 86.8 74.8 June 79.1 76.8 58.6 69.3 99.7 84.8 73.8 July 80.2 78.7 57.8 72.0 100.1 83.3 72.5 August 77.5 76.0 55.6 69.5 98.7 80.6 69.5 September 74.1 72.6 55.5 65.4 95.7 77.6 69.4 October 70.7 68.6 55.7 60.6 93.3 75.7 69.8
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A9.txt
  • 82.1 August 86.0 84.3 63.9 76.3 101.6 90.0 81.1 September 86.5 85.2 63.5 77.6 101.5 88.9 80.5 October 84.9 83.4 63.3 75.5 102.7 88.0 80.2 November 82.2 79.0 62.6 70.4 101.3 90.5 79.3 December 83.7 81.3 62.1 73.5 98.7 89.6 78.7 2009January 82.7 79.9 61.8 71.9 94.5 89.8 78.3 February 81.1 77.6 61.6 69.3 93.5 90.1 77.9 March 80.0 76.2 61.2 67.6 93.8 90.0 77.3 April 79.5 75.9 60.1 67.7 94.3 88.7 76.0 May 78.5 75.3 59.3 67.2 97.7 86.8 74.8 June 79.1 76.8 58.6 69.3 99.7 84.8 73.8 July 80.2 78.7 57.8 72.0 100.1 83.3 72.5 August 77.5 76.0 55.6 69.5 98.7 80.6 69.5 September 74.1 72.6 55.5 65.4 95.7 77.6 69.4 October 70.7 68.6 55.7 60.6 93.3 75.7 69.8
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-107A1.txt
  • In the Order, we agreed with Bell Atlantic that the challenged provisions of Global NAPs' Tariff violated section 201(b) of the Act. We concluded that, as of their filing date, Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff were unlawful in two respects. First, we found that the challenged Tariff provisions were not ``clear and explicit,'' as required by section 61.2 of our rules, because ``those provisions condition the imposition of charges on circumstances that were indeterminate when the [T]ariff took effect and remain indeterminate today.'' Specifically, the challenged Tariff provisions purported to apply only to ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs received no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement. In this instance, the parties had executed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.txt
  • defined signal level shall be deemed protected when the undesired signal is at or below 45 dB above the noise floor. Thus for a 6 MHz channel, the minimum co-channel undesired signal level that must be maintained would be -136.2 dBW or -106.2 dBm; the minimum adjacent channel undesired signal level that must be maintained would be -91.2 dBW or -61.2 dBm. These studies shall be conducted based exclusively upon the levels of the desired and undesired signals without consideration of the receiver noise figure. Similar methods shall be used in conducting the various desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio studies for co-channel and adjacent channel interference. In all of these studies, the analysis shall use the aggregate power of each regional class
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-289A1.txt
  • 00-289 B-14 Table 9E: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by County Service Block POPs in Those Counties (1)% of Total US POPs Square Miles in Those Counties % of Total US Counties A 181.1 million 71.6% 676,000 18.8% B 189.4 million 74.9% 714,000 19.8% C (4) 36.5 million 14.4% 200,000 5.6% D 95.9 million 37.9% 340,000 9.4% E 61.2 million 24.2% 308,000 8.6% F 39.3 million 15.5% 223,000 6.2% Table 9F: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by BTA Service BlockNumber of BTAs (3)POPs in Those BTAs (1) % of Total US POPs A 210 198,472,177 78.6% B 250 209,357,087 82.9% C (4) 83 37,926,975 15.0% D 132 108,837,628 43.1% E 96 68,165,625 27.0% F 63 43,968,412 17.4%
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.txt
  • handed off to Global NAPs for delivery to its Internet Service Provider (``ISP'') customers. We agree with Verizon that Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff is unjust and unreasonable under section 201(b) of the Act because: (1) it conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding regarding the scope of their interconnection agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey; and (2) it violates section 61.2 of our rules, which provides that tariffs must be clear and explicit. We therefore grant Verizon's complaint. Background Verizon and Global NAPs have interconnection agreements in at least eight states. The circumstances under which they reached agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey are especially relevant and require brief description. On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and Verizon entered into an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-127A1.txt
  • ISP Tariff were void ab initio under section 201(b) of the Act, for two reasons. First, the filing of the Second ISP Tariff conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding that their interconnection agreements alone would govern whether Global NAPs would receive compensation for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic. Second, Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff was indeterminate, in violation of section 61.2 of our rules, which requires that tariffs be clear and explicit as to their proper application. In its Petition, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs asserts that the Order's finding of a mutual understanding not to file a federal tariff imposing charges for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic lacks record support and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.txt
  • LEC Corp. at 8 and Exh. 1 (filed Aug. 15, 2002) (CTC et al. Opposition); BellSouth Tariff FCC No. 1, Transmittal No. 657, Letter from Jonathan D. Lee, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CompTel to Tamara Preiss Chief, Pricing Division [sic] at 2 (filed July 1, 2002) (CompTel July 1 Ex Parte Letter). 47 U.S.C. § 208. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.2 and 61.54(j). See Petition for Emergency Declaratory and Other Relief, WC Docket No. 02-202, CompTel July 1 Ex Parte Letter at 3 (describing special access [billed in advance] as ``the primary access service that most [competitive] LECs use''). Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-337 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-337  Š Ľ Š Ľ Š Ľ    @ ˙˙
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-33A1.txt
  • 79.5 83.8 94.3 97.8 98.5 60-70 $34,744 to $38,395 59.9 74.5 80.0 91.5 96.6 97.9 50-60 $32,122 to $34,743 55.3 71.2 77.3 90.0 95.9 97.4 40-50 $29,893 to $32,121 53.7 67.4 73.4 88.9 94.5 96.3 30-40 $27,542 to $29,892 50.4 66.9 73.5 86.1 93.8 95.9 20-30 $24,855 to $27,541 50.1 65.1 69.6 85.7 93.1 95.2 10-20 $21,645 to $24,855 46.3 61.2 67.4 83.0 91.1 93.9 0-10 $0 to $21,644 41.7 54.9 59.1 83.8 91.5 94.1 1/ Some previously published data have been revised. Percent of Population in Decile that Resides in Zip Codes with High-Speed Service Jun 2001 Table 12 Percent of Zip Codes in Decile with at Least One High-Speed Subscriber Dec 2000 Jun 2001 Dec 1999 Table 11 High-Speed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-244A1.txt
  • tariff are violated. The specific regulations involved and the action(s) which will be taken by this Company are as specified in 2.8.2, 2.8.3 and 2.8.4 following.''). We reject AT&T's argument that these provisions authorized AT&T to ``suspend the customer's right to transfer service.'' See Opposition at 11 n.11 (emphasis added); see also AT&T Further Comments at 11. Pursuant to Rule 61.2, titled ``Clear and explicit explanatory statements,'' as in effect in January 1995, ``[i]n order to remove all doubt as to their proper application, all tariff publications must contain clean [sic] and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 (1994). It is a well settled rule of tariff interpretation that ```[t]ariffs are to be interpreted according
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.txt
  • LECs). See Verizon Wireless White Paper at 19 n.58 (``CMRS carriers wield as much `monopoly power' here as CLECs do in the situations described in the [CLEC Access Reform Order].''). See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 551(4); Bowen v. Georgetown University Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S. Ct. 468, 471-72 (1988). 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). See also 47 C.F.R. § 61.2(a). See ITC DeltaCom Communications, Inc. v. US LEC Corp. et al., No. 3:02-CV-116-JTC (N.D. Ga. March 15, 2004) (holding that an IXC has no duty to pay a competitive LEC for transiting wireless toll-free calls where the terms of the competitive LEC's tariff cover only access to the competitive LEC's own end-users or transport of traffic that originates or terminates
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.txt
  • requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not ``clear and explicit'' as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern Valley to revise its Tariff within ten days of release of this Order. We decline, however, to declare the Tariff void ab initio or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • and Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities Authorizations Thereof Communications Protocols under Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, CC Docket No. 85-229, Report and Order, 104 FCC 2d 958, paras. 214-17, 220-22 (1986) (requiring the identification and tariffing of certain Basic Service Elements underlying enhanced services). See also, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 61.2(a) (``In order to remove all doubt as to their proper application, all tariff publications must contain clear and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations.''); 47 C.F.R. § 61.54(j) (``The general rules (including definitions), regulations, exceptions, and conditions which govern the tariff must be stated clearly and definitely.''). . . AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. at 384.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.txt
  • an interstate or foreign telecommunications service''). Complaint, Exhibit B (Tariff) at Original Page No. 8. On the other hand, it defines ``end user'' as an entity that does not pay (an end user ``need not purchase any service provided by [Northern Valley]''). Id. This inconsistency may violate the Commission's requirement that tariffs be ``clear and explicit.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 61.2(a). We do not address this issue, however, because Qwest did not raise it, and both parties assert that the Tariff's ``end user'' definition establishes that Northern Valley may impose charges for calls to or from parties that have not purchased services from Northern Valley. See, e.g., Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., 550 U.S. 45, 52-55 (2007) (citations
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 161, IT IS ORDERED that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF the rulemaking described above and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT on these issues. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-164 13 APPENDIX A PROPOSED REVISIONS TO PART 61 1. Insert before Section 61.1, "Subpart A - Preface". 2. Redesignate Section 61.2 as Section 61.2(a), Section 61.35 as Section 61.2(b), and Section 61.36 as Section 61.2(c), and revise the heading for Section 61.2 as follows: § 61.2 General Tariff Requirements. 3. Revise Section 61.3 as follows: § 61.3 Definitions. * * * (e) Base period. For carriers subject to §§ 61.41-61.49, the 12-month period ending six months prior to the effective date
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1997/fc97115a.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1997/fc97115a.wp
  • 698.6 536.0 32977 2225 31649 2223 0.0 0.0 99.3 AZPHOENIX 10 23 626.1 558.0 33986 2225 31701 2216 0.0 0.0 99.7 AZPHOENIX 15 14 50.0 521.0 21332 2209 19733 2207 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPHOENIX 21 20 50.0 489.0 20189 2209 18885 2200 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPHOENIX 33 34 76.9 521.0 18207 2205 17530 2195 0.7 0.7 100.0 AZPHOENIX 45 26 61.2 545.0 23153 2219 20843 2202 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPHOENIX 61 49 58.8 541.0 18332 2205 17585 2192 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPRESCOTT 7 25 50.0 856.0 18534 170 16876 137 0.3 0.0 99.8 AZSIERRAVISTA 58 44 50.0 81.0 4915 59 4711 59 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZTOLLESON 51 52 195.1 533.0 24691 2219 23161 2208 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZTUCSON 4 31 461.81100.0
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Reports/fcc00289.pdf
  • 00-289 B-14 Table 9E: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by County Service Block POPs in Those Counties (1)% of Total US POPs Square Miles in Those Counties % of Total US Counties A 181.1 million 71.6% 676,000 18.8% B 189.4 million 74.9% 714,000 19.8% C (4) 36.5 million 14.4% 200,000 5.6% D 95.9 million 37.9% 340,000 9.4% E 61.2 million 24.2% 308,000 8.6% F 39.3 million 15.5% 223,000 6.2% Table 9F: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by BTA Service BlockNumber of BTAs (3)POPs in Those BTAs (1) % of Total US POPs A 210 198,472,177 78.6% B 250 209,357,087 82.9% C (4) 83 37,926,975 15.0% D 132 108,837,628 43.1% E 96 68,165,625 27.0% F 63 43,968,412 17.4%
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3574A1.html
  • the filed rate doctrine. According to the complaint, the District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve the issues concerning the filed rate doctrine and the lawfulness of MCIW's tariff.2 Garin further alleges in the formal complaint that MCIW violated sections 201(b) of the Act 3 and sections 61.25, 61.74, and 61.2 of the Commission's rules 4 by cross-referencing the tariffs of local exchange carriers and by being impermissibly vague in its tariff.5 Subsequent to that filing by Complainants, the parties to this proceeding reached a settlement of their dispute. On December 17, 2002, Complainant filed a Withdrawal of Formal Complaint, requesting that the Commission allow Garin to simply withdraw its complaint.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-127A1.html
  • ISP Tariff were void ab initio under section 201(b) of the Act, for two reasons. First, the filing of the Second ISP Tariff conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding that their interconnection agreements alone would govern whether Global NAPs would receive compensation for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic.11 Second, Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff was indeterminate, in violation of section 61.2 of our rules,12 which requires that tariffs be clear and explicit as to their proper application.13 In its Petition, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs asserts that the Order's finding of a mutual understanding not to file a federal tariff imposing charges for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic lacks record support and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-111A1.html
  • requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not "clear and explicit" as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern Valley to revise its Tariff within ten days of release of this Order. We decline, however, to declare the Tariff void ab initio or
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-87A1.html
  • an interstate or foreign telecommunications service"). Complaint, Exhibit B (Tariff) at Original Page No. 8. On the other hand, it defines "end user" as an entity that does not pay (an end user "need not purchase any service provided by [Northern Valley]"). Id. This inconsistency may violate the Commission's requirement that tariffs be "clear and explicit." See 47 C.F.R. S: 61.2(a). We do not address this issue, however, because Qwest did not raise it, and both parties assert that the Tariff's "end user" definition establishes that Northern Valley may impose charges for calls to or from parties that have not purchased services from Northern Valley. See, e.g., Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., 550 U.S. 45, 52-55 (2007) (citations
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001501.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001501.txt
  • and unreasonable practice, in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. In addition, Rainbow contends: (i) that Bell Atlantic failed to substantially perform or reasonably discharge its duty under the tariff, in violation of section 203(a) of the Act; (ii) that the tariff was ambiguous and should be construed to require the return of the deposit to Rainbow under section 61.2 of the Commission's rules; and (iii) that the tariff was void and should have been rescinded. Finally, Rainbow alleges that Bell Atlantic's failure to provide access to the video dialtone platform by denying it the necessary EPIC interface software was an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Rainbow seeks the return of its $345,600
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.txt
  • In the Order, we agreed with Bell Atlantic that the challenged provisions of Global NAPs' Tariff violated section 201(b) of the Act. We concluded that, as of their filing date, Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff were unlawful in two respects. First, we found that the challenged Tariff provisions were not ``clear and explicit,'' as required by section 61.2 of our rules, because ``those provisions condition the imposition of charges on circumstances that were indeterminate when the [T]ariff took effect and remain indeterminate today.'' Specifically, the challenged Tariff provisions purported to apply only to ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs received no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement. In this instance, the parties had executed
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.txt
  • handed off to Global NAPs for delivery to its Internet Service Provider (``ISP'') customers. We agree with Verizon that Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff is unjust and unreasonable under section 201(b) of the Act because: (1) it conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding regarding the scope of their interconnection agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey; and (2) it violates section 61.2 of our rules, which provides that tariffs must be clear and explicit. We therefore grant Verizon's complaint. Background Verizon and Global NAPs have interconnection agreements in at least eight states. The circumstances under which they reached agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey are especially relevant and require brief description. On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and Verizon entered into an
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • the tariffed charges at the time that they are allegedly incurred. We find that Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this tariff when the very applicability of the tariff has yet to be determined. . The contingent and unclear applicability of the tariff defies the Commission's longstanding interpretation of section 201(b) of the Act, as reflected in section 61.2 of our rules. Those authorities require that the applicability of the tariff rate, and its terms, be clear and explicit. . Moreover, it seems evident that any federal tariff purporting to govern inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic could be reasonable only if it mirrors any applicable terms of the party's interconnection agreement, as construed by the appropriate state commission. Using
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/papersAndStudies/fc000289.pdf
  • 00-289 B-14 Table 9E: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by County Service Block POPs in Those Counties (1)% of Total US POPs Square Miles in Those Counties % of Total US Counties A 181.1 million 71.6% 676,000 18.8% B 189.4 million 74.9% 714,000 19.8% C (4) 36.5 million 14.4% 200,000 5.6% D 95.9 million 37.9% 340,000 9.4% E 61.2 million 24.2% 308,000 8.6% F 39.3 million 15.5% 223,000 6.2% Table 9F: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by BTA Service BlockNumber of BTAs (3)POPs in Those BTAs (1) % of Total US POPs A 210 198,472,177 78.6% B 250 209,357,087 82.9% C (4) 83 37,926,975 15.0% D 132 108,837,628 43.1% E 96 68,165,625 27.0% F 63 43,968,412 17.4%
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/reports/documents/fc000289.pdf
  • 00-289 B-14 Table 9E: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by County Service Block POPs in Those Counties (1)% of Total US POPs Square Miles in Those Counties % of Total US Counties A 181.1 million 71.6% 676,000 18.8% B 189.4 million 74.9% 714,000 19.8% C (4) 36.5 million 14.4% 200,000 5.6% D 95.9 million 37.9% 340,000 9.4% E 61.2 million 24.2% 308,000 8.6% F 39.3 million 15.5% 223,000 6.2% Table 9F: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by BTA Service BlockNumber of BTAs (3)POPs in Those BTAs (1) % of Total US POPs A 210 198,472,177 78.6% B 250 209,357,087 82.9% C (4) 83 37,926,975 15.0% D 132 108,837,628 43.1% E 96 68,165,625 27.0% F 63 43,968,412 17.4%
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/reports/documents/fcc00289.doc
  • 38.6% Table 9E: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by County Service Block POPs in Those Counties (1) % of Total US POPs Square Miles in Those Counties % of Total US Counties A 181.1 million 71.6% 676,000 18.8% B 189.4 million 74.9% 714,000 19.8% C (4) 36.5 million 14.4% 200,000 5.6% D 95.9 million 37.9% 340,000 9.4% E 61.2 million 24.2% 308,000 8.6% F 39.3 million 15.5% 223,000 6.2% Table 9F: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by BTA Service Block Number of BTAs (3) POPs in Those BTAs (1) % of Total US POPs A 210 198,472,177 78.6% B 250 209,357,087 82.9% C (4) 83 37,926,975 15.0% D 132 108,837,628 43.1% E 96 68,165,625 27.0% F 63
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 161, IT IS ORDERED that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF the rulemaking described above and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT on these issues. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-164 13 APPENDIX A PROPOSED REVISIONS TO PART 61 1. Insert before Section 61.1, "Subpart A - Preface". 2. Redesignate Section 61.2 as Section 61.2(a), Section 61.35 as Section 61.2(b), and Section 61.36 as Section 61.2(c), and revise the heading for Section 61.2 as follows: § 61.2 General Tariff Requirements. 3. Revise Section 61.3 as follows: § 61.3 Definitions. * * * (e) Base period. For carriers subject to §§ 61.41-61.49, the 12-month period ending six months prior to the effective date
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99381.doc
  • the tariffed charges at the time that they are allegedly incurred. We find that Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this tariff when the very applicability of the tariff has yet to be determined. . The contingent and unclear applicability of the tariff defies the Commission's longstanding interpretation of section 201(b) of the Act, as reflected in section 61.2 of our rules. Those authorities require that the applicability of the tariff rate, and its terms, be clear and explicit. . Moreover, it seems evident that any federal tariff purporting to govern inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic could be reasonable only if it mirrors any applicable terms of the party's interconnection agreement, as construed by the appropriate state commission. Using
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99383.doc
  • (collectively, Complainants) against MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI). These essentially identical complaints challenged the lawfulness and application of the "Non-Subscriber" rates then contained in MCI's Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 (Tariff). The Commission concluded in the Halprin Order that (1) the Tariff's description of when certain customers would be charged MCI's "Non-Subscriber" rates was not "clear and explicit," in violation of Part 61.2 of the Commission's rules; (2) MCI's practice of charging certain "direct-dialed" calls at rates labelled in the Tariff as "Non-Subscriber" rates was unreasonable, in violation of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act); and (3) the complaints should be denied in all other respects. . Complainants and MCI filed Petitions for Reconsideration of the Halprin Order.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/hspd0202.pdf
  • 79.5 83.8 94.3 97.8 98.5 60-70 $34,744 to $38,395 59.9 74.5 80.0 91.5 96.6 97.9 50-60 $32,122 to $34,743 55.3 71.2 77.3 90.0 95.9 97.4 40-50 $29,893 to $32,121 53.7 67.4 73.4 88.9 94.5 96.3 30-40 $27,542 to $29,892 50.4 66.9 73.5 86.1 93.8 95.9 20-30 $24,855 to $27,541 50.1 65.1 69.6 85.7 93.1 95.2 10-20 $21,645 to $24,855 46.3 61.2 67.4 83.0 91.1 93.9 0-10 $0 to $21,644 41.7 54.9 59.1 83.8 91.5 94.1 1/ Some previously published data have been revised. Percent of Population in Decile that Resides in Zip Codes with High-Speed Service Jun 2001 Table 12 Percent of Zip Codes in Decile with at Least One High-Speed Subscriber Dec 2000 Jun 2001 Dec 1999 Table 11 High-Speed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/hspd0603.pdf
  • More Than 3,147 98.2% 98.1% 98.7% 99.9% 99.8% 100.0% 80-90 947-3,147 97.1 97.3 98.2 99.8 99.7 100.0 70-80 268-947 95.7 95.8 97.9 99.3 99.5 99.9 60-70 118-268 91.5 93.3 96.7 98.1 99.1 99.7 50-60 67-118 85.9 89.3 95.0 95.0 97.1 99.1 40-50 41-67 76.1 83.3 91.5 87.9 94.4 97.8 30-40 25-41 65.0 73.1 87.6 80.0 87.6 95.6 20-30 15-25 50.1 61.2 77.8 69.4 80.4 90.8 10-20 6-15 38.5 52.1 69.4 61.9 76.2 86.4 0-10 Fewer Than 6 27.5 43.3 59.7 49.9 67.9 80.9 Dec 2000 Dec 2000 90-100 $53,494 to $291,938 96.1% 96.8% 98.3% 99.8% 99.6% 99.9% 80-90 $43,617 to $53,478 88.9 91.7 95.3 99.0 99.3 99.8 70-80 $38,396 to $43,614 79.5 84.9 92.1 97.8 98.6 99.5 60-70 $34,744 to $38,395
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/hspd0604.pdf
  • 99.9% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 947-3,147 97.1 97.3 98.2 98.5 99.8 99.7 100.0 99.9 268-947 95.7 95.8 97.9 98.8 99.3 99.5 99.9 100.0 118-268 91.5 93.3 96.7 97.9 98.1 99.1 99.7 99.8 67-118 85.9 89.3 95.0 97.5 95.0 97.1 99.1 99.7 41-67 76.1 83.3 91.5 96.0 87.9 94.4 97.8 99.0 25-41 65.0 73.1 87.6 92.6 80.0 87.6 95.6 97.7 15-25 50.1 61.2 77.8 88.0 69.4 80.4 90.8 95.7 6-15 38.5 52.1 69.4 82.7 61.9 76.2 86.4 93.2 Fewer Than 6 27.5 43.3 59.7 73.5 49.9 67.9 80.9 88.9 Dec 2003 $53,494 to $291,938 96.1% 96.8% 98.3% 98.7% 99.8% 99.6% 99.9% 99.9% $43,617 to $53,478 88.9 91.7 95.3 97.4 99.0 99.3 99.8 99.9 $38,396 to $43,614 79.5 84.9 92.1 96.0 97.8 98.6 99.5
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/hspd0702.pdf
  • Than 3,147 96.1% 98.2% 98.1% 98.9% 99.9% 99.8% 80-90 947-3,147 93.2 97.1 97.3 98.5 99.8 99.7 70-80 268-947 87.5 95.7 95.8 96.2 99.3 99.5 60-70 118-268 77.7 91.5 93.3 91.4 98.1 99.1 50-60 67-118 66.9 85.9 89.3 83.3 95.0 97.1 40-50 41-67 53.7 76.1 83.3 72.3 87.9 94.4 30-40 25-41 40.9 65.0 73.1 60.0 80.0 87.6 20-30 15-25 29.8 50.1 61.2 50.9 69.4 80.4 10-20 6-15 26.7 38.5 52.1 50.2 61.9 76.2 0-10 Fewer Than 6 19.9 27.5 43.3 38.5 49.9 67.9 Dec 1999 Dec 2000 Dec 1999 90-100 $53,494 to $291,938 90.8% 96.1% 96.8% 98.4% 99.8% 99.6% 80-90 $43,617 to $53,478 77.1 88.9 91.7 95.8 99.0 99.3 70-80 $38,396 to $43,614 67.0 79.5 84.9 94.3 97.8 98.6 60-70 $34,744 to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/hspd0705.pdf
  • 100.0 99.9 99.9 268-947 95.7 95.8 97.9 98.8 99.1 99.3 99.5 99.9 100.0 100.0 118-268 91.5 93.3 96.7 97.9 98.2 98.1 99.1 99.7 99.8 99.8 67-118 85.9 89.3 95.0 97.5 98.0 95.0 97.1 99.1 99.7 99.7 41-67 76.1 83.3 91.5 96.0 97.5 87.9 94.4 97.8 99.0 99.3 25-41 65.0 73.1 87.6 92.6 95.5 80.0 87.6 95.6 97.7 98.5 15-25 50.1 61.2 77.8 88.0 91.4 69.4 80.4 90.8 95.7 96.8 6-15 38.5 52.1 69.4 82.7 86.2 61.9 76.2 86.4 93.2 95.0 Fewer Than 6 27.5 43.3 59.7 73.5 74.8 49.9 67.9 80.9 88.9 91.8 Dec 2003 $53,494 to $291,938 96.1% 96.8% 98.3% 98.7% 98.8% 99.8% 99.6% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% $43,617 to $53,478 88.9 91.7 95.3 97.4 97.6 99.0 99.3 99.8 99.9 99.9
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/lcomp98.pdf
  • 4.3 0.2 95.5 arrangements (credit card, collect, international call-back, etc.) other than revenue reported on line 42 44Other switched toll service (includes MTS, 800/888 8,349.9 304.4 53,405.8 62,060.1 13.5 0.5 86.1 service, etc.) 45Long distance private line services 921.5 54.2 8,243.7 9,219.4 10.0 0.6 89.4 46Satellite services 0.3 18.2 169.1 187.6 0.2 9.7 90.1 47All other long distance services 96.4 61.2 5,000.1 5,157.7 1.9 1.2 96.9 Total toll service (excluding Line 42 calls that both 9,803.3 465.6 77,589.9 87,858.8 11.2 0.5 88.2 originate and terminate in foreign points) Total end user revenue 77,080.2 1,420.4 108,090.7 186,591.3 41.3% 0.8%57.9% Total service provided for resale 27,553.0 1,010.5 13,696.3 42,259.8 65.2 2.4 32.4 Total end user revenue 77,080.2 1,420.4 108,090.8 186,591.4 41.3 0.8 57.9
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ldrpt101.pdf
  • 54.4 21.3 3.8 20.5 371 Kansas 65.1 4.1 12.9 17.8 241 Kentucky 59.8 18.6 2.7 18.9 366 Louisiana 72.3 14.4 3.4 9.9 354 Maine 78.7 12.6 3.1 5.5 127 Maryland 62.6 16.4 6.4 14.6 513 Massachusetts 71.8 16.1 3.7 8.4 490 Michigan 65.4 14.7 5.6 14.4 878 Minnesota 57.9 19.8 5.7 16.5 665 Mississippi 69.4 15.3 6.1 9.2 196 Missouri 61.2 12.8 8.9 17.1 515 Montana 63.8 12.9 2.6 20.7 116 Nebraska 62.6 15.0 3.1 19.4 227 Nevada 51.1 15.1 18.0 15.8 139 New Hampshire 67.7 13.1 5.1 14.1 99 New Jersey 76.4 12.4 3.4 7.8 653 New Mexico 63.6 17.1 6.2 13.2 129 New York 66.3 15.5 4.1 14.1 1,772 North Carolina 57.5 14.5 12.8 15.3 602 North Dakota 52.4
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/mksh3q98.pdf
  • 29 74.6 20.5 1.8 3.1 15 83.6 9.0 0.0 7.4 11 Florida 67.5 12.9 5.2 14.4 1,251 65.0 12.7 9.2 13.0 438 67.6 12.7 8.8 10.9 503 Georgia 60.8 12.3 6.5 20.5 471 75.7 9.7 3.2 11.4 169 73.6 11.7 6.5 8.2 127 Idaho 64.8 6.8 5.6 22.9 102 75.3 8.3 5.5 11.0 31 71.2 16.5 4.1 8.2 60 Illinois 61.2 15.5 5.2 18.0 892 63.5 14.4 11.5 10.6 289 69.0 19.7 2.6 8.7 342 Indiana 62.7 13.1 6.2 18.0 446 64.0 15.4 4.9 15.7 161 73.0 11.2 4.3 11.5 183 Iowa 53.3 21.3 3.3 22.0 256 65.1 11.7 2.5 20.8 104 70.6 12.6 10.0 6.7 146 Kansas 57.7 9.8 9.6 22.9 222 48.1 17.2 11.4 23.4 73 73.4 11.6 4.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/mksh4q98.pdf
  • 29 74.6 20.5 1.8 3.1 15 83.6 9.0 0.0 7.4 11 Florida 67.5 12.9 5.2 14.4 1,251 65.0 12.7 9.2 13.0 438 67.6 12.7 8.8 10.9 503 Georgia 60.8 12.3 6.5 20.5 471 75.7 9.7 3.2 11.4 169 73.6 11.7 6.5 8.2 127 Idaho 64.8 6.8 5.6 22.9 102 75.3 8.3 5.5 11.0 31 71.2 16.5 4.1 8.2 60 Illinois 61.2 15.5 5.2 18.0 892 63.5 14.4 11.5 10.6 289 69.0 19.7 2.6 8.7 342 Indiana 62.7 13.1 6.2 18.0 446 64.0 15.4 4.9 15.7 161 73.0 11.2 4.3 11.5 183 Iowa 53.3 21.3 3.3 22.0 256 65.1 11.7 2.5 20.8 104 70.6 12.6 10.0 6.7 146 Kansas 57.7 9.8 9.6 22.9 222 48.1 17.2 11.4 23.4 73 73.4 11.6 4.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • - Continued 1976January 55.6 73.3 February 55.8 73.4 March 55.9 73.8 April 56.1 73.8 May 56.5 73.9 June 56.8 74.0 July 57.1 74.1 August 57.4 75.0 September 57.6 74.9 October 57.9 75.0 November 58.0 75.3 December 58.2 75.3 1977January 58.5 74.5 February 59.1 74.7 March 59.5 74.8 April 60.0 75.0 May 60.3 75.0 June 60.7 75.1 July 61.0 75.1 August 61.2 75.3 September 61.4 75.4 October 61.6 75.5 November 61.9 75.6 December 62.1 75.7 69.2 83.4 85.4 1978January 62.5 75.7 69.2 82.9 85.5 February 62.9 75.8 69.8 82.7 84.9 March 63.4 75.8 69.7 82.7 85.1 April 63.9 76.0 70.0 82.6 85.6 May 64.5 76.0 69.9 82.6 85.5 June 65.2 76.0 69.9 82.7 85.5 July 65.7 76.1 70.1 82.7 85.5 August 66.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • 70.2 89.1 100.3 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 June 70.6 89.1 100.8 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.0 100.1 100.0 July 67.6 85.2 100.6 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.7 100.9 100.0 August 69.2 93.0 100.3 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.6 100.7 100.0 September 69.8 95.5 100.4 100.4 101.2 101.4 101.3 101.6 100.0 October 65.2 93.0 99.3 100.4 101.1 101.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 November 61.2 78.2 99.8 100.4 101.2 101.4 101.3 101.6 100.0 December 72.9 88.8 95.6 100.4 101.2 101.4 101.0 101.2 100.0 2001January 71.6 84.2 101.7 100.4 101.1 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 February 62.7 81.3 102.9 100.4 101.0 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 March 67.2 84.5 101.0 100.4 101.0 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 April 60.4 90.4 101.6 100.4 101.0 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 May 60.6
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref04.pdf
  • 100.4 101.2 100.9 March 76.1 90.8 100.2 100.4 101.2 100.5 April 74.3 88.5 100.6 100.4 101.2 100.6 May 70.2 89.1 100.3 100.4 101.2 100.0 June 70.6 89.1 100.8 100.4 101.2 100.0 July 67.6 85.2 100.6 100.4 101.2 100.7 August 69.2 93.0 100.3 100.4 101.2 100.6 September 69.8 95.5 100.4 100.4 101.2 101.3 October 65.2 93.0 99.3 100.4 101.1 100.0 November 61.2 78.2 99.8 100.4 101.2 101.3 December 72.9 88.8 95.6 100.4 101.2 101.0 2001January 71.6 84.2 101.7 100.4 101.1 101.5 February 62.7 81.3 102.9 100.4 101.0 101.5 March 67.2 84.5 101.0 100.4 101.0 101.5 April 60.4 90.4 101.6 100.4 101.0 101.5 May 60.6 90.1 101.4 100.3 100.7 101.5 June 65.0 93.2 101.2 100.3 101.0 101.5 July 56.9 92.6 100.3 100.3 101.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
  • July 61.8 88.9 34.5 40.4 75.9 64.5 61.9 65.5 August 62.0 88.8 34.3 41.9 76.1 64.6 62.9 60.3 September 61.3 88.8 34.4 38.1 78.6 67.2 65.8 68.8 October 61.1 88.7 35.5 35.1 75.8 64.3 62.7 59.8 November 60.0 88.5 32.9 34.4 73.3 62.4 59.8 47.7 December 59.5 88.3 31.9 33.7 73.4 60.0 61.7 46.1 2004January 59.2 88.2 32.1 32.0 74.0 61.2 62.6 43.1 February 58.3 87.2 30.4 32.7 74.5 60.0 64.6 41.7 March 58.4 88.1 30.5 30.4 73.3 60.5 62.4 35.8 April 57.8 87.5 29.4 31.0 72.9 60.9 60.9 39.6 May 57.1 86.9 28.5 30.2 71.6 60.5 58.4 39.5 June 57.4 87.1 28.7 30.9 72.5 60.2 60.6 38.8 July 57.0 87.0 27.6 31.4 71.5 59.8 58.5 40.4 August 57.1 86.7 27.9
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref97.pdf
  • 57.9 75.0 November 45.9 67.3 November 58.0 75.3 December 46.2 69.0 December 58.2 75.3 1974January 46.6 69.2 1977January 58.5 74.5 February 47.2 69.3 February 59.1 74.7 March 47.8 69.3 March 59.5 74.8 April 48.0 69.4 April 60.0 75.0 May 48.6 69.4 May 60.3 75.0 June 49.0 69.4 June 60.7 75.1 July 49.4 69.4 July 61.0 75.1 August 50.0 69.4 August 61.2 75.3 September 50.6 69.9 September 61.4 75.4 October 51.1 69.9 October 61.6 75.5 November 51.5 69.9 November 61.9 75.6 December 51.9 69.9 December 62.1 75.7 70 Appendix 1: BLS Price Indices Table A1-1 Consumer Price Indices (1982 - 1984 = 100) All Goods & Services All Telephone Services Local Services Interstate Toll Service Intrastate Toll Service 1977December 62.1 75.7 69.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref98.pdf
  • 1976 January 55.6 73.3 February 55.8 73.4 March 55.9 73.8 April 56.1 73.8 May 56.5 73.9 June 56.8 74.0 July 57.1 74.1 August 57.4 75.0 September 57.6 74.9 October 57.9 75.0 November 58.0 75.3 December 58.2 75.3 1977 January 58.5 74.5 February 59.1 74.7 March 59.5 74.8 April 60.0 75.0 May 60.3 75.0 June 60.7 75.1 July 61.0 75.1 August 61.2 75.3 September 61.4 75.4 October 61.6 75.5 November 61.9 75.6 December 62.1 75.7 69.2 83.4 85.4 1978 January 62.5 75.7 69.2 82.9 85.5 February 62.9 75.8 69.8 82.7 84.9 March 63.4 75.8 69.7 82.7 85.1 April 63.9 76.0 70.0 82.6 85.6 May 64.5 76.0 69.9 82.6 85.5 June 65.2 76.0 69.9 82.7 85.5 July 65.7 76.1 70.1 82.7 85.5 August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref99.pdf
  • 1976 January 55.6 73.3 February 55.8 73.4 March 55.9 73.8 April 56.1 73.8 May 56.5 73.9 June 56.8 74.0 July 57.1 74.1 August 57.4 75.0 September 57.6 74.9 October 57.9 75.0 November 58.0 75.3 December 58.2 75.3 1977 January 58.5 74.5 February 59.1 74.7 March 59.5 74.8 April 60.0 75.0 May 60.3 75.0 June 60.7 75.1 July 61.0 75.1 August 61.2 75.3 September 61.4 75.4 October 61.6 75.5 November 61.9 75.6 December 62.1 75.7 69.2 83.4 85.4 1978 January 62.5 75.7 69.2 82.9 85.5 February 62.9 75.8 69.8 82.7 84.9 March 63.4 75.8 69.7 82.7 85.1 April 63.9 76.0 70.0 82.6 85.6 May 64.5 76.0 69.9 82.6 85.5 June 65.2 76.0 69.9 82.7 85.5 July 65.7 76.1 70.1 82.7 85.5 August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend100.pdf
  • 0.0 0.0 Percentages for companies listed above (weighted average based on total lines served including those withheld 55.7% 67.9% 59.8% 42.2% 58.3% 47.7% 34.8% 51.5% 40.4% to maintain confidentiality) Holding Company Summary Ameritech 40.5% 55.8% 46.1% 59.4% 72.4% 64.2% 50.0% 65.6% 55.7% (for states reported above) Bell Atlantic 76.5 85.0 79.6 43.2 58.9 49.0 32.6 50.2 39.0 BellSouth 57.8 68.5 61.2 33.4 49.4 38.5 28.9 46.2 34.2 GTE 25.5 36.0 28.7 21.1 33.9 24.9 16.4 28.9 19.9 SBC @@ 64.9 75.1 68.6 51.5 66.3 57.0 41.0 56.4 46.6 Sprint 18.0 27.8 20.8 17.6 29.3 20.9 17.5 25.3 19.7 U S WEST 54.3 67.8 58.5 47.0 62.9 52.0 45.7 60.8 50.2 Source: Industry Analysis Division, Local Competition: August 1999 and fifth voluntary
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend200.pdf
  • 0.6 17.7 5,240 District of Columbia 14.7 31.9 14.3 39.1 3,357 Florida 56.6 19.7 8.5 15.2 177,347 Georgia 59.2 20.2 6.7 13.8 62,934 Idaho 47.6 21.9 1.9 28.6 9,416 Illinois 57.4 17.9 4.0 20.7 88,251 Indiana 51.7 21.9 10.4 16.0 43,339 Iowa 47.0 27.5 3.3 22.2 32,687 Kansas 59.3 5.0 7.9 27.8 19,350 Kentucky 50.8 21.3 1.8 26.1 32,412 Louisiana 61.2 19.9 2.9 16.0 28,922 Maine 70.7 19.6 4.0 5.7 6,963 Maryland 53.1 20.7 9.1 17.1 49,389 Massachusetts 56.8 25.6 3.3 14.3 36,519 Michigan 57.5 17.9 6.8 17.8 62,187 Minnesota 49.3 24.4 4.5 21.8 68,411 Mississippi 53.2 33.2 2.7 10.9 16,298 Missouri 54.9 16.6 9.2 19.3 37,674 Montana 44.4 19.9 5.6 30.0 10,402 Nebraska 56.3 19.7 2.8 21.2 15,979 Nevada 46.7
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend801.pdf
  • Carolina 2,653 2,849 3,053 3,393 720 3,070 3,790 1.41 42.9 South Dakota 488 584 602 635 154 562 716 0.27 46.6 Tennessee 3,467 3,880 4,302 4,553 884 4,044 4,928 1.84 42.2 Texas 12,871 14,563 15,943 17,576 4,095 14,937 19,032 7.09 47.9 Utah 1,112 1,284 1,443 1,557 344 1,447 1,790 0.67 61.0 Vermont 424 547 575 602 140 544 684 0.25 61.2 Virgin Islands 74 93 101 109 26 96 122 0.05 48.3 Virginia 5,061 5,646 6,179 6,576 1,443 5,577 7,020 2.61 38.7 Washington 3,995 4,438 4,613 5,080 1,213 4,490 5,703 2.12 42.7 West Virginia 1,143 1,240 1,337 1,383 304 1,133 1,437 0.54 25.8 Wisconsin 3,258 3,621 3,927 4,234 883 3,837 4,719 1.76 44.9 Wyoming 366 402 449 462 109 404 513
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trsrv-97.pdf
  • 2,366.3 1,353.3 3,719.6 0.1 * 0.1 10.0 9.9 19.9 2,376.4 1,363.2 3,739.6 37 Pay telephone coin revenues 1,827.5 40.6 1,868.1 0.2 * 0.2 5.2 5.9 11.1 1,832.9 46.5 1,879.4 38 Other local telecommunications service revenues 2,328.1 62.6 2,390.7 2.7 0.1 2.8 187.0 3.3 190.3 2,517.8 66.0 2,583.7 Total fixed local service 58,596.6 9,616.7 68,213.3 39.4 3.1 42.5 425.2 27.6 452.7 59,061.2 9,647.4 68,708.6 Mobile service (including wireless telephony, paging &messaging, and other mobile services): 39 Monthly and activation charges 280.0 0.8 280.8 13,805.8 756.5 14,562.3 181.8 3.0 184.8 14,267.7 760.3 15,027.9 40 Message charges including roaming but excluding 187.6 16.1 203.7 13,365.2 1,174.2 14,539.4 191.0 61.8 252.8 13,743.9 1,252.1 14,995.9 toll charges Total Mobile Service 467.6 16.9 484.5 27,171.1 1,930.6 29,101.7
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trsrv-97.pdf
  • 198.5 214.9 38.2 253.1 Providers All Wireless Service Providers 33.4 2,502.1 203.0 2,738.5 42.5 29,101.7 924.0 27,765.7 2,302.6 30,068.2 32,808.6 5,772.1 38,580.8 Interexchange Carriers (IXCs) 47.7 0.7 8,736.1 8,784.5 185.3 377.3 69,311.5 17,887.7 51,986.4 69,874.1 78,891.8 8,349.7 87,241.5 Operator Service Providers (OSPs) 2.4 35.2 37.6 41.0 1.7 493.1 263.7 272.0 535.7 573.6 95.0 668.5 Pre-paid Calling Card Providers 0.3 60.9 61.2 0.1 434.7 42.1 392.8 434.9 497.0 23.3 520.3 Satellite Service Carriers 577.2 577.2 0.6 0.3 96.1 1.8 95.2 97.0 674.3 2,073.5 2,747.8 Toll Resellers 21.9 0.9 1,015.4 1,038.2 224.6 57.7 5,557.0 2,092.5 3,746.9 5,839.3 7,142.7 153.5 7,296.2 Other Toll Carriers 0.1 161.1 161.2 1.0 0.6 103.8 20.8 84.7 105.5 326.2 44.8 371.0 All Toll Service Providers 72.4 1.6 10,585.8 10,659.8
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/utilizationdec2002.pdf
  • 2.3 174 0.9 9,877 53.2 18,583 Maine 2,008 37.5 15 0.3 66 1.2 82 1.5 27 0.5 3,152 58.9 5,350 Maryland 11,280 47.8 115 0.5 343 1.5 536 2.3 236 1.0 11,073 47.0 23,583 Massachusetts 15,911 44.3 144 0.4 697 1.9 754 2.1 203 0.6 18,170 50.6 35,879 Michigan 14,841 32.5 389 0.9 1,002 2.2 959 2.1 511 1.1 27,906 61.2 45,609 Minnesota 9,348 40.4 121 0.5 173 0.7 497 2.1 136 0.6 12,860 55.6 23,135 Mississippi 3,403 25.1 1,032 7.6 137 1.0 241 1.8 100 0.7 8,645 63.8 13,559 Missouri 8,549 31.5 739 2.7 761 2.8 471 1.7 236 0.9 16,351 60.3 27,107 Montana 1,179 22.4 50 0.9 46 0.9 76 1.4 25 0.5 3,889 73.9 5,265 Nebraska 2,815 29.7
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd00.pdf
  • 8.8 11.7 10.6 9.8 14.4 24.6 27.7 26.5 34.7 Eastern Europe n.a. n.a. 2.5 4.6 1.9 8.8 9.6 16.6 16.2 22.9 34.5 Middle East n.a. n.a. 8.0 7.3 7.2 7.5 9.1 13.6 14.2 19.6 31.6 North and Central America n.a. n.a. 109.9 61.0 62.7 83.1 96.9 101.9 114.3 117.3 176.1 Oceania n.a. n.a. 11.9 18.6 23.3 29.9 33.2 38.3 53.4 61.2 104.5 South America n.a. n.a. 21.4 21.2 22.3 28.7 34.1 50.0 63.4 96.9 120.6 Western Europe n.a. n.a. 91.4 122.5 136.0 158.3 186.4 232.3 314.9 244.8 204.4 Average for All Countries 208.0 201.4 309.0 323.4 366.1 440.9 514.2 660.7 850.9 921.51,201.2 Table 20 AT&T Basic Schedule Rates for 7-Minute, Peak-Period, Residential Customer Calls 18/ 22/ Rates as of Rates as
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd01.pdf
  • 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Percent Change 1997 to 2002 Australia $11.0 $15.9 $19.9 $21.8 $25.5 $40.1 $47.4 $81.6 $100.5 $74.4 $36.5 -9.2% Brazil 5.6 6.4 7.7 10.6 14.8 17.9 26.6 26.1 26.1 32.6 22.1 23.5 Canada 39.5 42.0 55.4 59.8 60.6 67.1 60.2 88.0 98.0 86.4 70.8 5.5 China 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.9 5.8 12.7 32.6 61.2 84.1 56.9 887.3 Colombia 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.7 6.0 7.0 15.3 18.2 23.7 12.9 15.8 127.1 Dominican Republic 1.9 1.7 2.5 4.1 5.2 6.4 4.8 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.1 -4.6 Egypt 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.1 1.4 4.8 2.3 2.2 2.1 94.5 El Salvador 1.8 0.3 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 2.2 3.8 7.3 4.4 2.3 67.4 France 12.1 13.6
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-7.pdf
  • 70.2 89.1 100.3 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 June 70.6 89.1 100.8 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.0 100.1 100.0 July 67.6 85.2 100.6 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.7 100.9 100.0 August 69.2 93.0 100.3 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.6 100.7 100.0 September 69.8 95.5 100.4 100.4 101.2 101.4 101.3 101.6 100.0 October 65.2 93.0 99.3 100.4 101.1 101.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 November 61.2 78.2 99.8 100.4 101.2 101.4 101.3 101.6 100.0 December 72.9 88.8 95.6 100.4 101.2 101.4 101.0 101.2 100.0 2001January 71.6 84.2 101.7 100.4 101.1 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 February 62.7 81.3 102.9 100.4 101.0 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 March 67.2 84.5 101.0 100.4 101.0 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 April 60.4 90.4 101.6 100.4 101.0 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 May 60.6
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-9.pdf
  • 13.5 17.1 12.1 13.2 18.9 15.2 9.2 13.7 Initial Trouble Reports per Thousand Lines 285.0 111.4 165.7 129.0 186.8 175.1 135.8 143.9 165.6 Total MSA 267.5 110.5 169.1 126.8 173.3 182.1 132.7 138.2 148.0 Total Non MSA 380.7 115.1 128.4 179.9 254.4 133.1 172.3 165.1 200.6 Total Residence 326.7 134.1 214.6 168.8 258.8 245.0 178.5 165.2 202.3 Total Business 174.8 61.2 75.1 58.9 71.9 81.8 65.1 95.0 69.0 Troubles Found per Thousand Lines 161.3 76.2 111.9 106.2 130.2 125.9 102.9 122.1 93.0 Repeat Troubles as a Pct. of Trouble Reports 19.8% 21.9% 28.3% 13.3% 15.9% 20.1% 18.9% 12.4% 19.6% Res. Complaints per Mill. Res. Access Lines 203.8 169.1 324.4 20.4 26.8 166.9 312.5 86.7 110.3 Bus.Complaints per Mill. Bus. Access Lines
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-7.pdf
  • July 61.8 88.9 34.5 40.4 75.9 64.5 61.9 65.5 August 62.0 88.8 34.3 41.9 76.1 64.6 62.9 60.3 September 61.3 88.8 34.4 38.1 78.6 67.2 65.8 68.8 October 61.1 88.7 35.5 35.1 75.8 64.3 62.7 59.8 November 60.0 88.5 32.9 34.4 73.3 62.4 59.8 47.7 December 59.5 88.3 31.9 33.7 73.4 60.0 61.7 46.1 2004January* 59.2 88.2 32.1 32.0 74.0 61.2 62.6 43.1 February* 58.3 87.2 30.4 32.7 74.5 60.0 64.6 41.7 March* 58.9 87.9 31.4 31.9 68.1 58.7 52.3 36.8 April* 57.8 87.5 29.4 31.0 72.9 60.9 60.9 39.6 Producer Price Indices - Continued 51711022113 5171102212 51711022121 51711022122 51711022123 5171102211 51711022111 51711022112 (June 1995 = 100) Table 7.5 7-15 Business Special Access Switched Toll Service, except Private Lines Outbound Business
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-1.pdf
  • 2,366.3 1,353.3 3,719.6 0.1 * 0.1 10.0 9.9 19.9 2,376.4 1,363.2 3,739.6 37 Pay telephone coin revenues 1,827.5 40.6 1,868.1 0.2 * 0.2 5.2 5.9 11.1 1,832.9 46.5 1,879.4 38 Other local telecommunications service revenues 2,328.1 62.6 2,390.7 2.7 0.1 2.8 187.0 3.3 190.3 2,517.8 66.0 2,583.7 Total fixed local service 58,596.6 9,616.7 68,213.3 39.4 3.1 42.5 425.2 27.6 452.7 59,061.2 9,647.4 68,708.6 * Mobile service (including wireless telephony, paging & messaging, and other mobile services): 39 Monthly and activation charges 280.0 0.8 280.8 13,805.8 756.514,562.3 181.8 3.0 184.8 14,267.7 760.3 15,027.9 40Message charges including roaming but excluding 187.6 16.1 203.7 13,365.21,174.214,539.4 191.0 61.8 252.8 13,743.9 1,252.1 14,995.9 toll charges Total Mobile Service 467.6 16.9 484.5 27,171.11,930.629,101.7 372.9 64.8 437.7 28,011.5
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-1.pdf
  • 4.3 2,352.5 6.5 2,072.3 291.1 2,363.4 2,790.1 1,446.7 4,236.8 11.3 3.2 14.5 178.4 20.1 49.6 148.9 198.5 214.9 38.2 253.1 33.4 2,502.1 203.0 2,738.5 42.5 29,101.7 924.0 27,765.7 2,302.6 30,068.2 32,808.6 5,772.1 38,580.8 47.7 0.7 8,736.1 8,784.5 185.3 377.3 69,311.5 17,887.7 51,986.4 69,874.1 78,891.8 8,349.7 87,241.5 2.4 35.2 37.6 41.0 1.7 493.1 263.7 272.0 535.7 573.6 95.0 668.5 0.3 60.9 61.2 0.1 434.7 42.1 392.8 434.9 497.0 23.3 520.3 577.2 577.2 0.6 0.3 96.1 1.8 95.2 97.0 674.3 2,073.5 2,747.8 21.9 0.9 1,015.4 1,038.2 224.6 57.7 5,557.0 2,092.5 3,746.9 5,839.3 7,142.7 153.5 7,296.2 0.1 161.1 161.2 1.0 0.6 103.8 20.8 84.7 105.5 326.2 44.8 371.0 72.4 1.610,585.810,659.8 452.7 437.7 75,996.1 20,308.5 56,578.0 76,886.5 88,105.6 10,739.7 98,845.3 $28,122.2$2,736.2$11,401.4$42,259.8 $68,708.6$30,023.9$87,297.7$116,756.7$69,273.5$186,030.1$228,851.1$25,633.2$254,484.2 1 - 14
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-7.pdf
  • 85.9 75.7 80.6 74.8 80.3 April 102.5 137.3 85.8 86.4 72.9 84.2 67.3 79.7 May 101.6 135.6 86.5 87.3 69.5 85.8 62.3 79.2 June 102.8 132.8 87.0 86.5 70.0 85.0 59.8 78.8 July * 102.1 128.5 86.2 85.8 74.5 82.9 58.2 79.1 August * 103.8 133.2 82.8 85.7 71.0 81.9 68.5 79.2 September * 103.3 137.6 83.5 86.4 74.0 82.6 61.2 78.9 October * 103.8 133.2 80.5 86.2 74.9 82.2 57.3 77.7 * Producer Price Indices are subject to revision four months after release 7 - 15 Table 7.6 Producer Price Indices (June 1995 =100) Outbound Business Special Access Switched Toll Service Intrastate Business Special Access Switched Toll Service, Outbound Interstate Business Special Access Switched Toll Service, Outbound International Business Special
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrd99-7.pdf
  • 65.6 75.9 67.2 70.1 75.3 79.6 69.9 72.9 65.4 67.0 78.0 83.4 65.2 71.2 63.5 63.0 74.7 82.9 65.4 70.5 62.3 63.5 76.5 86.8 70.9 73.3 64.7 69.5 74.4 83.7 75.7 72.0 63.1 66.0 73.6 82.4 74.5 71.2 60.0 61.9 70.7 74.5 79.3 63.0 58.3 61.5 74.8 80.2 69.2 67.2 58.8 69.9 74.2 79.1 69.2 66.0 57.0 68.7 72.1 80.1 61.2 63.8 55.7 60.8 68.0 73.3 68.8 61.7 54.9 55.8 7 - 17 Table 7.6 Producer Price Indices (June 1995 = 100) BLS Series ID 1995June July August September October November December 1996January February March April May June July August September October November December 1997January February March April May June July August September October November December 1998 January February March April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/QualSvc/qual02.pdf
  • 13.5 17.2 12.1 13.5 18.9 15.2 9.3 13.7 Initial Trouble Reports per Thousand Lines 285.0 111.4 171.4 129.0 197.8 175.1 135.8 143.9 165.6 Total MSA 267.5 110.5 170.5 126.8 186.2 182.1 132.7 138.2 148.0 Total Non MSA 381.2 115.1 181.4 179.9 255.3 133.1 172.3 165.0 200.6 Total Residence 327.3 134.1 221.2 168.8 272.6 245.0 178.5 165.2 202.3 Total Business 173.9 61.2 79.1 58.9 78.2 81.8 65.1 95.0 69.0 Troubles Found per Thousand Lines 161.3 76.2 118.7 106.2 141.7 125.9 102.9 122.0 93.0 Repeat Troubles as a Percent of Trouble Reports 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 Residential Complaints per Million Residential Access Lines 203.8 169.1 324.4 20.4 26.8 166.9 312.5 86.7 110.3 Business Complaints per Million Business Access
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/00socc.pdf
  • South Dakota 199.5 7.8 191.7 129.6 62.1 23.3 11.7 25.5 60.5 1.6SD Tennessee 2,002.2 121.6 1,880.6 1,394.4 486.2 237.0 85.9 140.1 463.0 23.2TN Texas 9,289.9 1,122.4 8,167.4 6,062.4 2,105.0 942.4 289.7 827.5 2,059.6 45.5TX Utah 781.2 50.0 731.2 495.2 236.0 101.1 40.2 86.9 228.3 7.8UT Vermont 256.0 10.4 245.7 173.0 72.7 28.5 19.9 20.9 69.3 3.4VT Virginia 3,191.7 223.3 2,968.4 2,061.2 907.2 406.3 143.8 320.7 870.8 36.4VA Washington 2,456.2 199.6 2,256.5 1,541.9 714.6 320.1 108.8 258.4 687.2 27.4WA West Virginia 656.6 22.3 634.4 454.7 179.7 97.6 33.1 42.8 173.5 6.2WV Wisconsin 1,668.2 89.4 1,578.8 1,183.1 395.7 169.7 71.2 144.4 385.4 10.4WI Wyoming 207.3 12.9 194.4 129.3 65.1 25.8 15.0 22.4 63.2 1.9WY Puerto Rico 1,164.7 104.0 1,060.7 740.5 320.2 204.8 75.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/00socc.pdf
  • 635.0 197.7 231.6 1,064.2 15.3 IN Iowa 1,530.1 115.9 1,414.2 957.1 457.0 204.8 91.8 158.7 455.4 1.7 IA Kansas 1,774.2 81.3 1,692.9 1,162.8 530.1 284.5 80.1 160.1 524.7 5.4 KS Kentucky 3,271.9 377.5 2,894.5 2,151.4 743.1 482.1 104.4 161.7 748.2 -5.1KY Louisiana 3,940.6 382.2 3,558.4 2,713.2 845.2 573.7 100.8 164.1 838.6 6.6 LA Maine 1,123.4 45.0 1,078.4 773.4 305.0 145.8 61.2 96.5 303.5 1.5ME Maryland 4,539.6 557.2 3,982.4 2,706.1 1,276.3 539.8 219.3 512.2 1,271.4 4.9MD Massachusetts 6,996.0 632.0 6,364.1 4,213.1 2,151.0 692.8 382.1 1,065.5 2,140.4 10.6MA Michigan 7,856.8 527.1 7,329.7 5,664.1 1,665.6 999.6 359.5 292.1 1,651.2 14.5 MI Minnesota 3,079.3 277.1 2,802.3 1,993.8 808.4 392.4 128.8 284.4 805.6 2.8MN Mississippi 2,383.3 262.0 2,121.3 1,570.1 551.2 373.4 72.8 100.1 546.4 4.8 MS
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/01socc.pdf
  • (7.2) 313.2 (320.4) (329.8) 54.5 33.2 7.4 13.6 54.2 0.267TN Texas 425.6 247.3 178.3 (15.1) 231.7 144.5 24.6 61.0 230.1 1.654TX Utah 392.4 309.4 83.0 54.0 38.5 19.2 7.1 11.9 38.2 0.292UT Vermont (70.3) (18.6) (51.7) (62.2) 11.6 5.2 2.7 3.3 11.2 0.336VT Virginia (518.0) (172.3) (345.7) (409.3) 138.5 70.0 23.8 44.1 137.8 0.702VA Washington 160.7 (346.1) 506.7 460.9 111.1 61.2 19.3 29.7 110.2 0.866WA West Virginia (25.4) (3.6) (21.8) (33.2) 21.5 11.7 4.4 5.3 21.4 0.148WV Wisconsin (541.7) (168.5) (373.2) (380.5) 101.0 57.9 22.6 19.7 100.2 0.818WI Wyoming (0.6) 5.6 (6.2) (8.9) 6.2 3.7 1.2 1.2 6.1 0.021WY Puerto Rico 135.6 53.4 82.1 60.3 28.4 18.3 9.0 1.1 28.4 PR See notes following Table 2.16. 110 Statistics of Communications Common
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/02socc.pdf
  • 39 1,567,762 81.1 0 0.0 365,535 18.9 1,933,297 81.1 OK Oregon 33 1,836,016 88.1 74,303 3.6 172,641 8.3 2,082,960 91.7 OR Pennsylvania 36 6,677,804 83.5 977,012 12.2 346,705 4.3 8,001,521 95.7 PA Rhode Island 1 595,651 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 595,651 100.0 RI South Carolina 27 1,675,116 72.5 0 0.0 636,910 27.5 2,312,026 72.5 SC South Dakota 30 240,762 61.2 0 0.0 152,412 38.8 393,174 61.2 SD Tennessee 25 2,582,666 78.5 243,399 7.4 465,076 14.1 3,291,141 85.9 TN Texas 58 11,411,173 89.5 400,391 3.1 944,759 7.4 12,756,323 92.6 TX Utah 13 1,017,668 91.2 0 0.0 98,198 8.8 1,115,866 91.2 UT Vermont 10 356,688 84.5 0 0.0 65,286 15.5 421,974 84.5 VT Virginia 21 4,107,367 88.5 411,111 8.9 120,643 2.6 4,639,121
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/03socc.pdf
  • 111.7 24.6 42.8 179.1 36.9 SC South Dakota 121.3 8.6 112.7 78.0 34.7 15.4 6.3 9.3 31.0 3.6 SD Tennessee 1,456.5 181.1 1,275.4 924.9 349.5 170.6 41.4 73.5 285.5 64.0 TN Texas 7,415.1 1,183.0 6,232.1 4,510.8 1,728.0 777.2 194.0 580.1 1,551.3 176.7 TX Utah 553.1 37.2 515.8 362.4 153.5 68.9 26.2 40.5 135.6 17.8 UT Vermont 205.0 9.4 195.6 134.4 61.2 24.6 9.6 16.0 50.2 11.0 VT Virginia 2,460.1 206.3 2,253.7 1,617.9 636.0 292.6 99.5 164.4 556.5 79.4 VA Washington 1,919.0 186.3 1,732.7 1,283.1 450.0 211.4 67.6 103.3 382.3 67.5 WA West Virginia 497.9 27.6 470.4 341.7 128.7 65.3 22.5 26.8 114.6 14.1 WV Wisconsin 1,053.3 67.7 985.6 748.6 237.9 103.9 46.6 59.1 209.6 28.2 WI Wyoming 145.1 9.0 136.1 94.6
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/95socc.pdf
  • 87.2 41.4 22.0 11.7 7.6 41.4 0.016 OR PENNSYLVANIA 544.8 172.4 372.5 313.2 65.5 38.3 15.7 11.5 65.5 0.016 PA RHODE ISLAND 37.8 20.5 17.3 12.5 6.5 2.9 2.8 0.8 6.5 RI SOUTH CAROLINA 80.1 50.8 29.2 21.7 0.7 1.1 0.6 (0.9) 0.7 SC SOUTH DAKOTA 29.3 14.6 14.7 12.9 2.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 2.0 SD TENNESSEE 161.0 82.9 78.1 61.2 0.9 1.1 0.5 (0.9) 0.7 0.224 TN TEXAS 618.5 179.1 439.3 378.7 64.1 37.4 13.9 12.7 64.1 0.020 TX UTAH 108.0 46.0 62.1 48.2 17.2 8.5 5.3 3.4 17.2 0.003 UT VERMONT 38.8 29.9 8.9 6.4 2.7 1.3 1.1 0.3 2.7 VT VIRGINIA 126.3 2.5 123.8 78.4 51.4 29.9 11.0 10.3 51.2 0.141 VA WASHINGTON 476.0 79.6 396.4 365.8 50.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/96socc.pdf
  • 24.03 3,351.0 1,025.6 2,325.5 1,251.7 731.1 342.6 2,325.5 CA COLORADO 526.0 (0.77) 526.8 110.0 416.7 165.4 189.3 62.1 416.7 CO CONNECTICUT 388.1 0.05 388.0 28.6 359.4 138.3 171.3 49.9 359.4 CT DELAWARE 64.3 0.06 64.3 1.6 62.7 19.3 28.1 15.0 62.4 0.240 DE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 130.4 0.28 130.1 (0.0) 130.1 42.4 44.4 42.9 129.8 0.350 DC FLORIDA 2,081.7 20.52 2,061.2 611.0 1,450.2 779.2 484.9 182.8 1,446.9 3.234 FL GEORGIA 785.0 10.85 774.1 124.8 649.3 307.9 216.2 123.4 647.5 1.785 GA HAWAII 140.6 0.29 140.3 12.2 128.1 61.5 52.2 14.5 128.1 HI IDAHO 162.1 1.63 160.5 30.8 129.7 56.8 56.5 16.4 129.7 ID ILLINOIS 1,128.7 (11.38) 1,140.1 185.6 954.4 390.5 406.8 155.8 953.1 1.379 IL INDIANA 657.0 (6.06) 663.1 213.8 449.3
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/96socc.pdf
  • 1,916.0 166.1 1,749.9 1,323.4 426.6 199.2 176.8 50.5 426.6 0.001 HI IDAHO 1,274.6 14.6 1,260.0 874.3 385.6 206.6 108.9 70.1 385.6 0.007 ID ILLINOIS 11,098.7 437.0 10,661.7 8,022.4 2,639.3 1,373.6 902.9 361.0 2,637.5 1.768 IL INDIANA 5,589.6 206.9 5,382.8 4,061.9 1,320.9 773.7 363.7 181.6 1,319.0 1.927 IN IOWA 2,474.9 74.1 2,400.8 1,696.7 704.2 309.5 219.1 175.6 704.2 IA KANSAS 2,256.0 61.2 2,194.8 1,540.8 654.0 318.1 155.7 180.2 653.9 0.091 KS KENTUCKY 3,653.2 111.5 3,541.7 2,659.7 882.0 544.0 210.1 127.6 881.7 0.310 KY LOUISIANA 4,424.9 107.9 4,317.0 3,270.7 1,046.3 685.6 220.1 140.4 1,046.1 0.216 LA MAINE 1,354.4 4.0 1,350.4 986.2 364.2 180.2 137.2 46.8 364.2 ME MARYLAND 5,494.5 262.9 5,231.6 3,814.2 1,417.3 696.4 364.7 356.2 1,417.3 MD MASSACHUSETTS 7,920.1 62.6 7,857.4 5,632.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/97socc.pdf
  • 11.8 44.1 4.5 ND OHIO 4,130.0 385.6 3,744.4 2,877.3 867.1 395.5 280.3 161.1 836.9 30.3 OH OKLAHOMA 1,089.5 101.3 988.2 733.5 254.7 118.1 80.3 48.4 246.8 7.9 OK OREGON 1,205.6 67.3 1,138.3 798.4 339.9 134.8 120.8 58.0 313.6 26.3 OR PENNSYLVANIA 4,256.6 209.1 3,888.3 2,872.1 1,016.2 468.6 300.4 188.7 957.7 58.5 PA RHODE ISLAND 399.5 13.6 385.9 262.5 123.4 45.8 61.2 11.8 118.8 4.6 RI SOUTH CAROLINA 1,081.7 59.8 1,021.8 751.0 270.8 138.4 81.2 42.5 262.1 8.7 SC SOUTH DAKOTA 179.2 6.2 173.0 122.0 50.9 15.2 19.6 14.4 49.3 1.6 SD TENNESSEE 1,818.9 79.7 1,739.3 1,291.4 447.9 226.1 127.7 72.6 426.4 21.5 TN TEXAS 7,610.8 654.8 6,956.0 5,286.2 1,669.7 784.3 468.6 375.7 1,628.6 41.1 TX UTAH 650.7 30.9 619.8 429.5 190.3
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/98SOCC.PDF
  • 2.90 1.58 1955 32.2 49.7 27.7 30.94 3.06 2.18 1956 33.6 50.3 28.3 37.90 3.36 3.31 1957 34.1 48.9 27.5 40.54 3.89 3.81 1958 31.9 42.7 23.8 33.84 3.79 2.46 1959 35.7 53.4 29.7 35.88 4.38 3.97 1960 36.5 51.1 28.4 39.44 4.41 3.85 1961 36.7 51.0 28.2 38.34 4.35 2.97 1962 39.8 56.4 32.4 40.86 4.33 3.26 1963 42.1 61.2 34.9 43.67 4.26 3.55 1967 55.0 81.8 49.2 72.75 5.51 5.10 1968 58.1 90.6 51.2 76.42 6.18 5.90 1969 60.7 89.0 49.4 85.74 7.03 7.83 1970 58.7 78.4 44.0 91.91 8.04 7.71 1971 59.5 90.1 52.4 92.91 7.39 5.11 1972 65.3 104.5 62.6 103.40 7.21 4.73 1973 70.6 130.9 81.6 120.03 7.44 8.15 1974 69.6 142.8 91.0 139.67 8.57 9.84
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/99socc.pdf
  • 39.3 107.4 218.5 10.5DC Florida 7,273.2 638.7 6,634.5 4,799.2 1,835.3 1,030.8 359.5 376.7 1,767.0 68.3 FL Georgia 3,475.6 176.9 3,298.6 2,445.6 853.0 423.5 180.9 224.7 829.2 23.9GA Hawaii 590.7 89.6 501.1 362.4 138.7 66.0 36.0 30.3 132.3 6.4 HI Idaho 458.3 23.2 435.1 279.3 155.8 78.4 36.9 33.8 149.1 6.7 ID Illinois 4,921.5 321.6 4,599.9 3,475.4 1,124.5 507.8 242.3 311.1 1,061.2 63.3 IL Indiana 2,358.1 197.4 2,160.7 1,598.2 562.6 275.7 113.2 141.3 530.2 32.3 IN Iowa 809.5 44.5 765.0 523.7 241.3 117.2 51.0 65.2 233.4 7.9 IA Kansas 992.0 79.1 912.9 685.8 227.1 98.1 51.8 68.7 218.6 8.5KS Kentucky 1,435.4 78.1 1,357.3 1,010.7 346.6 184.9 75.9 74.1 334.9 11.7KY Louisiana 1,633.7 72.4 1,561.3 1,210.3 351.0 197.3 76.9 67.4 341.6 9.4 LA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001501.doc
  • and unreasonable practice, in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. In addition, Rainbow contends: (i) that Bell Atlantic failed to substantially perform or reasonably discharge its duty under the tariff, in violation of section 203(a) of the Act; (ii) that the tariff was ambiguous and should be construed to require the return of the deposit to Rainbow under section 61.2 of the Commission's rules; and (iii) that the tariff was void and should have been rescinded. Finally, Rainbow alleges that Bell Atlantic's failure to provide access to the video dialtone platform by denying it the necessary EPIC interface software was an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Rainbow seeks the return of its $345,600
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00107.doc
  • In the Order, we agreed with Bell Atlantic that the challenged provisions of Global NAPs' Tariff violated section 201(b) of the Act. We concluded that, as of their filing date, Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff were unlawful in two respects. First, we found that the challenged Tariff provisions were not ``clear and explicit,'' as required by section 61.2 of our rules, because ``those provisions condition the imposition of charges on circumstances that were indeterminate when the [T]ariff took effect and remain indeterminate today.'' Specifically, the challenged Tariff provisions purported to apply only to ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs received no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement. In this instance, the parties had executed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00383.doc
  • handed off to Global NAPs for delivery to its Internet Service Provider (``ISP'') customers. We agree with Verizon that Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff is unjust and unreasonable under section 201(b) of the Act because: (1) it conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding regarding the scope of their interconnection agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey; and (2) it violates section 61.2 of our rules, which provides that tariffs must be clear and explicit. We therefore grant Verizon's complaint. Background Verizon and Global NAPs have interconnection agreements in at least eight states. The circumstances under which they reached agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey are especially relevant and require brief description. On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and Verizon entered into an
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1997/fc97115a.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1997/fc97115a.wp
  • 698.6 536.0 32977 2225 31649 2223 0.0 0.0 99.3 AZPHOENIX 10 23 626.1 558.0 33986 2225 31701 2216 0.0 0.0 99.7 AZPHOENIX 15 14 50.0 521.0 21332 2209 19733 2207 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPHOENIX 21 20 50.0 489.0 20189 2209 18885 2200 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPHOENIX 33 34 76.9 521.0 18207 2205 17530 2195 0.7 0.7 100.0 AZPHOENIX 45 26 61.2 545.0 23153 2219 20843 2202 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPHOENIX 61 49 58.8 541.0 18332 2205 17585 2192 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPRESCOTT 7 25 50.0 856.0 18534 170 16876 137 0.3 0.0 99.8 AZSIERRAVISTA 58 44 50.0 81.0 4915 59 4711 59 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZTOLLESON 51 52 195.1 533.0 24691 2219 23161 2208 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZTUCSON 4 31 461.81100.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Reports/fcc00289.pdf
  • 00-289 B-14 Table 9E: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by County Service Block POPs in Those Counties (1)% of Total US POPs Square Miles in Those Counties % of Total US Counties A 181.1 million 71.6% 676,000 18.8% B 189.4 million 74.9% 714,000 19.8% C (4) 36.5 million 14.4% 200,000 5.6% D 95.9 million 37.9% 340,000 9.4% E 61.2 million 24.2% 308,000 8.6% F 39.3 million 15.5% 223,000 6.2% Table 9F: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by BTA Service BlockNumber of BTAs (3)POPs in Those BTAs (1) % of Total US POPs A 210 198,472,177 78.6% B 250 209,357,087 82.9% C (4) 83 37,926,975 15.0% D 132 108,837,628 43.1% E 96 68,165,625 27.0% F 63 43,968,412 17.4%
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1998/dd981112.html
  • The Commission resolved two formal complaints brought by complainants Halprin, Temple, Goodman & Sugrue (Halprin) and Freedom Technologies, Inc., that challenge the lawfulness and application of the "Non-Subscriber" rates contained in MCI's Tariff F.C.C. No. 1. Concluded that (1) the Tariff's description of when customers will be charged MCI's Non-Subscriber rates is not "clear and explicit," in violation of Part 61.2 of the Commission's rules; and (2) MCI's practice of charging Non-Subscriber rates for "direct-dialed" calls is unreasonable, in violation of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Action by the Commission. Adopted: November 10, 1998. by MO&O. (FCC No. 98-297). CCB Internet URL: [10]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98297.wp SAH ACQUISITION CORPORATION II. Granted must-carry complaint filed by WOAC against Adelphia Cable
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2011/dd110629.html
  • (DA No. 11-1130). (Dkt No 11-102 ). Comments Due: 07/12/2011. Reply Comments Due: 07/19/2011. WCB . Contact: Tracey Wilson at (202) 418-1394 or Alexis Johns at (202) 418-1167 [67]DA-11-1130A1.doc [68]DA-11-1130A1.pdf [69]DA-11-1130A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- NORTHERN VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS, LLC REVISIONS TO FCC TARIFF NO. 3. Rejected Transmittal No. 5 as patently unlawful, in violation of the Commission's order, section 61.2 of the Commission's rules, and section 201(b) of the Act. Action by: Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau. Adopted: 06/28/2011 by ORDER. (DA No. 11-1132). WCB [70]DA-11-1132A1.doc [71]DA-11-1132A1.pdf [72]DA-11-1132A1.txt References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308122A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308122A1.txt 3. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308123A1.pdf 4. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308123A1.txt 5. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308057A1.pdf 6. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308057A2.txt 7. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308056A1.pdf 8. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308056A2.txt 9. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308120A1.doc 10. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308120A1.pdf 11. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308120A1.txt 12. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308104A1.pdf 13. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308104A1.txt 14. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308126A1.pdf 15.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3574A1.html
  • the filed rate doctrine. According to the complaint, the District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve the issues concerning the filed rate doctrine and the lawfulness of MCIW's tariff.2 Garin further alleges in the formal complaint that MCIW violated sections 201(b) of the Act 3 and sections 61.25, 61.74, and 61.2 of the Commission's rules 4 by cross-referencing the tariffs of local exchange carriers and by being impermissibly vague in its tariff.5 Subsequent to that filing by Complainants, the parties to this proceeding reached a settlement of their dispute. On December 17, 2002, Complainant filed a Withdrawal of Formal Complaint, requesting that the Commission allow Garin to simply withdraw its complaint.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-127A1.html
  • ISP Tariff were void ab initio under section 201(b) of the Act, for two reasons. First, the filing of the Second ISP Tariff conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding that their interconnection agreements alone would govern whether Global NAPs would receive compensation for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic.11 Second, Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff was indeterminate, in violation of section 61.2 of our rules,12 which requires that tariffs be clear and explicit as to their proper application.13 In its Petition, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs asserts that the Order's finding of a mutual understanding not to file a federal tariff imposing charges for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic lacks record support and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-111A1.html
  • requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not "clear and explicit" as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern Valley to revise its Tariff within ten days of release of this Order. We decline, however, to declare the Tariff void ab initio or
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-87A1.html
  • an interstate or foreign telecommunications service"). Complaint, Exhibit B (Tariff) at Original Page No. 8. On the other hand, it defines "end user" as an entity that does not pay (an end user "need not purchase any service provided by [Northern Valley]"). Id. This inconsistency may violate the Commission's requirement that tariffs be "clear and explicit." See 47 C.F.R. S: 61.2(a). We do not address this issue, however, because Qwest did not raise it, and both parties assert that the Tariff's "end user" definition establishes that Northern Valley may impose charges for calls to or from parties that have not purchased services from Northern Valley. See, e.g., Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., 550 U.S. 45, 52-55 (2007) (citations
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001501.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001501.txt
  • and unreasonable practice, in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. In addition, Rainbow contends: (i) that Bell Atlantic failed to substantially perform or reasonably discharge its duty under the tariff, in violation of section 203(a) of the Act; (ii) that the tariff was ambiguous and should be construed to require the return of the deposit to Rainbow under section 61.2 of the Commission's rules; and (iii) that the tariff was void and should have been rescinded. Finally, Rainbow alleges that Bell Atlantic's failure to provide access to the video dialtone platform by denying it the necessary EPIC interface software was an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Rainbow seeks the return of its $345,600
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.txt
  • In the Order, we agreed with Bell Atlantic that the challenged provisions of Global NAPs' Tariff violated section 201(b) of the Act. We concluded that, as of their filing date, Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff were unlawful in two respects. First, we found that the challenged Tariff provisions were not ``clear and explicit,'' as required by section 61.2 of our rules, because ``those provisions condition the imposition of charges on circumstances that were indeterminate when the [T]ariff took effect and remain indeterminate today.'' Specifically, the challenged Tariff provisions purported to apply only to ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs received no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement. In this instance, the parties had executed
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.txt
  • handed off to Global NAPs for delivery to its Internet Service Provider (``ISP'') customers. We agree with Verizon that Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff is unjust and unreasonable under section 201(b) of the Act because: (1) it conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding regarding the scope of their interconnection agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey; and (2) it violates section 61.2 of our rules, which provides that tariffs must be clear and explicit. We therefore grant Verizon's complaint. Background Verizon and Global NAPs have interconnection agreements in at least eight states. The circumstances under which they reached agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey are especially relevant and require brief description. On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and Verizon entered into an
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • the tariffed charges at the time that they are allegedly incurred. We find that Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this tariff when the very applicability of the tariff has yet to be determined. . The contingent and unclear applicability of the tariff defies the Commission's longstanding interpretation of section 201(b) of the Act, as reflected in section 61.2 of our rules. Those authorities require that the applicability of the tariff rate, and its terms, be clear and explicit. . Moreover, it seems evident that any federal tariff purporting to govern inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic could be reasonable only if it mirrors any applicable terms of the party's interconnection agreement, as construed by the appropriate state commission. Using
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files/ITRND01.pdf
  • 141.8 154.9 197.9 237.4 298.1 331.6 669.3 1,016.7 38.5 France 263.7 304.9 362.8 442.6 511.0 560.3 577.1 539.4 725.5 653.5 681.4 4.8 Germany 572.6 604.1 662.3 782.4 1,008.3 1,153.4 1,466.4 1,251.4 886.9 1,057.4 1,501.9 0.0 Greece 75.6 82.1 86.5 91.3 97.5 115.3 183.8 213.8 259.9 172.9 203.6 8.5 Guatemala 93.8 105.4 115.1 128.0 127.3 144.7 189.8 233.1 368.9 909.1 1,455.9 61.2 Haiti 52.9 62.8 73.6 79.2 93.6 99.6 135.9 94.4 67.3 107.8 231.8 9.5 Hong Kong 143.2 213.9 315.8 539.7 677.3 565.3 193.0 163.3 278.1 171.2 232.6 -11.5 India 134.2 191.6 285.7 428.0 583.3 749.7 960.1 1,243.5 1,332.7 1,512.2 1,319.4 12.9 Israel 162.7 195.7 214.3 239.8 214.2 220.4 363.8 307.3 267.8 309.5 536.5 11.6 Italy 229.7 250.9 279.4 336.3 476.6 515.1
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files05/CREPOR05.pdf
  • 11.8 0.0 4.157.2 27.0 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines $3,125,343 10.4 0.014.918.5 56.2 $70,201 0.0 0.0 8.912.2 79.0 $16,956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 18,436,529 10.9 0.014.125.6 49.4 Trinidad and Tobago $37,328,121 52.7 0.0 0.312.0 35.0 $1,435,764 25.4 0.0 8.310.1 56.2 $289,140 72.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 27.6 412,530,904 62.2 0.0 2.1 6.4 29.3 Turks and Caicos Islands $2,535,638 9.1 0.0 0.029.7 61.2 $125,088 0.0 0.0 0.034.2 65.8 $1,297 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 99.9 15,401,945 9.3 0.0 0.025.3 65.4 Virgin Islands, British $3,241,457 1.5 0.0 8.210.9 79.4 $447,739 0.0 0.060.9 5.6 33.5 $13,891 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 24,816,136 1.6 0.038.6 8.9 50.9 Navassa Island $0 $0 $0 0 Puerto Rico $3,219 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $70 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $0 57,136 0.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files06/CREPOR06.PDF
  • 0.518.5 66.4 $1,403,257 0.0 4.8 0.032.2 62.9 $397,523 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 124,126,780 0.0 5.2 0.619.5 74.7 Paraguay $5,804,588 0.019.9 1.7 7.7 70.7 $342,408 0.015.6 0.023.9 60.5 $14,881 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 41,901,120 0.022.1 3.312.2 62.4 Peru $65,903,166 0.014.2 0.927.3 57.5 $3,410,913 0.014.6 0.012.8 72.5 $5,365,638 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 1,389,679,727 0.0 4.6 1.524.1 69.7 Suriname $6,902,343 0.0 7.5 0.031.3 61.2 $212,771 0.0 0.0 0.030.5 69.5 $90,348 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 46,368,028 0.0 3.1 0.040.5 56.4 Uruguay $11,260,103 0.018.9 0.213.1 67.7 $385,082 0.013.9 0.019.6 66.5 $288,540 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 97.3 121,085,826 0.011.7 0.318.3 69.6 Venezuela $43,909,469 1.740.4 0.310.9 46.7 $3,298,920 0.0 7.7 0.070.2 22.1 $367,868 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 465,306,986 0.720.9 0.227.7 50.5 South America $589,982,403 0.125.6 0.816.6 56.9 $37,098,987
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files07/CREPOR07.PDF
  • $6,943,415 0.0 34.1 0.8 10.7 54.3 $453,294 0.0 0.6 0.0 6.8 92.6 $22,304 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 70,805,593 0.0 11.1 1.4 14.0 73.5 Croatia $5,018,426 0.0 16.2 10.4 16.5 56.9 $105,397 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.4 69.6 $3,583 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 58,052,283 0.0 6.1 31.7 21.1 41.1 Czech Republic $10,655,238 0.0 39.6 2.1 13.0 45.3 $283,121 0.0 33.4 0.0 5.4 61.2 $23,701 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 101,661,497 0.0 20.6 3.7 13.5 62.3 Estonia $2,311,227 0.0 2.4 2.9 57.3 37.4 $30,357 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.8 5.2 $474 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 16,595,458 0.0 1.2 20.6 37.9 40.3 Georgia $2,674,880 0.0 11.7 0.8 50.5 37.0 $27,884 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.0 43.0 $532 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 33,862,787 0.0 6.1 1.6 54.4 37.9
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1996/swbell.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1996/swbell.wp
  • the new rates were not discriminatory because they would be available to similarly situated customers; and the deviation would foster economic efficiency. The Commission ultimately concluded that the tariff amendment was unlawful, on what it claimed were three "independent" grounds. The Commission found that the tariff amendment's language was vague and ambiguous in violation of Commission rules, see 47 C.F.R. 61.2, 61.54(j) (1995), requiring tariff language to be clear and explicit. The Commission also determined--although Southwestern Bell had never contended to the contrary, and does not now--that the tariff amendment was inconsistent with the Commission's geographically averaged rate requirement and did not comply with the Commission's explicitly recognized deviations from that requirement. And the tariff failed the first prong of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.pdf
  • 206 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 2. Tariff Requirements Under Section 201(b) of the Telecommunications Act, all interstate communications "charges, practices, classifications, and regulations" must be "just and reasonable." 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). Carriers must publish rate tariffs before they go into effect. Published tariffs "must contain clear and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations." 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 (a). Tariffs may not "make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument." Id. at § 61.74(a). Tariffs filed by nondominant carriers, such as GNAPs, take effect on only one day's notice. Such tariffs receive streamlined review and are presumed lawful by the Commission. Failure to comply with the relevant regulatory provisions "may be grounds
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2011archive.html
  • Comments On PAC-WEST Telecomm, Inc. And Verizon Petitions For Declaratory Ruling. (Dkt No 11-115 ). Comments Due: 08/08/2011. Reply Comments Due: 08/23/2011. [50][Word] [51][Acrobat] 7/1/2011 Public Notice: Protested Tariff Transmittals Action Taken. [52][Word] [53][Acrobat] 6/28/2011 Order: Northern Valley Communications, LLC Revisions To FCC Tariff No. 3. Rejected Transmittal No. 5 as patently unlawful, in violation of the Commission's order, section 61.2 of the Commission's rules, and section 201(b) of the Act. [54][Word] [55][Acrobat] 6/9/2011 Order: ELECTRONIC TARIFF FILING SYSTEM (ETFS). The FCC enables carriers to replace paper filings with online filings. Electronic filing eases burden on carriers, increases transparency for public. (Dkt No. 10-141 ). [56][Word] [57][Acrobat] 6/9/2011 News Release:FCC Enables Carriers To Replace Paper Filings With Online Filings. News Release.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.pdf
  • requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not ``clear and explicit'' as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern Valley to revise its Tariff within ten days of release of this Order. We decline, however, to declare the Tariff void ab initio or
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.pdf
  • an interstate or foreign telecommunications service''). Complaint, Exhibit B (Tariff) at Original Page No. 8. On the other hand, it defines ``end user'' as an entity that does not pay (an end user ``need not purchase any service provided by [Northern Valley]''). Id. This inconsistency may violate the Commission's requirement that tariffs be ``clear and explicit.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 61.2(a). We do not address this issue, however, because Qwest did not raise it, and both parties assert that the Tariff's ``end user'' definition establishes that Northern Valley may impose charges for calls to or from parties that have not purchased services from Northern Valley. See, e.g., Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., 550 U.S. 45, 52-55 (2007) (citations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1501A1.txt
  • and unreasonable practice, in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. In addition, Rainbow contends: (i) that Bell Atlantic failed to substantially perform or reasonably discharge its duty under the tariff, in violation of section 203(a) of the Act; (ii) that the tariff was ambiguous and should be construed to require the return of the deposit to Rainbow under section 61.2 of the Commission's rules; and (iii) that the tariff was void and should have been rescinded. Finally, Rainbow alleges that Bell Atlantic's failure to provide access to the video dialtone platform by denying it the necessary EPIC interface software was an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Rainbow seeks the return of its $345,600
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1732A1.txt
  • for investigation Iowa Telecom's interstate access tariff revision. DisCUSSION We find that WorldCom raises substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Iowa Telecom's tariff revision that require further investigation. WorldCom questions whether the revision is unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act and whether the language of the revision is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. WorldCom further questions whether Iowa Telecom has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Iowa Telecom's FCC Tariff No. 1, Transmittal No. 22 require further investigation, and suspend it for five
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1886A1.txt
  • access Tariff FCC No. 1. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of BellSouth's tariff revision that require further investigation. They question whether the revision violates a Commission prescription, is unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act, and whether the language of the revision is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Petitioners further question whether BellSouth has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of BellSouth's FCC Tariff No. 1, Transmittal No. 657 require further investigation, and we suspend it for five months.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2039A1.txt
  • this motion. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Petitioners further question whether SBC has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. Finally, certain petitioners claim that SBC's revisions conflict with provisions of the bankruptcy code. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's FCC Tariffs Nos.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2055A1.txt
  • and 16. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Verizon's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Petitioners further question whether Verizon has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. Finally, certain petitioners claim that Verizon's revisions conflict with provisions of the bankruptcy code and FCC and state commission rules regarding discontinuance of service. For these reasons, we conclude that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2140A1.txt
  • investigate Verizon's tariffs, and we suspend for one day and set for investigation Verizon's revisions to its interstate access Tariff FCC Nos. 1 and 11. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Verizon's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules, whether the revisions, including provisioning of the PARTS offering, are unjust, unreasonable, and unreasonably discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the revisions violate Verizon's obligations to provide notice of network changes to affected carriers under section 251(c)(5) of the Act and the Commission's implementing rules. Petitioners further
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2141A1.txt
  • 5. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of NECA's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act, are unreasonably discriminatory in violation of section 202(a) of the Act, and are impermissibly vague in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules. WorldCom further questions whether NECA has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of NECA's FCC Tariff No. 5, Transmittal No. 951 require further investigation, and we suspend it for five months.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2317A1.txt
  • a security deposit, if applicable; and/or 4) a customer represents a significant financial risk based on objective financial standards such as but not limited to Moody's Investor Services, Standard and Poor's, D&B, and ratings issued by independent and non-affiliated regional analysts of financial information.'' WorldCom asserts that the proposed security deposit language is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules and is unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b). Discussion The first issue designated for investigation is whether the revised security deposit provisions applicable to interstate access customers, both new and existing, are reasonable and not so vague as to permit Iowa Telecom to discriminate unreasonably among its interstate access customers, whether they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2318A1.txt
  • of the Customer's estimated billing for service(s), calculated by using an average of the most recent three (3) months of undisputed charges.'' Several carriers petitioned against the BellSouth Transmittal No. 657. These parties allege that the tariff revisions: (1) are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act; (2) are vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules; (3) permit BellSouth too much discretion in determining whether a customer is credit worthy; and (4) have the potential to be anticompetitive because BellSouth could impose unnecessary and burdensome credit requirements on its carrier customers that are also its competitors. US LEC states that a requirement for two months' cash deposit by all network
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2522A1.pdf
  • thirty to seven days the notice period before which Verizon can refuse to process new orders or discontinue service. Several carriers petitioned against the Verizon Transmittal No. 226. These petitioners allege that the tariff revisions: (1) are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, (2) are vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules, and (3) permit Verizon too much discretion in determining whether to require a security deposit or advance payments for services. In addition, several petitioners assert that requiring a security deposit or advance payment from any customer that has ``commenced a voluntary receivership or bankruptcy proceeding (or had a receivership or bankruptcy proceeding initiated against
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2577A1.txt
  • current one-year Treasury Bill. SBC will pay interest only on deposits, not prepayments. Several carriers petitioned against the SBC Transmittal Nos. 1312, 20, 77, 772, and 2906. These parties allege that the tariff revisions: (1) are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and (2) are vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. In addition, ALTS, ASCENT, and WorldCom argue that the $1 million dollar threshold is unjust and unreasonably discriminatory. ALTS, ASCENT, Nextel, Sprint, and WorldCom assert that an entity's credit standing in the investment community has no direct bearing on its ability to pay its bills on a timely basis. ALTS also asserts that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2948A1.txt
  • score as published by Dun & Bradstreet of at least ``average.'' Several carriers petitioned against NECA's Transmittal No. 951. These parties question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act, are unreasonably discriminatory in violation of section 202(a) of the Act, and are impermissibly vague in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules. Discussion The initial issue designated for investigation is whether the revised security deposit provisions applicable to interstate access customers are reasonable and not so vague as to permit carriers participating in the NECA tariff to discriminate unreasonably among interstate access customers, whether they be interexchange carriers, competitive LECs, or business end-user subscribers. The interstate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3196A1.txt
  • the PARTS offering are unreasonably high and unreasonably discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act; whether Verizon's tariff revisions, including provisioning of the PARTS offering, are unjust, unreasonable, and unreasonably discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act; whether the language of the tariff revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules; and whether Verizon is complying with its obligations to provide notice of network changes to affected carriers, under section 251(c)(5) of the Act and the Commission's implementing rules. When Verizon provides information responsive to a particular paragraph, including supporting documents, Verizon is directed to segregate and mark the responsive information as ``Responsive to Paragraph
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3574A1.txt
  • on the filed rate doctrine. According to the complaint, the District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve the issues concerning the filed rate doctrine and the lawfulness of MCIW's tariff. Garin further alleges in the formal complaint that MCIW violated sections 201(b) of the Act and sections 61.25, 61.74, and 61.2 of the Commission's rules by cross-referencing the tariffs of local exchange carriers and by being impermissibly vague in its tariff. Subsequent to that filing by Complainants, the parties to this proceeding reached a settlement of their dispute. On December 17, 2002, Complainant filed a Withdrawal of Formal Complaint, requesting that the Commission allow Garin to simply withdraw its complaint. In
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4048A1.txt
  • 1, 1, 39, and 73. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's tariff transmittals that require further investigation. They question whether SBC's tariff transmittals are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Sprint further questions whether SBC has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's FCC Tariffs Nos. 2, 1, 1, 39 and 73, Transmittal Nos. 1430, 84, 187, 843, and 3022,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2641A1.txt
  • inconsistencies. Specifically, in Form 312 Schedule B, you indicate that the Maximum EIRP Density per Carrier is 24.49 dBW/4 kHz for emission designators 6M00D7W and 7M00D7W. This value is less than and therefore inconsistent with the average values of 29.44 and 29.46 dBW/4 kHz, respectively, as derived from the bandwidth of each emission and Maximum EIRP per carrier values of 61.2 and 61.9 dBW indicated in your application. Given these inconsistencies, we cannot determine the proposed emission power. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 25.112(a)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §25.112(a)(1), and Section 0.261 of the Commission's rules on delegations of authority, 47 C.F.R. §0.261, we dismiss your application without prejudice to refiling. Sincerely, Scott A. Kotler Chief, Systems Analysis Branch Satellite
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1348A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Data RO22 Sud-Est 17 2846792 91.3 23999 8430No Data RO3 Macroregiunea trei 16 5542528 157.5 74612 13462No Data RO31 Sud - Muntenia 12 3329794 99.6 27083 8133No Data RO32 Bucuresti - Ilfov 21 2212735 1259.4 47529 21480No Data RO4 Macroregiunea patru 10 4239994 70.6 38983 9194No Data RO41 Sud-Vest Oltenia 11 2307868 81 17688 7664No Data RO42 Vest 10 1932126 61.2 21295 11022No Data Singapore 86 4839400 6814 127666 23288 SK0 Slovakia 35 5387001 110 86375 16138 15 SK01 Bratislavský kraj 39 602416 293 23589 39410 29 SK02 Západné Slovensko 35 1863498 124 28152 15204 12 12025 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1348 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (avg population per square meter) GDP total (US$m), PPP (puchashing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1348A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1348A3.txt
  • Data RO22 Sud-Est 17 2846792 91.3 23999 8430No Data RO3 Macroregiunea trei 16 5542528 157.5 74612 13462No Data RO31 Sud - Muntenia 12 3329794 99.6 27083 8133No Data RO32 Bucuresti - Ilfov 21 2212735 1259.4 47529 21480No Data RO4 Macroregiunea patru 10 4239994 70.6 38983 9194No Data RO41 Sud-Vest Oltenia 11 2307868 81 17688 7664No Data RO42 Vest 10 1932126 61.2 21295 11022No Data Singapore 86 4839400 6814 127666 23288 SK0 Slovakia 35 5387001 110 86375 16138 15 SK01 Bratislavský kraj 39 602416 293 23589 39410 29 SK02 Západné Slovensko 35 1863498 124 28152 15204 12 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1348 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (avg population per square meter) GDP total (US$m), PPP (puchashing power
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-922A1.txt
  • 1 and 2 for ``Regulations, Rates and Charges Applying to the Provision of Access Service for Connection to Interstate Communications Facilities and Services.'' The proposed tariff is scheduled to become effective on May 24, 2010. Because the tariff does not specify the charges for the services it provides, we reject Transmittal No. 4 as patently unlawful, in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.25 of the Commission's rules and section 203 of the Communications Act. II. BACKGROUND All American filed the above-referenced tariff on May 7, 2010 to become effective on May 24, 2010. Section 7 of the tariff lists applicable rate elements and states that ``[t]he Company's rates for recurring services are set at or below the rates for equivalent services''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1132A1.txt
  • definitions in response to the Commission's Qwest v. Northern Valley order. The proposed tariff is scheduled to become effective on June 29, 2011. Because the tariff revisions do not comply with the requirements of the Qwest v. Northern Valley decision for the reasons described below, we reject Transmittal No. 5 as patently unlawful, in violation of the Commission's order, section 61.2 of the Commission's rules, and section 201(b) of the Act. II. BACKGROUND Northern Valley's tariff revisions modify two definitions in its FCC Tariff No. 3, ``End User'' and ``Customer of an Interstate or Foreign Telecommunications Service,'' in response to the Commission's Qwest v. Northern Valley order. In the Qwest v. Northern Valley order, the Commission concluded that, to the extent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-207249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-207249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-207249A1.txt
  • 60.4 3998.51 6189.0175 1720 G7DDT 59.2 3984.505 6191.9425 328 G7DDT 61 3975.0875 6206.32 1720 G7DDT 58.2 4082.6025 6208.3225 1720 G7DDT 58.9 3983.6375 6208.8175 874 G7DDT 56.3 3975.92 6210.325 1720 G7DDT 59.8 3985.64 6215.5225 874 G7DDT 56.3 4021.01 6220.945 1720 G7DDT 59.8 4071.92 6222.475 874 G7DDT 56.7 3989.8025 6228.37 1720 G7DDT 58.4 3980.51 6228.5275 1720 G7DDT 59 4058.0825 6230.3725 1720 G7DDT 61.2 4015.4525 6234.1525 874 G7DDT 56.1 4013.675 6235.975 437 G7DDT 54.4 4136.17 6237.5275 437 G7DDT 52.3 3986.9 6239.395 437 G7DDT 54.1 4017.6125 6243.805 1720 G7DDT 57.9 3662.0525 6245.335 874 G7DDT 55.3 4023.125 6246.01 1720 G7DDT 57.8 3990.5225 6246.415 874 G7DDT 55.9 4022.0675 6250.69 874 G7DDT 57.4 3993.335 6268.165 1720 G7DDT 58.1 3974.0975 6269.695 874 G7DDT 55.3 3631.97 6275.23 1720 G7DDT 60.6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.txt
  • Carolina 2,653 2,849 3,053 3,393 720 3,070 3,790 1.41 42.9 South Dakota 488 584 602 635 154 562 716 0.27 46.6 Tennessee 3,467 3,880 4,302 4,553 884 4,044 4,928 1.84 42.2 Texas 12,871 14,563 15,943 17,576 4,095 14,937 19,032 7.09 47.9 Utah 1,112 1,284 1,443 1,557 344 1,447 1,790 0.67 61.0 Vermont 424 547 575 602 140 544 684 0.25 61.2 Virgin Islands 74 93 101 109 26 96 122 0.05 48.3 Virginia 5,061 5,646 6,179 6,576 1,443 5,577 7,020 2.61 38.7 Washington 3,995 4,438 4,613 5,080 1,213 4,490 5,703 2.12 42.7 West Virginia 1,143 1,240 1,337 1,383 304 1,133 1,437 0.54 25.8 Wisconsin 3,258 3,621 3,927 4,234 883 3,837 4,719 1.76 44.9 Wyoming 366 402 449 462 109 404 513
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243430A1.txt
  • 5 6 97.5 26.2 80.7 25.5 76.3 35.7 69.3 47.0 I 8 I 105.0 I 48.7 I 7 85.2 46.4 9 122.3 48.7 10 11 ~ 123.8 40.3 105.0 39.7 12 13 86.0 33.0 81.0 40.0 C. 15 Not applicable. Description of groups required in the case of non-simultaneous emissions 14 15 4 156.3 20.8 66.3 18.2 16 17 149.8 61.2 134.4 58.6 18 19 ~~ ~ 87.3 21.1 92.5 15.6 D. Overall link characteristics 1) Connection between Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth frequencies in the network: 5 6 BSS-19T 5 BSS-19A BSS-19T 6 BSS-19A 12 13 14 BSS-19T 12 BSS-19A BSS-19T 13 BSS-19A BSS-19T 14 BSS- 19A 15 16 17 18 19 BSS-19T 15 BSS-19A BSS-19T 16 BSS-19A BSS-19T 17 BSS-19A BSS-19T
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.txt
  • 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Percent Change 1997 to 2002 Australia $11.0 $15.9 $19.9 $21.8 $25.5 $40.1 $47.4 $81.6 $100.5 $74.4 $36.5 -9.2% Brazil 5.6 6.4 7.7 10.6 14.8 17.9 26.6 26.1 26.1 32.6 22.1 23.5 Canada 39.5 42.0 55.4 59.8 60.6 67.1 60.2 88.0 98.0 86.4 70.8 5.5 China 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.9 5.8 12.7 32.6 61.2 84.1 56.9 887.3 Colombia 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.7 6.0 7.0 15.3 18.2 23.7 12.9 15.8 127.1 Dominican Republic 1.9 1.7 2.5 4.1 5.2 6.4 4.8 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.1 -4.6 Egypt 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.1 1.4 4.8 2.3 2.2 2.1 94.5 El Salvador 1.8 0.3 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 2.2 3.8 7.3 4.4 2.3 67.4 France 12.1 13.6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.txt
  • 141.8 154.9 197.9 237.4 298.1 331.6 669.3 1,016.7 38.5 France 263.7 304.9 362.8 442.6 511.0 560.3 577.1 539.4 725.5 653.5 681.4 4.8 Germany 572.6 604.1 662.3 782.4 1,008.3 1,153.4 1,466.4 1,251.4 886.9 1,057.4 1,501.9 0.0 Greece 75.6 82.1 86.5 91.3 97.5 115.3 183.8 213.8 259.9 172.9 203.6 8.5 Guatemala 93.8 105.4 115.1 128.0 127.3 144.7 189.8 233.1 368.9 909.1 1,455.9 61.2 Haiti 52.9 62.8 73.6 79.2 93.6 99.6 135.9 94.4 67.3 107.8 231.8 9.5 Hong Kong 143.2 213.9 315.8 539.7 677.3 565.3 193.0 163.3 278.1 171.2 232.6 -11.5 India 134.2 191.6 285.7 428.0 583.3 749.7 960.1 1,243.5 1,332.7 1,512.2 1,319.4 12.9 Israel 162.7 195.7 214.3 239.8 214.2 220.4 363.8 307.3 267.8 309.5 536.5 11.6 Italy 229.7 250.9 279.4 336.3 476.6 515.1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262086A1.txt
  • 105.8 21.9 NH New Jersey 3,003.9 218.2 2,785.7 1,903.5 882.4 370.8 124.9 288.5 784.2 98.2 NJ New Mexico 495.3 40.7 454.6 322.3 132.3 70.3 22.0 26.8 119.1 13.2 NM New York 7,726.8 469.0 7,257.8 4,923.2 2,334.3 755.0 218.2 1,084.9 2,058.1 276.1 NY North Carolina 2,303.5 296.7 2,006.8 1,454.8 555.8 278.1 75.3 112.8 466.2 89.7 NC North Dakota 98.4 7.3 91.1 61.2 29.9 11.2 6.9 9.0 27.1 2.8 ND Ohio 3,026.7 319.4 2,707.3 2,024.9 682.8 311.5 155.9 135.9 603.3 79.5 OH Oklahoma 818.2 144.5 673.7 482.5 192.0 94.6 27.9 52.0 174.5 17.4 OK Oregon 964.6 86.8 877.8 626.9 250.9 119.0 44.1 55.1 218.2 32.8 OR Pennsylvania 3,525.1 237.0 3,288.1 2,393.2 895.1 415.5 104.0 271.7 791.2 103.9 PA Rhode Island 295.3 19.4 275.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.txt
  • July 61.8 88.9 34.5 40.4 75.9 64.5 61.9 65.5 August 62.0 88.8 34.3 41.9 76.1 64.6 62.9 60.3 September 61.3 88.8 34.4 38.1 78.6 67.2 65.8 68.8 October 61.1 88.7 35.5 35.1 75.8 64.3 62.7 59.8 November 60.0 88.5 32.9 34.4 73.3 62.4 59.8 47.7 December 59.5 88.3 31.9 33.7 73.4 60.0 61.7 46.1 2004January 59.2 88.2 32.1 32.0 74.0 61.2 62.6 43.1 February 58.3 87.2 30.4 32.7 74.5 60.0 64.6 41.7 March 58.4 88.1 30.5 30.4 73.3 60.5 62.4 35.8 April 57.8 87.5 29.4 31.0 72.9 60.9 60.9 39.6 May 57.1 86.9 28.5 30.2 71.6 60.5 58.4 39.5 June 57.4 87.1 28.7 30.9 72.5 60.2 60.6 38.8 July 57.0 87.0 27.6 31.4 71.5 59.8 58.5 40.4 August 57.1 86.7 27.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A9.txt
  • July 61.8 88.9 34.5 40.4 75.9 64.5 61.9 65.5 August 62.0 88.8 34.3 41.9 76.1 64.6 62.9 60.3 September 61.3 88.8 34.4 38.1 78.6 67.2 65.8 68.8 October 61.1 88.7 35.5 35.1 75.8 64.3 62.7 59.8 November 60.0 88.5 32.9 34.4 73.3 62.4 59.8 47.7 December 59.5 88.3 31.9 33.7 73.4 60.0 61.7 46.1 2004January 59.2 88.2 32.1 32.0 74.0 61.2 62.6 43.1 February 58.3 87.2 30.4 32.7 74.5 60.0 64.6 41.7 March 58.4 88.1 30.5 30.4 73.3 60.5 62.4 35.8 April 57.8 87.5 29.4 31.0 72.9 60.9 60.9 39.6 May 57.1 86.9 28.5 30.2 71.6 60.5 58.4 39.5 June 57.4 87.1 28.7 30.9 72.5 60.2 60.6 38.8 July 57.0 87.0 27.6 31.4 71.5 59.8 58.5 40.4 August 57.1 86.7 27.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264309A1.txt
  • 11.5 5.9 $15,601 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 89.6 279,527,222 56.8 7.5 12.2 13.5 10.0 El Salvador $165,984,847 33.2 34.1 9.2 9.5 14.0 $7,478,573 34.9 4.6 35.9 13.7 10.9 $602,858 0.0 12.2 0.3 0.0 87.5 1,665,799,218 32.6 32.8 5.9 9.8 18.8 Guatemala $431,452,856 71.5 14.2 6.0 1.9 6.5 $6,320,838 16.6 2.7 30.7 25.7 24.4 $1,378,374 0.0 23.4 0.1 0.0 76.6 2,882,032,949 61.2 16.5 7.3 2.1 12.8 Honduras $144,530,976 15.0 5.6 58.6 15.3 5.5 $5,444,994 20.0 0.0 37.9 32.7 9.3 $9,105 0.0 0.0 47.2 0.0 52.8 609,239,439 11.0 3.7 65.9 13.5 6.0 Mexico $856,295,408 24.9 14.8 36.9 10.2 13.1 $68,343,712 20.3 1.7 69.3 4.2 4.6 $547,660 0.0 18.7 18.3 0.0 63.0 12,562,145,227 21.8 13.0 40.9 3.9 20.4 Nicaragua $54,496,904 55.5 9.5 13.3 13.0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266596A1.txt
  • 99.3 99.5 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 118-268 91.5 93.3 96.7 97.9 98.2 99.2 98.1 99.1 99.7 99.8 99.8 99.8 67-118 85.9 89.3 95.0 97.5 98.0 98.8 95.0 97.1 99.1 99.7 99.7 99.8 41-67 76.1 83.3 91.5 96.0 97.5 98.8 87.9 94.4 97.8 99.0 99.3 99.5 25-41 65.0 73.1 87.6 92.6 95.5 98.1 80.0 87.6 95.6 97.7 98.5 99.3 15-25 50.1 61.2 77.8 88.0 91.4 96.6 69.4 80.4 90.8 95.7 96.8 98.9 6-15 38.5 52.1 69.4 82.7 86.2 95.8 61.9 76.2 86.4 93.2 95.0 98.4 Fewer Than 6 27.5 43.3 59.7 73.5 74.8 88.3 49.9 67.9 80.9 88.9 91.8 96.2 Dec 2003 $53,494 to $291,938 96.1% 96.8% 98.3% 98.7% 98.8% 99.1 % 99.8% 99.6% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8 % 99.8% $43,617 to $53,478
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • July 61.8 88.9 34.5 40.4 75.9 64.5 61.9 65.5 August 62.0 88.8 34.3 41.9 76.1 64.6 62.9 60.3 September 61.3 88.8 34.4 38.1 78.6 67.2 65.8 68.8 October 61.1 88.7 35.5 35.1 75.8 64.3 62.7 59.8 November 60.0 88.5 32.9 34.4 73.3 62.4 59.8 47.7 December 59.5 88.3 31.9 33.7 73.4 60.0 61.7 46.1 2004January 59.2 88.2 32.1 32.0 74.0 61.2 62.6 43.1 February 58.3 87.2 30.4 32.7 74.5 60.0 64.6 41.7 March 58.4 88.1 30.5 30.4 73.3 60.5 62.4 35.8 April 57.8 87.5 29.4 31.0 72.9 60.9 60.9 39.6 May 57.1 86.9 28.5 30.2 71.6 60.5 58.4 39.5 June 57.4 87.1 28.7 30.9 72.5 60.2 60.6 38.8 July 57.0 87.0 27.6 31.4 71.5 59.8 58.5 40.4 August 57.1 86.7 27.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272545A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272545A2.txt
  • 11.8 0.0 4.157.2 27.0 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines $3,125,343 10.4 0.014.918.5 56.2 $70,201 0.0 0.0 8.912.2 79.0 $16,956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 18,436,529 10.9 0.014.125.6 49.4 Trinidad and Tobago $37,328,121 52.7 0.0 0.312.0 35.0 $1,435,764 25.4 0.0 8.310.1 56.2 $289,140 72.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 27.6 412,530,904 62.2 0.0 2.1 6.4 29.3 Turks and Caicos Islands $2,535,638 9.1 0.0 0.029.7 61.2 $125,088 0.0 0.0 0.034.2 65.8 $1,297 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 99.9 15,401,945 9.3 0.0 0.025.3 65.4 Virgin Islands, British $3,241,457 1.5 0.0 8.210.9 79.4 $447,739 0.0 0.060.9 5.6 33.5 $13,891 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 24,816,136 1.6 0.038.6 8.9 50.9 Navassa Island $0 $0 $0 0 Puerto Rico $3,219 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $70 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $0 57,136 0.0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277784A1.txt
  • 93.3 96.7 97.9 98.2 99.2 99.3 98.1 99.1 99.7 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 67-118 85.9 89.3 95.0 97.5 98.0 98.8 99.0 95.0 97.1 99.1 99.7 99.7 99.8 99.8 41-67 76.1 83.3 91.5 96.0 97.5 98.8 99.1 87.9 94.4 97.8 99.0 99.3 99.5 99.5 25-41 65.0 73.1 87.6 92.6 95.5 98.1 98.6 80.0 87.6 95.6 97.7 98.5 99.3 99.5 15-25 50.1 61.2 77.8 88.0 91.4 96.6 97.8 69.4 80.4 90.8 95.7 96.8 98.9 99.1 6-15 38.5 52.1 69.4 82.7 86.2 95.8 97.2 61.9 76.2 86.4 93.2 95.0 98.4 98.7 Fewer Than 6 27.5 43.3 59.7 73.5 74.8 88.3 89.8 49.9 67.9 80.9 88.9 91.8 96.2 96.8 Dec 2003 $53,494 to $291,938 96.1% 96.8% 98.3% 98.7% 98.8% 99.1 % 99.4 % 99.8% 99.6%
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284321A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284321A2.txt
  • 0.518.5 66.4 $1,403,257 0.0 4.8 0.032.2 62.9 $397,523 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 124,126,780 0.0 5.2 0.619.5 74.7 Paraguay $5,804,588 0.019.9 1.7 7.7 70.7 $342,408 0.015.6 0.023.9 60.5 $14,881 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 41,901,120 0.022.1 3.312.2 62.4 Peru $65,903,166 0.014.2 0.927.3 57.5 $3,410,913 0.014.6 0.012.8 72.5 $5,365,638 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 1,389,679,727 0.0 4.6 1.524.1 69.7 Suriname $6,902,343 0.0 7.5 0.031.3 61.2 $212,771 0.0 0.0 0.030.5 69.5 $90,348 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 46,368,028 0.0 3.1 0.040.5 56.4 Uruguay $11,260,103 0.018.9 0.213.1 67.7 $385,082 0.013.9 0.019.6 66.5 $288,540 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 97.3 121,085,826 0.011.7 0.318.3 69.6 Venezuela $43,909,469 1.740.4 0.310.9 46.7 $3,298,920 0.0 7.7 0.070.2 22.1 $367,868 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 465,306,986 0.720.9 0.227.7 50.5 South America $589,982,403 0.125.6 0.816.6 56.9 $37,098,987
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • July 61.8 88.9 34.5 40.4 75.9 64.5 61.9 65.5 August 62.0 88.8 34.3 41.9 76.1 64.6 62.9 60.3 September 61.3 88.8 34.4 38.1 78.6 67.2 65.8 68.8 October 61.1 88.7 35.5 35.1 75.8 64.3 62.7 59.8 November 60.0 88.5 32.9 34.4 73.3 62.4 59.8 47.7 December 59.5 88.3 31.9 33.7 73.4 60.0 61.7 46.1 2004January 59.2 88.2 32.1 32.0 74.0 61.2 62.6 43.1 February 58.3 87.2 30.4 32.7 74.5 60.0 64.6 41.7 March 58.4 88.1 30.5 30.4 73.3 60.5 62.4 35.8 April 57.8 87.5 29.4 31.0 72.9 60.9 60.9 39.6 May 57.1 86.9 28.5 30.2 71.6 60.5 58.4 39.5 June 57.4 87.1 28.7 30.9 72.5 60.2 60.6 38.8 July 57.0 87.0 27.6 31.4 71.5 59.8 58.5 40.4 August 57.1 86.7 27.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291391A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291391A2.txt
  • $6,943,415 0.0 34.1 0.8 10.7 54.3 $453,294 0.0 0.6 0.0 6.8 92.6 $22,304 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 70,805,593 0.0 11.1 1.4 14.0 73.5 Croatia $5,018,426 0.0 16.2 10.4 16.5 56.9 $105,397 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.4 69.6 $3,583 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 58,052,283 0.0 6.1 31.7 21.1 41.1 Czech Republic $10,655,238 0.0 39.6 2.1 13.0 45.3 $283,121 0.0 33.4 0.0 5.4 61.2 $23,701 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 101,661,497 0.0 20.6 3.7 13.5 62.3 Estonia $2,311,227 0.0 2.4 2.9 57.3 37.4 $30,357 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.8 5.2 $474 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 16,595,458 0.0 1.2 20.6 37.9 40.3 Georgia $2,674,880 0.0 11.7 0.8 50.5 37.0 $27,884 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.0 43.0 $532 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 33,862,787 0.0 6.1 1.6 54.4 37.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.txt
  • 82.1 August 86.0 84.3 63.9 76.3 101.6 90.0 81.1 September 86.5 85.2 63.5 77.6 101.5 88.9 80.5 October 84.9 83.4 63.3 75.5 102.7 88.0 80.2 November 82.2 79.0 62.6 70.4 101.3 90.5 79.3 December 83.7 81.3 62.1 73.5 98.7 89.6 78.7 2009January 82.7 79.9 61.8 71.9 94.5 89.8 78.3 February 81.1 77.6 61.6 69.3 93.5 90.1 77.9 March 80.0 76.2 61.2 67.6 93.8 90.0 77.3 April 79.5 75.9 60.1 67.7 94.3 88.7 76.0 May 78.5 75.3 59.3 67.2 97.7 86.8 74.8 June 79.1 76.8 58.6 69.3 99.7 84.8 73.8 July 80.2 78.7 57.8 72.0 100.1 83.3 72.4 Table 7.5 Monthly Producer Price Indices - Continued (December 2003 = 100) Note: The values for the last several months are subject to revision.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A9.txt
  • 82.1 August 86.0 84.3 63.9 76.3 101.6 90.0 81.1 September 86.5 85.2 63.5 77.6 101.5 88.9 80.5 October 84.9 83.4 63.3 75.5 102.7 88.0 80.2 November 82.2 79.0 62.6 70.4 101.3 90.5 79.3 December 83.7 81.3 62.1 73.5 98.7 89.6 78.7 2009January 82.7 79.9 61.8 71.9 94.5 89.8 78.3 February 81.1 77.6 61.6 69.3 93.5 90.1 77.9 March 80.0 76.2 61.2 67.6 93.8 90.0 77.3 April 79.5 75.9 60.1 67.7 94.3 88.7 76.0 May 78.5 75.3 59.3 67.2 97.7 86.8 74.8 June 79.1 76.8 58.6 69.3 99.7 84.8 73.8 July 80.2 78.7 57.8 72.0 100.1 83.3 72.4 Table 7.5 Monthly Producer Price Indices - Continued (December 2003 = 100) Note: The values for the last several months are subject to revision.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296480A1.txt
  • 100 Ohio 23,540 45.8 960 1.9 147 0.3 1,138 2.2 560 1.1 24,999 48.7 51,343 Oklahoma 6,572 34.1 526 2.7 49 0.3 438 2.3 215 1.1 11,483 59.5 19,283 Oregon 7,746 50.7 64 0.4 122 0.8 405 2.7 222 1.5 6,706 43.9 15,266 Pennsylvania 28,414 49.2 168 0.3 691 1.2 1,575 2.7 430 0.7 26,521 45.9 57,799 Puerto Rico 3,671 61.2 0 0.0 40 0.7 169 2.8 79 1.3 2,041 34.0 5,999 Rhode Island 3,101 59.7 3 0.1 55 1.1 117 2.2 27 0.5 1,895 36.5 5,198 South Carolina 8,725 48.0 687 3.8 109 0.6 636 3.5 334 1.8 7,699 42.3 18,189 South Dakota 1,405 23.8 24 0.4 10 0.2 88 1.5 78 1.3 4,296 72.8 5,901 Tennessee 12,973 49.6 843
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301505A1.txt
  • 552.5 258.4 85.6 190.8 534.8 17.8 ME Maryland 8,998.0 555.9 8,442.0 5,686.6 2,755.5 1,169.5 408.6 1,167.6 2,745.7 9.8 MD Massachusetts 11,727.8 543.6 11,184.2 7,098.8 4,085.4 1,250.9 588.9 2,168.2 4,008.0 77.4 MA Michigan 13,834.4 448.0 13,386.5 10,292.1 3,094.4 1,867.3 649.6 569.3 3,086.2 8.2 MI Minnesota 5,049.3 80.5 4,968.9 3,504.9 1,464.0 714.2 217.0 527.8 1,459.0 5.0 MN Mississippi 4,131.3 57.1 4,074.2 3,013.0 1,061.2 732.5 125.3 193.6 1,051.4 9.8 MS Missouri 8,380.9 183.1 8,197.8 5,785.8 2,412.1 1,303.1 365.7 735.7 2,404.5 7.5 MO Montana 938.8 (6.9) 945.7 632.8 312.9 150.0 68.2 94.1 312.3 0.6 MT Nebraska 2,200.6 33.5 2,167.0 1,469.8 697.2 293.4 172.0 228.3 693.7 3.5 NE Nevada 2,772.4 25.2 2,747.2 2,039.0 708.1 370.1 232.7 101.4 704.2 3.9 NV New Hampshire 2,326.9 52.9 2,274.0 1,488.4
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.txt
  • 100 Ohio 23,540 45.8 960 1.9 147 0.3 1,138 2.2 560 1.1 24,999 48.7 51,343 Oklahoma 6,572 34.1 526 2.7 49 0.3 438 2.3 215 1.1 11,483 59.5 19,283 Oregon 7,746 50.7 64 0.4 122 0.8 405 2.7 222 1.5 6,706 43.9 15,266 Pennsylvania 28,414 49.2 168 0.3 691 1.2 1,575 2.7 430 0.7 26,521 45.9 57,799 Puerto Rico 3,671 61.2 0 0.0 40 0.7 169 2.8 79 1.3 2,041 34.0 5,999 Rhode Island 3,101 59.7 3 0.1 55 1.1 117 2.2 27 0.5 1,895 36.5 5,198 South Carolina 8,725 48.0 687 3.8 109 0.6 636 3.5 334 1.8 7,699 42.3 18,189 South Dakota 1,405 23.8 24 0.4 10 0.2 88 1.5 78 1.3 4,296 72.8 5,901 Tennessee 12,973 49.6 843
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • 82.1 August 86.0 84.3 63.9 76.3 101.6 90.0 81.1 September 86.5 85.2 63.5 77.6 101.5 88.9 80.5 October 84.9 83.4 63.3 75.5 102.7 88.0 80.2 November 82.2 79.0 62.6 70.4 101.3 90.5 79.3 December 83.7 81.3 62.1 73.5 98.7 89.6 78.7 2009January 82.7 79.9 61.8 71.9 94.5 89.8 78.3 February 81.1 77.6 61.6 69.3 93.5 90.1 77.9 March 80.0 76.2 61.2 67.6 93.8 90.0 77.3 April 79.5 75.9 60.1 67.7 94.3 88.7 76.0 May 78.5 75.3 59.3 67.2 97.7 86.8 74.8 June 79.1 76.8 58.6 69.3 99.7 84.8 73.8 July 80.2 78.7 57.8 72.0 100.1 83.3 72.5 August 77.5 76.0 55.6 69.5 98.7 80.6 69.5 September 74.1 72.6 55.5 65.4 95.7 77.6 69.4 October 70.7 68.6 55.7 60.6 93.3 75.7 69.8
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A9.txt
  • 82.1 August 86.0 84.3 63.9 76.3 101.6 90.0 81.1 September 86.5 85.2 63.5 77.6 101.5 88.9 80.5 October 84.9 83.4 63.3 75.5 102.7 88.0 80.2 November 82.2 79.0 62.6 70.4 101.3 90.5 79.3 December 83.7 81.3 62.1 73.5 98.7 89.6 78.7 2009January 82.7 79.9 61.8 71.9 94.5 89.8 78.3 February 81.1 77.6 61.6 69.3 93.5 90.1 77.9 March 80.0 76.2 61.2 67.6 93.8 90.0 77.3 April 79.5 75.9 60.1 67.7 94.3 88.7 76.0 May 78.5 75.3 59.3 67.2 97.7 86.8 74.8 June 79.1 76.8 58.6 69.3 99.7 84.8 73.8 July 80.2 78.7 57.8 72.0 100.1 83.3 72.5 August 77.5 76.0 55.6 69.5 98.7 80.6 69.5 September 74.1 72.6 55.5 65.4 95.7 77.6 69.4 October 70.7 68.6 55.7 60.6 93.3 75.7 69.8
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-107A1.txt
  • In the Order, we agreed with Bell Atlantic that the challenged provisions of Global NAPs' Tariff violated section 201(b) of the Act. We concluded that, as of their filing date, Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff were unlawful in two respects. First, we found that the challenged Tariff provisions were not ``clear and explicit,'' as required by section 61.2 of our rules, because ``those provisions condition the imposition of charges on circumstances that were indeterminate when the [T]ariff took effect and remain indeterminate today.'' Specifically, the challenged Tariff provisions purported to apply only to ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs received no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement. In this instance, the parties had executed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.txt
  • defined signal level shall be deemed protected when the undesired signal is at or below 45 dB above the noise floor. Thus for a 6 MHz channel, the minimum co-channel undesired signal level that must be maintained would be -136.2 dBW or -106.2 dBm; the minimum adjacent channel undesired signal level that must be maintained would be -91.2 dBW or -61.2 dBm. These studies shall be conducted based exclusively upon the levels of the desired and undesired signals without consideration of the receiver noise figure. Similar methods shall be used in conducting the various desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio studies for co-channel and adjacent channel interference. In all of these studies, the analysis shall use the aggregate power of each regional class
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-289A1.txt
  • 00-289 B-14 Table 9E: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by County Service Block POPs in Those Counties (1)% of Total US POPs Square Miles in Those Counties % of Total US Counties A 181.1 million 71.6% 676,000 18.8% B 189.4 million 74.9% 714,000 19.8% C (4) 36.5 million 14.4% 200,000 5.6% D 95.9 million 37.9% 340,000 9.4% E 61.2 million 24.2% 308,000 8.6% F 39.3 million 15.5% 223,000 6.2% Table 9F: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by BTA Service BlockNumber of BTAs (3)POPs in Those BTAs (1) % of Total US POPs A 210 198,472,177 78.6% B 250 209,357,087 82.9% C (4) 83 37,926,975 15.0% D 132 108,837,628 43.1% E 96 68,165,625 27.0% F 63 43,968,412 17.4%
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.txt
  • handed off to Global NAPs for delivery to its Internet Service Provider (``ISP'') customers. We agree with Verizon that Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff is unjust and unreasonable under section 201(b) of the Act because: (1) it conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding regarding the scope of their interconnection agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey; and (2) it violates section 61.2 of our rules, which provides that tariffs must be clear and explicit. We therefore grant Verizon's complaint. Background Verizon and Global NAPs have interconnection agreements in at least eight states. The circumstances under which they reached agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey are especially relevant and require brief description. On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and Verizon entered into an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-127A1.txt
  • ISP Tariff were void ab initio under section 201(b) of the Act, for two reasons. First, the filing of the Second ISP Tariff conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding that their interconnection agreements alone would govern whether Global NAPs would receive compensation for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic. Second, Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff was indeterminate, in violation of section 61.2 of our rules, which requires that tariffs be clear and explicit as to their proper application. In its Petition, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs asserts that the Order's finding of a mutual understanding not to file a federal tariff imposing charges for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic lacks record support and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.txt
  • LEC Corp. at 8 and Exh. 1 (filed Aug. 15, 2002) (CTC et al. Opposition); BellSouth Tariff FCC No. 1, Transmittal No. 657, Letter from Jonathan D. Lee, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CompTel to Tamara Preiss Chief, Pricing Division [sic] at 2 (filed July 1, 2002) (CompTel July 1 Ex Parte Letter). 47 U.S.C. § 208. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.2 and 61.54(j). See Petition for Emergency Declaratory and Other Relief, WC Docket No. 02-202, CompTel July 1 Ex Parte Letter at 3 (describing special access [billed in advance] as ``the primary access service that most [competitive] LECs use''). Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-337 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-337  Š Ľ Š Ľ Š Ľ    @ ˙˙
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-33A1.txt
  • 79.5 83.8 94.3 97.8 98.5 60-70 $34,744 to $38,395 59.9 74.5 80.0 91.5 96.6 97.9 50-60 $32,122 to $34,743 55.3 71.2 77.3 90.0 95.9 97.4 40-50 $29,893 to $32,121 53.7 67.4 73.4 88.9 94.5 96.3 30-40 $27,542 to $29,892 50.4 66.9 73.5 86.1 93.8 95.9 20-30 $24,855 to $27,541 50.1 65.1 69.6 85.7 93.1 95.2 10-20 $21,645 to $24,855 46.3 61.2 67.4 83.0 91.1 93.9 0-10 $0 to $21,644 41.7 54.9 59.1 83.8 91.5 94.1 1/ Some previously published data have been revised. Percent of Population in Decile that Resides in Zip Codes with High-Speed Service Jun 2001 Table 12 Percent of Zip Codes in Decile with at Least One High-Speed Subscriber Dec 2000 Jun 2001 Dec 1999 Table 11 High-Speed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-244A1.txt
  • tariff are violated. The specific regulations involved and the action(s) which will be taken by this Company are as specified in 2.8.2, 2.8.3 and 2.8.4 following.''). We reject AT&T's argument that these provisions authorized AT&T to ``suspend the customer's right to transfer service.'' See Opposition at 11 n.11 (emphasis added); see also AT&T Further Comments at 11. Pursuant to Rule 61.2, titled ``Clear and explicit explanatory statements,'' as in effect in January 1995, ``[i]n order to remove all doubt as to their proper application, all tariff publications must contain clean [sic] and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 (1994). It is a well settled rule of tariff interpretation that ```[t]ariffs are to be interpreted according
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.txt
  • LECs). See Verizon Wireless White Paper at 19 n.58 (``CMRS carriers wield as much `monopoly power' here as CLECs do in the situations described in the [CLEC Access Reform Order].''). See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 551(4); Bowen v. Georgetown University Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S. Ct. 468, 471-72 (1988). 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). See also 47 C.F.R. § 61.2(a). See ITC DeltaCom Communications, Inc. v. US LEC Corp. et al., No. 3:02-CV-116-JTC (N.D. Ga. March 15, 2004) (holding that an IXC has no duty to pay a competitive LEC for transiting wireless toll-free calls where the terms of the competitive LEC's tariff cover only access to the competitive LEC's own end-users or transport of traffic that originates or terminates
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.txt
  • requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not ``clear and explicit'' as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern Valley to revise its Tariff within ten days of release of this Order. We decline, however, to declare the Tariff void ab initio or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • and Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities Authorizations Thereof Communications Protocols under Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, CC Docket No. 85-229, Report and Order, 104 FCC 2d 958, paras. 214-17, 220-22 (1986) (requiring the identification and tariffing of certain Basic Service Elements underlying enhanced services). See also, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 61.2(a) (``In order to remove all doubt as to their proper application, all tariff publications must contain clear and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations.''); 47 C.F.R. § 61.54(j) (``The general rules (including definitions), regulations, exceptions, and conditions which govern the tariff must be stated clearly and definitely.''). . . AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. at 384.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.txt
  • an interstate or foreign telecommunications service''). Complaint, Exhibit B (Tariff) at Original Page No. 8. On the other hand, it defines ``end user'' as an entity that does not pay (an end user ``need not purchase any service provided by [Northern Valley]''). Id. This inconsistency may violate the Commission's requirement that tariffs be ``clear and explicit.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 61.2(a). We do not address this issue, however, because Qwest did not raise it, and both parties assert that the Tariff's ``end user'' definition establishes that Northern Valley may impose charges for calls to or from parties that have not purchased services from Northern Valley. See, e.g., Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., 550 U.S. 45, 52-55 (2007) (citations
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 161, IT IS ORDERED that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF the rulemaking described above and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT on these issues. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-164 13 APPENDIX A PROPOSED REVISIONS TO PART 61 1. Insert before Section 61.1, "Subpart A - Preface". 2. Redesignate Section 61.2 as Section 61.2(a), Section 61.35 as Section 61.2(b), and Section 61.36 as Section 61.2(c), and revise the heading for Section 61.2 as follows: § 61.2 General Tariff Requirements. 3. Revise Section 61.3 as follows: § 61.3 Definitions. * * * (e) Base period. For carriers subject to §§ 61.41-61.49, the 12-month period ending six months prior to the effective date
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1997/fc97115a.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1997/fc97115a.wp
  • 698.6 536.0 32977 2225 31649 2223 0.0 0.0 99.3 AZPHOENIX 10 23 626.1 558.0 33986 2225 31701 2216 0.0 0.0 99.7 AZPHOENIX 15 14 50.0 521.0 21332 2209 19733 2207 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPHOENIX 21 20 50.0 489.0 20189 2209 18885 2200 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPHOENIX 33 34 76.9 521.0 18207 2205 17530 2195 0.7 0.7 100.0 AZPHOENIX 45 26 61.2 545.0 23153 2219 20843 2202 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPHOENIX 61 49 58.8 541.0 18332 2205 17585 2192 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPRESCOTT 7 25 50.0 856.0 18534 170 16876 137 0.3 0.0 99.8 AZSIERRAVISTA 58 44 50.0 81.0 4915 59 4711 59 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZTOLLESON 51 52 195.1 533.0 24691 2219 23161 2208 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZTUCSON 4 31 461.81100.0
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Reports/fcc00289.pdf
  • 00-289 B-14 Table 9E: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by County Service Block POPs in Those Counties (1)% of Total US POPs Square Miles in Those Counties % of Total US Counties A 181.1 million 71.6% 676,000 18.8% B 189.4 million 74.9% 714,000 19.8% C (4) 36.5 million 14.4% 200,000 5.6% D 95.9 million 37.9% 340,000 9.4% E 61.2 million 24.2% 308,000 8.6% F 39.3 million 15.5% 223,000 6.2% Table 9F: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by BTA Service BlockNumber of BTAs (3)POPs in Those BTAs (1) % of Total US POPs A 210 198,472,177 78.6% B 250 209,357,087 82.9% C (4) 83 37,926,975 15.0% D 132 108,837,628 43.1% E 96 68,165,625 27.0% F 63 43,968,412 17.4%
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3574A1.html
  • the filed rate doctrine. According to the complaint, the District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve the issues concerning the filed rate doctrine and the lawfulness of MCIW's tariff.2 Garin further alleges in the formal complaint that MCIW violated sections 201(b) of the Act 3 and sections 61.25, 61.74, and 61.2 of the Commission's rules 4 by cross-referencing the tariffs of local exchange carriers and by being impermissibly vague in its tariff.5 Subsequent to that filing by Complainants, the parties to this proceeding reached a settlement of their dispute. On December 17, 2002, Complainant filed a Withdrawal of Formal Complaint, requesting that the Commission allow Garin to simply withdraw its complaint.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-127A1.html
  • ISP Tariff were void ab initio under section 201(b) of the Act, for two reasons. First, the filing of the Second ISP Tariff conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding that their interconnection agreements alone would govern whether Global NAPs would receive compensation for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic.11 Second, Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff was indeterminate, in violation of section 61.2 of our rules,12 which requires that tariffs be clear and explicit as to their proper application.13 In its Petition, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs asserts that the Order's finding of a mutual understanding not to file a federal tariff imposing charges for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic lacks record support and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-111A1.html
  • requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not "clear and explicit" as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern Valley to revise its Tariff within ten days of release of this Order. We decline, however, to declare the Tariff void ab initio or
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-87A1.html
  • an interstate or foreign telecommunications service"). Complaint, Exhibit B (Tariff) at Original Page No. 8. On the other hand, it defines "end user" as an entity that does not pay (an end user "need not purchase any service provided by [Northern Valley]"). Id. This inconsistency may violate the Commission's requirement that tariffs be "clear and explicit." See 47 C.F.R. S: 61.2(a). We do not address this issue, however, because Qwest did not raise it, and both parties assert that the Tariff's "end user" definition establishes that Northern Valley may impose charges for calls to or from parties that have not purchased services from Northern Valley. See, e.g., Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., 550 U.S. 45, 52-55 (2007) (citations
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001501.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001501.txt
  • and unreasonable practice, in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. In addition, Rainbow contends: (i) that Bell Atlantic failed to substantially perform or reasonably discharge its duty under the tariff, in violation of section 203(a) of the Act; (ii) that the tariff was ambiguous and should be construed to require the return of the deposit to Rainbow under section 61.2 of the Commission's rules; and (iii) that the tariff was void and should have been rescinded. Finally, Rainbow alleges that Bell Atlantic's failure to provide access to the video dialtone platform by denying it the necessary EPIC interface software was an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Rainbow seeks the return of its $345,600
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.txt
  • In the Order, we agreed with Bell Atlantic that the challenged provisions of Global NAPs' Tariff violated section 201(b) of the Act. We concluded that, as of their filing date, Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff were unlawful in two respects. First, we found that the challenged Tariff provisions were not ``clear and explicit,'' as required by section 61.2 of our rules, because ``those provisions condition the imposition of charges on circumstances that were indeterminate when the [T]ariff took effect and remain indeterminate today.'' Specifically, the challenged Tariff provisions purported to apply only to ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs received no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement. In this instance, the parties had executed
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.txt
  • handed off to Global NAPs for delivery to its Internet Service Provider (``ISP'') customers. We agree with Verizon that Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff is unjust and unreasonable under section 201(b) of the Act because: (1) it conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding regarding the scope of their interconnection agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey; and (2) it violates section 61.2 of our rules, which provides that tariffs must be clear and explicit. We therefore grant Verizon's complaint. Background Verizon and Global NAPs have interconnection agreements in at least eight states. The circumstances under which they reached agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey are especially relevant and require brief description. On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and Verizon entered into an
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • the tariffed charges at the time that they are allegedly incurred. We find that Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this tariff when the very applicability of the tariff has yet to be determined. . The contingent and unclear applicability of the tariff defies the Commission's longstanding interpretation of section 201(b) of the Act, as reflected in section 61.2 of our rules. Those authorities require that the applicability of the tariff rate, and its terms, be clear and explicit. . Moreover, it seems evident that any federal tariff purporting to govern inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic could be reasonable only if it mirrors any applicable terms of the party's interconnection agreement, as construed by the appropriate state commission. Using
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/papersAndStudies/fc000289.pdf
  • 00-289 B-14 Table 9E: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by County Service Block POPs in Those Counties (1)% of Total US POPs Square Miles in Those Counties % of Total US Counties A 181.1 million 71.6% 676,000 18.8% B 189.4 million 74.9% 714,000 19.8% C (4) 36.5 million 14.4% 200,000 5.6% D 95.9 million 37.9% 340,000 9.4% E 61.2 million 24.2% 308,000 8.6% F 39.3 million 15.5% 223,000 6.2% Table 9F: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by BTA Service BlockNumber of BTAs (3)POPs in Those BTAs (1) % of Total US POPs A 210 198,472,177 78.6% B 250 209,357,087 82.9% C (4) 83 37,926,975 15.0% D 132 108,837,628 43.1% E 96 68,165,625 27.0% F 63 43,968,412 17.4%
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/reports/documents/fc000289.pdf
  • 00-289 B-14 Table 9E: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by County Service Block POPs in Those Counties (1)% of Total US POPs Square Miles in Those Counties % of Total US Counties A 181.1 million 71.6% 676,000 18.8% B 189.4 million 74.9% 714,000 19.8% C (4) 36.5 million 14.4% 200,000 5.6% D 95.9 million 37.9% 340,000 9.4% E 61.2 million 24.2% 308,000 8.6% F 39.3 million 15.5% 223,000 6.2% Table 9F: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by BTA Service BlockNumber of BTAs (3)POPs in Those BTAs (1) % of Total US POPs A 210 198,472,177 78.6% B 250 209,357,087 82.9% C (4) 83 37,926,975 15.0% D 132 108,837,628 43.1% E 96 68,165,625 27.0% F 63 43,968,412 17.4%
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/reports/documents/fcc00289.doc
  • 38.6% Table 9E: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by County Service Block POPs in Those Counties (1) % of Total US POPs Square Miles in Those Counties % of Total US Counties A 181.1 million 71.6% 676,000 18.8% B 189.4 million 74.9% 714,000 19.8% C (4) 36.5 million 14.4% 200,000 5.6% D 95.9 million 37.9% 340,000 9.4% E 61.2 million 24.2% 308,000 8.6% F 39.3 million 15.5% 223,000 6.2% Table 9F: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by BTA Service Block Number of BTAs (3) POPs in Those BTAs (1) % of Total US POPs A 210 198,472,177 78.6% B 250 209,357,087 82.9% C (4) 83 37,926,975 15.0% D 132 108,837,628 43.1% E 96 68,165,625 27.0% F 63
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 161, IT IS ORDERED that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF the rulemaking described above and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT on these issues. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-164 13 APPENDIX A PROPOSED REVISIONS TO PART 61 1. Insert before Section 61.1, "Subpart A - Preface". 2. Redesignate Section 61.2 as Section 61.2(a), Section 61.35 as Section 61.2(b), and Section 61.36 as Section 61.2(c), and revise the heading for Section 61.2 as follows: § 61.2 General Tariff Requirements. 3. Revise Section 61.3 as follows: § 61.3 Definitions. * * * (e) Base period. For carriers subject to §§ 61.41-61.49, the 12-month period ending six months prior to the effective date
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99381.doc
  • the tariffed charges at the time that they are allegedly incurred. We find that Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this tariff when the very applicability of the tariff has yet to be determined. . The contingent and unclear applicability of the tariff defies the Commission's longstanding interpretation of section 201(b) of the Act, as reflected in section 61.2 of our rules. Those authorities require that the applicability of the tariff rate, and its terms, be clear and explicit. . Moreover, it seems evident that any federal tariff purporting to govern inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic could be reasonable only if it mirrors any applicable terms of the party's interconnection agreement, as construed by the appropriate state commission. Using
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99383.doc
  • (collectively, Complainants) against MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI). These essentially identical complaints challenged the lawfulness and application of the "Non-Subscriber" rates then contained in MCI's Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 (Tariff). The Commission concluded in the Halprin Order that (1) the Tariff's description of when certain customers would be charged MCI's "Non-Subscriber" rates was not "clear and explicit," in violation of Part 61.2 of the Commission's rules; (2) MCI's practice of charging certain "direct-dialed" calls at rates labelled in the Tariff as "Non-Subscriber" rates was unreasonable, in violation of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act); and (3) the complaints should be denied in all other respects. . Complainants and MCI filed Petitions for Reconsideration of the Halprin Order.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/hspd0202.pdf
  • 79.5 83.8 94.3 97.8 98.5 60-70 $34,744 to $38,395 59.9 74.5 80.0 91.5 96.6 97.9 50-60 $32,122 to $34,743 55.3 71.2 77.3 90.0 95.9 97.4 40-50 $29,893 to $32,121 53.7 67.4 73.4 88.9 94.5 96.3 30-40 $27,542 to $29,892 50.4 66.9 73.5 86.1 93.8 95.9 20-30 $24,855 to $27,541 50.1 65.1 69.6 85.7 93.1 95.2 10-20 $21,645 to $24,855 46.3 61.2 67.4 83.0 91.1 93.9 0-10 $0 to $21,644 41.7 54.9 59.1 83.8 91.5 94.1 1/ Some previously published data have been revised. Percent of Population in Decile that Resides in Zip Codes with High-Speed Service Jun 2001 Table 12 Percent of Zip Codes in Decile with at Least One High-Speed Subscriber Dec 2000 Jun 2001 Dec 1999 Table 11 High-Speed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/hspd0603.pdf
  • More Than 3,147 98.2% 98.1% 98.7% 99.9% 99.8% 100.0% 80-90 947-3,147 97.1 97.3 98.2 99.8 99.7 100.0 70-80 268-947 95.7 95.8 97.9 99.3 99.5 99.9 60-70 118-268 91.5 93.3 96.7 98.1 99.1 99.7 50-60 67-118 85.9 89.3 95.0 95.0 97.1 99.1 40-50 41-67 76.1 83.3 91.5 87.9 94.4 97.8 30-40 25-41 65.0 73.1 87.6 80.0 87.6 95.6 20-30 15-25 50.1 61.2 77.8 69.4 80.4 90.8 10-20 6-15 38.5 52.1 69.4 61.9 76.2 86.4 0-10 Fewer Than 6 27.5 43.3 59.7 49.9 67.9 80.9 Dec 2000 Dec 2000 90-100 $53,494 to $291,938 96.1% 96.8% 98.3% 99.8% 99.6% 99.9% 80-90 $43,617 to $53,478 88.9 91.7 95.3 99.0 99.3 99.8 70-80 $38,396 to $43,614 79.5 84.9 92.1 97.8 98.6 99.5 60-70 $34,744 to $38,395
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/hspd0604.pdf
  • 99.9% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 947-3,147 97.1 97.3 98.2 98.5 99.8 99.7 100.0 99.9 268-947 95.7 95.8 97.9 98.8 99.3 99.5 99.9 100.0 118-268 91.5 93.3 96.7 97.9 98.1 99.1 99.7 99.8 67-118 85.9 89.3 95.0 97.5 95.0 97.1 99.1 99.7 41-67 76.1 83.3 91.5 96.0 87.9 94.4 97.8 99.0 25-41 65.0 73.1 87.6 92.6 80.0 87.6 95.6 97.7 15-25 50.1 61.2 77.8 88.0 69.4 80.4 90.8 95.7 6-15 38.5 52.1 69.4 82.7 61.9 76.2 86.4 93.2 Fewer Than 6 27.5 43.3 59.7 73.5 49.9 67.9 80.9 88.9 Dec 2003 $53,494 to $291,938 96.1% 96.8% 98.3% 98.7% 99.8% 99.6% 99.9% 99.9% $43,617 to $53,478 88.9 91.7 95.3 97.4 99.0 99.3 99.8 99.9 $38,396 to $43,614 79.5 84.9 92.1 96.0 97.8 98.6 99.5
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/hspd0702.pdf
  • Than 3,147 96.1% 98.2% 98.1% 98.9% 99.9% 99.8% 80-90 947-3,147 93.2 97.1 97.3 98.5 99.8 99.7 70-80 268-947 87.5 95.7 95.8 96.2 99.3 99.5 60-70 118-268 77.7 91.5 93.3 91.4 98.1 99.1 50-60 67-118 66.9 85.9 89.3 83.3 95.0 97.1 40-50 41-67 53.7 76.1 83.3 72.3 87.9 94.4 30-40 25-41 40.9 65.0 73.1 60.0 80.0 87.6 20-30 15-25 29.8 50.1 61.2 50.9 69.4 80.4 10-20 6-15 26.7 38.5 52.1 50.2 61.9 76.2 0-10 Fewer Than 6 19.9 27.5 43.3 38.5 49.9 67.9 Dec 1999 Dec 2000 Dec 1999 90-100 $53,494 to $291,938 90.8% 96.1% 96.8% 98.4% 99.8% 99.6% 80-90 $43,617 to $53,478 77.1 88.9 91.7 95.8 99.0 99.3 70-80 $38,396 to $43,614 67.0 79.5 84.9 94.3 97.8 98.6 60-70 $34,744 to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/hspd0705.pdf
  • 100.0 99.9 99.9 268-947 95.7 95.8 97.9 98.8 99.1 99.3 99.5 99.9 100.0 100.0 118-268 91.5 93.3 96.7 97.9 98.2 98.1 99.1 99.7 99.8 99.8 67-118 85.9 89.3 95.0 97.5 98.0 95.0 97.1 99.1 99.7 99.7 41-67 76.1 83.3 91.5 96.0 97.5 87.9 94.4 97.8 99.0 99.3 25-41 65.0 73.1 87.6 92.6 95.5 80.0 87.6 95.6 97.7 98.5 15-25 50.1 61.2 77.8 88.0 91.4 69.4 80.4 90.8 95.7 96.8 6-15 38.5 52.1 69.4 82.7 86.2 61.9 76.2 86.4 93.2 95.0 Fewer Than 6 27.5 43.3 59.7 73.5 74.8 49.9 67.9 80.9 88.9 91.8 Dec 2003 $53,494 to $291,938 96.1% 96.8% 98.3% 98.7% 98.8% 99.8% 99.6% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% $43,617 to $53,478 88.9 91.7 95.3 97.4 97.6 99.0 99.3 99.8 99.9 99.9
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/lcomp98.pdf
  • 4.3 0.2 95.5 arrangements (credit card, collect, international call-back, etc.) other than revenue reported on line 42 44Other switched toll service (includes MTS, 800/888 8,349.9 304.4 53,405.8 62,060.1 13.5 0.5 86.1 service, etc.) 45Long distance private line services 921.5 54.2 8,243.7 9,219.4 10.0 0.6 89.4 46Satellite services 0.3 18.2 169.1 187.6 0.2 9.7 90.1 47All other long distance services 96.4 61.2 5,000.1 5,157.7 1.9 1.2 96.9 Total toll service (excluding Line 42 calls that both 9,803.3 465.6 77,589.9 87,858.8 11.2 0.5 88.2 originate and terminate in foreign points) Total end user revenue 77,080.2 1,420.4 108,090.7 186,591.3 41.3% 0.8%57.9% Total service provided for resale 27,553.0 1,010.5 13,696.3 42,259.8 65.2 2.4 32.4 Total end user revenue 77,080.2 1,420.4 108,090.8 186,591.4 41.3 0.8 57.9
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ldrpt101.pdf
  • 54.4 21.3 3.8 20.5 371 Kansas 65.1 4.1 12.9 17.8 241 Kentucky 59.8 18.6 2.7 18.9 366 Louisiana 72.3 14.4 3.4 9.9 354 Maine 78.7 12.6 3.1 5.5 127 Maryland 62.6 16.4 6.4 14.6 513 Massachusetts 71.8 16.1 3.7 8.4 490 Michigan 65.4 14.7 5.6 14.4 878 Minnesota 57.9 19.8 5.7 16.5 665 Mississippi 69.4 15.3 6.1 9.2 196 Missouri 61.2 12.8 8.9 17.1 515 Montana 63.8 12.9 2.6 20.7 116 Nebraska 62.6 15.0 3.1 19.4 227 Nevada 51.1 15.1 18.0 15.8 139 New Hampshire 67.7 13.1 5.1 14.1 99 New Jersey 76.4 12.4 3.4 7.8 653 New Mexico 63.6 17.1 6.2 13.2 129 New York 66.3 15.5 4.1 14.1 1,772 North Carolina 57.5 14.5 12.8 15.3 602 North Dakota 52.4
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/mksh3q98.pdf
  • 29 74.6 20.5 1.8 3.1 15 83.6 9.0 0.0 7.4 11 Florida 67.5 12.9 5.2 14.4 1,251 65.0 12.7 9.2 13.0 438 67.6 12.7 8.8 10.9 503 Georgia 60.8 12.3 6.5 20.5 471 75.7 9.7 3.2 11.4 169 73.6 11.7 6.5 8.2 127 Idaho 64.8 6.8 5.6 22.9 102 75.3 8.3 5.5 11.0 31 71.2 16.5 4.1 8.2 60 Illinois 61.2 15.5 5.2 18.0 892 63.5 14.4 11.5 10.6 289 69.0 19.7 2.6 8.7 342 Indiana 62.7 13.1 6.2 18.0 446 64.0 15.4 4.9 15.7 161 73.0 11.2 4.3 11.5 183 Iowa 53.3 21.3 3.3 22.0 256 65.1 11.7 2.5 20.8 104 70.6 12.6 10.0 6.7 146 Kansas 57.7 9.8 9.6 22.9 222 48.1 17.2 11.4 23.4 73 73.4 11.6 4.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/mksh4q98.pdf
  • 29 74.6 20.5 1.8 3.1 15 83.6 9.0 0.0 7.4 11 Florida 67.5 12.9 5.2 14.4 1,251 65.0 12.7 9.2 13.0 438 67.6 12.7 8.8 10.9 503 Georgia 60.8 12.3 6.5 20.5 471 75.7 9.7 3.2 11.4 169 73.6 11.7 6.5 8.2 127 Idaho 64.8 6.8 5.6 22.9 102 75.3 8.3 5.5 11.0 31 71.2 16.5 4.1 8.2 60 Illinois 61.2 15.5 5.2 18.0 892 63.5 14.4 11.5 10.6 289 69.0 19.7 2.6 8.7 342 Indiana 62.7 13.1 6.2 18.0 446 64.0 15.4 4.9 15.7 161 73.0 11.2 4.3 11.5 183 Iowa 53.3 21.3 3.3 22.0 256 65.1 11.7 2.5 20.8 104 70.6 12.6 10.0 6.7 146 Kansas 57.7 9.8 9.6 22.9 222 48.1 17.2 11.4 23.4 73 73.4 11.6 4.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • - Continued 1976January 55.6 73.3 February 55.8 73.4 March 55.9 73.8 April 56.1 73.8 May 56.5 73.9 June 56.8 74.0 July 57.1 74.1 August 57.4 75.0 September 57.6 74.9 October 57.9 75.0 November 58.0 75.3 December 58.2 75.3 1977January 58.5 74.5 February 59.1 74.7 March 59.5 74.8 April 60.0 75.0 May 60.3 75.0 June 60.7 75.1 July 61.0 75.1 August 61.2 75.3 September 61.4 75.4 October 61.6 75.5 November 61.9 75.6 December 62.1 75.7 69.2 83.4 85.4 1978January 62.5 75.7 69.2 82.9 85.5 February 62.9 75.8 69.8 82.7 84.9 March 63.4 75.8 69.7 82.7 85.1 April 63.9 76.0 70.0 82.6 85.6 May 64.5 76.0 69.9 82.6 85.5 June 65.2 76.0 69.9 82.7 85.5 July 65.7 76.1 70.1 82.7 85.5 August 66.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • 70.2 89.1 100.3 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 June 70.6 89.1 100.8 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.0 100.1 100.0 July 67.6 85.2 100.6 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.7 100.9 100.0 August 69.2 93.0 100.3 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.6 100.7 100.0 September 69.8 95.5 100.4 100.4 101.2 101.4 101.3 101.6 100.0 October 65.2 93.0 99.3 100.4 101.1 101.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 November 61.2 78.2 99.8 100.4 101.2 101.4 101.3 101.6 100.0 December 72.9 88.8 95.6 100.4 101.2 101.4 101.0 101.2 100.0 2001January 71.6 84.2 101.7 100.4 101.1 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 February 62.7 81.3 102.9 100.4 101.0 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 March 67.2 84.5 101.0 100.4 101.0 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 April 60.4 90.4 101.6 100.4 101.0 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 May 60.6
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref04.pdf
  • 100.4 101.2 100.9 March 76.1 90.8 100.2 100.4 101.2 100.5 April 74.3 88.5 100.6 100.4 101.2 100.6 May 70.2 89.1 100.3 100.4 101.2 100.0 June 70.6 89.1 100.8 100.4 101.2 100.0 July 67.6 85.2 100.6 100.4 101.2 100.7 August 69.2 93.0 100.3 100.4 101.2 100.6 September 69.8 95.5 100.4 100.4 101.2 101.3 October 65.2 93.0 99.3 100.4 101.1 100.0 November 61.2 78.2 99.8 100.4 101.2 101.3 December 72.9 88.8 95.6 100.4 101.2 101.0 2001January 71.6 84.2 101.7 100.4 101.1 101.5 February 62.7 81.3 102.9 100.4 101.0 101.5 March 67.2 84.5 101.0 100.4 101.0 101.5 April 60.4 90.4 101.6 100.4 101.0 101.5 May 60.6 90.1 101.4 100.3 100.7 101.5 June 65.0 93.2 101.2 100.3 101.0 101.5 July 56.9 92.6 100.3 100.3 101.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
  • July 61.8 88.9 34.5 40.4 75.9 64.5 61.9 65.5 August 62.0 88.8 34.3 41.9 76.1 64.6 62.9 60.3 September 61.3 88.8 34.4 38.1 78.6 67.2 65.8 68.8 October 61.1 88.7 35.5 35.1 75.8 64.3 62.7 59.8 November 60.0 88.5 32.9 34.4 73.3 62.4 59.8 47.7 December 59.5 88.3 31.9 33.7 73.4 60.0 61.7 46.1 2004January 59.2 88.2 32.1 32.0 74.0 61.2 62.6 43.1 February 58.3 87.2 30.4 32.7 74.5 60.0 64.6 41.7 March 58.4 88.1 30.5 30.4 73.3 60.5 62.4 35.8 April 57.8 87.5 29.4 31.0 72.9 60.9 60.9 39.6 May 57.1 86.9 28.5 30.2 71.6 60.5 58.4 39.5 June 57.4 87.1 28.7 30.9 72.5 60.2 60.6 38.8 July 57.0 87.0 27.6 31.4 71.5 59.8 58.5 40.4 August 57.1 86.7 27.9
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref97.pdf
  • 57.9 75.0 November 45.9 67.3 November 58.0 75.3 December 46.2 69.0 December 58.2 75.3 1974January 46.6 69.2 1977January 58.5 74.5 February 47.2 69.3 February 59.1 74.7 March 47.8 69.3 March 59.5 74.8 April 48.0 69.4 April 60.0 75.0 May 48.6 69.4 May 60.3 75.0 June 49.0 69.4 June 60.7 75.1 July 49.4 69.4 July 61.0 75.1 August 50.0 69.4 August 61.2 75.3 September 50.6 69.9 September 61.4 75.4 October 51.1 69.9 October 61.6 75.5 November 51.5 69.9 November 61.9 75.6 December 51.9 69.9 December 62.1 75.7 70 Appendix 1: BLS Price Indices Table A1-1 Consumer Price Indices (1982 - 1984 = 100) All Goods & Services All Telephone Services Local Services Interstate Toll Service Intrastate Toll Service 1977December 62.1 75.7 69.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref98.pdf
  • 1976 January 55.6 73.3 February 55.8 73.4 March 55.9 73.8 April 56.1 73.8 May 56.5 73.9 June 56.8 74.0 July 57.1 74.1 August 57.4 75.0 September 57.6 74.9 October 57.9 75.0 November 58.0 75.3 December 58.2 75.3 1977 January 58.5 74.5 February 59.1 74.7 March 59.5 74.8 April 60.0 75.0 May 60.3 75.0 June 60.7 75.1 July 61.0 75.1 August 61.2 75.3 September 61.4 75.4 October 61.6 75.5 November 61.9 75.6 December 62.1 75.7 69.2 83.4 85.4 1978 January 62.5 75.7 69.2 82.9 85.5 February 62.9 75.8 69.8 82.7 84.9 March 63.4 75.8 69.7 82.7 85.1 April 63.9 76.0 70.0 82.6 85.6 May 64.5 76.0 69.9 82.6 85.5 June 65.2 76.0 69.9 82.7 85.5 July 65.7 76.1 70.1 82.7 85.5 August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref99.pdf
  • 1976 January 55.6 73.3 February 55.8 73.4 March 55.9 73.8 April 56.1 73.8 May 56.5 73.9 June 56.8 74.0 July 57.1 74.1 August 57.4 75.0 September 57.6 74.9 October 57.9 75.0 November 58.0 75.3 December 58.2 75.3 1977 January 58.5 74.5 February 59.1 74.7 March 59.5 74.8 April 60.0 75.0 May 60.3 75.0 June 60.7 75.1 July 61.0 75.1 August 61.2 75.3 September 61.4 75.4 October 61.6 75.5 November 61.9 75.6 December 62.1 75.7 69.2 83.4 85.4 1978 January 62.5 75.7 69.2 82.9 85.5 February 62.9 75.8 69.8 82.7 84.9 March 63.4 75.8 69.7 82.7 85.1 April 63.9 76.0 70.0 82.6 85.6 May 64.5 76.0 69.9 82.6 85.5 June 65.2 76.0 69.9 82.7 85.5 July 65.7 76.1 70.1 82.7 85.5 August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend100.pdf
  • 0.0 0.0 Percentages for companies listed above (weighted average based on total lines served including those withheld 55.7% 67.9% 59.8% 42.2% 58.3% 47.7% 34.8% 51.5% 40.4% to maintain confidentiality) Holding Company Summary Ameritech 40.5% 55.8% 46.1% 59.4% 72.4% 64.2% 50.0% 65.6% 55.7% (for states reported above) Bell Atlantic 76.5 85.0 79.6 43.2 58.9 49.0 32.6 50.2 39.0 BellSouth 57.8 68.5 61.2 33.4 49.4 38.5 28.9 46.2 34.2 GTE 25.5 36.0 28.7 21.1 33.9 24.9 16.4 28.9 19.9 SBC @@ 64.9 75.1 68.6 51.5 66.3 57.0 41.0 56.4 46.6 Sprint 18.0 27.8 20.8 17.6 29.3 20.9 17.5 25.3 19.7 U S WEST 54.3 67.8 58.5 47.0 62.9 52.0 45.7 60.8 50.2 Source: Industry Analysis Division, Local Competition: August 1999 and fifth voluntary
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend200.pdf
  • 0.6 17.7 5,240 District of Columbia 14.7 31.9 14.3 39.1 3,357 Florida 56.6 19.7 8.5 15.2 177,347 Georgia 59.2 20.2 6.7 13.8 62,934 Idaho 47.6 21.9 1.9 28.6 9,416 Illinois 57.4 17.9 4.0 20.7 88,251 Indiana 51.7 21.9 10.4 16.0 43,339 Iowa 47.0 27.5 3.3 22.2 32,687 Kansas 59.3 5.0 7.9 27.8 19,350 Kentucky 50.8 21.3 1.8 26.1 32,412 Louisiana 61.2 19.9 2.9 16.0 28,922 Maine 70.7 19.6 4.0 5.7 6,963 Maryland 53.1 20.7 9.1 17.1 49,389 Massachusetts 56.8 25.6 3.3 14.3 36,519 Michigan 57.5 17.9 6.8 17.8 62,187 Minnesota 49.3 24.4 4.5 21.8 68,411 Mississippi 53.2 33.2 2.7 10.9 16,298 Missouri 54.9 16.6 9.2 19.3 37,674 Montana 44.4 19.9 5.6 30.0 10,402 Nebraska 56.3 19.7 2.8 21.2 15,979 Nevada 46.7
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend801.pdf
  • Carolina 2,653 2,849 3,053 3,393 720 3,070 3,790 1.41 42.9 South Dakota 488 584 602 635 154 562 716 0.27 46.6 Tennessee 3,467 3,880 4,302 4,553 884 4,044 4,928 1.84 42.2 Texas 12,871 14,563 15,943 17,576 4,095 14,937 19,032 7.09 47.9 Utah 1,112 1,284 1,443 1,557 344 1,447 1,790 0.67 61.0 Vermont 424 547 575 602 140 544 684 0.25 61.2 Virgin Islands 74 93 101 109 26 96 122 0.05 48.3 Virginia 5,061 5,646 6,179 6,576 1,443 5,577 7,020 2.61 38.7 Washington 3,995 4,438 4,613 5,080 1,213 4,490 5,703 2.12 42.7 West Virginia 1,143 1,240 1,337 1,383 304 1,133 1,437 0.54 25.8 Wisconsin 3,258 3,621 3,927 4,234 883 3,837 4,719 1.76 44.9 Wyoming 366 402 449 462 109 404 513
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trsrv-97.pdf
  • 2,366.3 1,353.3 3,719.6 0.1 * 0.1 10.0 9.9 19.9 2,376.4 1,363.2 3,739.6 37 Pay telephone coin revenues 1,827.5 40.6 1,868.1 0.2 * 0.2 5.2 5.9 11.1 1,832.9 46.5 1,879.4 38 Other local telecommunications service revenues 2,328.1 62.6 2,390.7 2.7 0.1 2.8 187.0 3.3 190.3 2,517.8 66.0 2,583.7 Total fixed local service 58,596.6 9,616.7 68,213.3 39.4 3.1 42.5 425.2 27.6 452.7 59,061.2 9,647.4 68,708.6 Mobile service (including wireless telephony, paging &messaging, and other mobile services): 39 Monthly and activation charges 280.0 0.8 280.8 13,805.8 756.5 14,562.3 181.8 3.0 184.8 14,267.7 760.3 15,027.9 40 Message charges including roaming but excluding 187.6 16.1 203.7 13,365.2 1,174.2 14,539.4 191.0 61.8 252.8 13,743.9 1,252.1 14,995.9 toll charges Total Mobile Service 467.6 16.9 484.5 27,171.1 1,930.6 29,101.7
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trsrv-97.pdf
  • 198.5 214.9 38.2 253.1 Providers All Wireless Service Providers 33.4 2,502.1 203.0 2,738.5 42.5 29,101.7 924.0 27,765.7 2,302.6 30,068.2 32,808.6 5,772.1 38,580.8 Interexchange Carriers (IXCs) 47.7 0.7 8,736.1 8,784.5 185.3 377.3 69,311.5 17,887.7 51,986.4 69,874.1 78,891.8 8,349.7 87,241.5 Operator Service Providers (OSPs) 2.4 35.2 37.6 41.0 1.7 493.1 263.7 272.0 535.7 573.6 95.0 668.5 Pre-paid Calling Card Providers 0.3 60.9 61.2 0.1 434.7 42.1 392.8 434.9 497.0 23.3 520.3 Satellite Service Carriers 577.2 577.2 0.6 0.3 96.1 1.8 95.2 97.0 674.3 2,073.5 2,747.8 Toll Resellers 21.9 0.9 1,015.4 1,038.2 224.6 57.7 5,557.0 2,092.5 3,746.9 5,839.3 7,142.7 153.5 7,296.2 Other Toll Carriers 0.1 161.1 161.2 1.0 0.6 103.8 20.8 84.7 105.5 326.2 44.8 371.0 All Toll Service Providers 72.4 1.6 10,585.8 10,659.8
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/utilizationdec2002.pdf
  • 2.3 174 0.9 9,877 53.2 18,583 Maine 2,008 37.5 15 0.3 66 1.2 82 1.5 27 0.5 3,152 58.9 5,350 Maryland 11,280 47.8 115 0.5 343 1.5 536 2.3 236 1.0 11,073 47.0 23,583 Massachusetts 15,911 44.3 144 0.4 697 1.9 754 2.1 203 0.6 18,170 50.6 35,879 Michigan 14,841 32.5 389 0.9 1,002 2.2 959 2.1 511 1.1 27,906 61.2 45,609 Minnesota 9,348 40.4 121 0.5 173 0.7 497 2.1 136 0.6 12,860 55.6 23,135 Mississippi 3,403 25.1 1,032 7.6 137 1.0 241 1.8 100 0.7 8,645 63.8 13,559 Missouri 8,549 31.5 739 2.7 761 2.8 471 1.7 236 0.9 16,351 60.3 27,107 Montana 1,179 22.4 50 0.9 46 0.9 76 1.4 25 0.5 3,889 73.9 5,265 Nebraska 2,815 29.7
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd00.pdf
  • 8.8 11.7 10.6 9.8 14.4 24.6 27.7 26.5 34.7 Eastern Europe n.a. n.a. 2.5 4.6 1.9 8.8 9.6 16.6 16.2 22.9 34.5 Middle East n.a. n.a. 8.0 7.3 7.2 7.5 9.1 13.6 14.2 19.6 31.6 North and Central America n.a. n.a. 109.9 61.0 62.7 83.1 96.9 101.9 114.3 117.3 176.1 Oceania n.a. n.a. 11.9 18.6 23.3 29.9 33.2 38.3 53.4 61.2 104.5 South America n.a. n.a. 21.4 21.2 22.3 28.7 34.1 50.0 63.4 96.9 120.6 Western Europe n.a. n.a. 91.4 122.5 136.0 158.3 186.4 232.3 314.9 244.8 204.4 Average for All Countries 208.0 201.4 309.0 323.4 366.1 440.9 514.2 660.7 850.9 921.51,201.2 Table 20 AT&T Basic Schedule Rates for 7-Minute, Peak-Period, Residential Customer Calls 18/ 22/ Rates as of Rates as
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd01.pdf
  • 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Percent Change 1997 to 2002 Australia $11.0 $15.9 $19.9 $21.8 $25.5 $40.1 $47.4 $81.6 $100.5 $74.4 $36.5 -9.2% Brazil 5.6 6.4 7.7 10.6 14.8 17.9 26.6 26.1 26.1 32.6 22.1 23.5 Canada 39.5 42.0 55.4 59.8 60.6 67.1 60.2 88.0 98.0 86.4 70.8 5.5 China 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.9 5.8 12.7 32.6 61.2 84.1 56.9 887.3 Colombia 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.7 6.0 7.0 15.3 18.2 23.7 12.9 15.8 127.1 Dominican Republic 1.9 1.7 2.5 4.1 5.2 6.4 4.8 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.1 -4.6 Egypt 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.1 1.4 4.8 2.3 2.2 2.1 94.5 El Salvador 1.8 0.3 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 2.2 3.8 7.3 4.4 2.3 67.4 France 12.1 13.6
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-7.pdf
  • 70.2 89.1 100.3 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 June 70.6 89.1 100.8 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.0 100.1 100.0 July 67.6 85.2 100.6 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.7 100.9 100.0 August 69.2 93.0 100.3 100.4 101.2 101.4 100.6 100.7 100.0 September 69.8 95.5 100.4 100.4 101.2 101.4 101.3 101.6 100.0 October 65.2 93.0 99.3 100.4 101.1 101.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 November 61.2 78.2 99.8 100.4 101.2 101.4 101.3 101.6 100.0 December 72.9 88.8 95.6 100.4 101.2 101.4 101.0 101.2 100.0 2001January 71.6 84.2 101.7 100.4 101.1 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 February 62.7 81.3 102.9 100.4 101.0 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 March 67.2 84.5 101.0 100.4 101.0 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 April 60.4 90.4 101.6 100.4 101.0 101.2 101.5 101.8 100.0 May 60.6
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-9.pdf
  • 13.5 17.1 12.1 13.2 18.9 15.2 9.2 13.7 Initial Trouble Reports per Thousand Lines 285.0 111.4 165.7 129.0 186.8 175.1 135.8 143.9 165.6 Total MSA 267.5 110.5 169.1 126.8 173.3 182.1 132.7 138.2 148.0 Total Non MSA 380.7 115.1 128.4 179.9 254.4 133.1 172.3 165.1 200.6 Total Residence 326.7 134.1 214.6 168.8 258.8 245.0 178.5 165.2 202.3 Total Business 174.8 61.2 75.1 58.9 71.9 81.8 65.1 95.0 69.0 Troubles Found per Thousand Lines 161.3 76.2 111.9 106.2 130.2 125.9 102.9 122.1 93.0 Repeat Troubles as a Pct. of Trouble Reports 19.8% 21.9% 28.3% 13.3% 15.9% 20.1% 18.9% 12.4% 19.6% Res. Complaints per Mill. Res. Access Lines 203.8 169.1 324.4 20.4 26.8 166.9 312.5 86.7 110.3 Bus.Complaints per Mill. Bus. Access Lines
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-7.pdf
  • July 61.8 88.9 34.5 40.4 75.9 64.5 61.9 65.5 August 62.0 88.8 34.3 41.9 76.1 64.6 62.9 60.3 September 61.3 88.8 34.4 38.1 78.6 67.2 65.8 68.8 October 61.1 88.7 35.5 35.1 75.8 64.3 62.7 59.8 November 60.0 88.5 32.9 34.4 73.3 62.4 59.8 47.7 December 59.5 88.3 31.9 33.7 73.4 60.0 61.7 46.1 2004January* 59.2 88.2 32.1 32.0 74.0 61.2 62.6 43.1 February* 58.3 87.2 30.4 32.7 74.5 60.0 64.6 41.7 March* 58.9 87.9 31.4 31.9 68.1 58.7 52.3 36.8 April* 57.8 87.5 29.4 31.0 72.9 60.9 60.9 39.6 Producer Price Indices - Continued 51711022113 5171102212 51711022121 51711022122 51711022123 5171102211 51711022111 51711022112 (June 1995 = 100) Table 7.5 7-15 Business Special Access Switched Toll Service, except Private Lines Outbound Business
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-1.pdf
  • 2,366.3 1,353.3 3,719.6 0.1 * 0.1 10.0 9.9 19.9 2,376.4 1,363.2 3,739.6 37 Pay telephone coin revenues 1,827.5 40.6 1,868.1 0.2 * 0.2 5.2 5.9 11.1 1,832.9 46.5 1,879.4 38 Other local telecommunications service revenues 2,328.1 62.6 2,390.7 2.7 0.1 2.8 187.0 3.3 190.3 2,517.8 66.0 2,583.7 Total fixed local service 58,596.6 9,616.7 68,213.3 39.4 3.1 42.5 425.2 27.6 452.7 59,061.2 9,647.4 68,708.6 * Mobile service (including wireless telephony, paging & messaging, and other mobile services): 39 Monthly and activation charges 280.0 0.8 280.8 13,805.8 756.514,562.3 181.8 3.0 184.8 14,267.7 760.3 15,027.9 40Message charges including roaming but excluding 187.6 16.1 203.7 13,365.21,174.214,539.4 191.0 61.8 252.8 13,743.9 1,252.1 14,995.9 toll charges Total Mobile Service 467.6 16.9 484.5 27,171.11,930.629,101.7 372.9 64.8 437.7 28,011.5
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-1.pdf
  • 4.3 2,352.5 6.5 2,072.3 291.1 2,363.4 2,790.1 1,446.7 4,236.8 11.3 3.2 14.5 178.4 20.1 49.6 148.9 198.5 214.9 38.2 253.1 33.4 2,502.1 203.0 2,738.5 42.5 29,101.7 924.0 27,765.7 2,302.6 30,068.2 32,808.6 5,772.1 38,580.8 47.7 0.7 8,736.1 8,784.5 185.3 377.3 69,311.5 17,887.7 51,986.4 69,874.1 78,891.8 8,349.7 87,241.5 2.4 35.2 37.6 41.0 1.7 493.1 263.7 272.0 535.7 573.6 95.0 668.5 0.3 60.9 61.2 0.1 434.7 42.1 392.8 434.9 497.0 23.3 520.3 577.2 577.2 0.6 0.3 96.1 1.8 95.2 97.0 674.3 2,073.5 2,747.8 21.9 0.9 1,015.4 1,038.2 224.6 57.7 5,557.0 2,092.5 3,746.9 5,839.3 7,142.7 153.5 7,296.2 0.1 161.1 161.2 1.0 0.6 103.8 20.8 84.7 105.5 326.2 44.8 371.0 72.4 1.610,585.810,659.8 452.7 437.7 75,996.1 20,308.5 56,578.0 76,886.5 88,105.6 10,739.7 98,845.3 $28,122.2$2,736.2$11,401.4$42,259.8 $68,708.6$30,023.9$87,297.7$116,756.7$69,273.5$186,030.1$228,851.1$25,633.2$254,484.2 1 - 14
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-7.pdf
  • 85.9 75.7 80.6 74.8 80.3 April 102.5 137.3 85.8 86.4 72.9 84.2 67.3 79.7 May 101.6 135.6 86.5 87.3 69.5 85.8 62.3 79.2 June 102.8 132.8 87.0 86.5 70.0 85.0 59.8 78.8 July * 102.1 128.5 86.2 85.8 74.5 82.9 58.2 79.1 August * 103.8 133.2 82.8 85.7 71.0 81.9 68.5 79.2 September * 103.3 137.6 83.5 86.4 74.0 82.6 61.2 78.9 October * 103.8 133.2 80.5 86.2 74.9 82.2 57.3 77.7 * Producer Price Indices are subject to revision four months after release 7 - 15 Table 7.6 Producer Price Indices (June 1995 =100) Outbound Business Special Access Switched Toll Service Intrastate Business Special Access Switched Toll Service, Outbound Interstate Business Special Access Switched Toll Service, Outbound International Business Special
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrd99-7.pdf
  • 65.6 75.9 67.2 70.1 75.3 79.6 69.9 72.9 65.4 67.0 78.0 83.4 65.2 71.2 63.5 63.0 74.7 82.9 65.4 70.5 62.3 63.5 76.5 86.8 70.9 73.3 64.7 69.5 74.4 83.7 75.7 72.0 63.1 66.0 73.6 82.4 74.5 71.2 60.0 61.9 70.7 74.5 79.3 63.0 58.3 61.5 74.8 80.2 69.2 67.2 58.8 69.9 74.2 79.1 69.2 66.0 57.0 68.7 72.1 80.1 61.2 63.8 55.7 60.8 68.0 73.3 68.8 61.7 54.9 55.8 7 - 17 Table 7.6 Producer Price Indices (June 1995 = 100) BLS Series ID 1995June July August September October November December 1996January February March April May June July August September October November December 1997January February March April May June July August September October November December 1998 January February March April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/QualSvc/qual02.pdf
  • 13.5 17.2 12.1 13.5 18.9 15.2 9.3 13.7 Initial Trouble Reports per Thousand Lines 285.0 111.4 171.4 129.0 197.8 175.1 135.8 143.9 165.6 Total MSA 267.5 110.5 170.5 126.8 186.2 182.1 132.7 138.2 148.0 Total Non MSA 381.2 115.1 181.4 179.9 255.3 133.1 172.3 165.0 200.6 Total Residence 327.3 134.1 221.2 168.8 272.6 245.0 178.5 165.2 202.3 Total Business 173.9 61.2 79.1 58.9 78.2 81.8 65.1 95.0 69.0 Troubles Found per Thousand Lines 161.3 76.2 118.7 106.2 141.7 125.9 102.9 122.0 93.0 Repeat Troubles as a Percent of Trouble Reports 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 Residential Complaints per Million Residential Access Lines 203.8 169.1 324.4 20.4 26.8 166.9 312.5 86.7 110.3 Business Complaints per Million Business Access
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/00socc.pdf
  • South Dakota 199.5 7.8 191.7 129.6 62.1 23.3 11.7 25.5 60.5 1.6SD Tennessee 2,002.2 121.6 1,880.6 1,394.4 486.2 237.0 85.9 140.1 463.0 23.2TN Texas 9,289.9 1,122.4 8,167.4 6,062.4 2,105.0 942.4 289.7 827.5 2,059.6 45.5TX Utah 781.2 50.0 731.2 495.2 236.0 101.1 40.2 86.9 228.3 7.8UT Vermont 256.0 10.4 245.7 173.0 72.7 28.5 19.9 20.9 69.3 3.4VT Virginia 3,191.7 223.3 2,968.4 2,061.2 907.2 406.3 143.8 320.7 870.8 36.4VA Washington 2,456.2 199.6 2,256.5 1,541.9 714.6 320.1 108.8 258.4 687.2 27.4WA West Virginia 656.6 22.3 634.4 454.7 179.7 97.6 33.1 42.8 173.5 6.2WV Wisconsin 1,668.2 89.4 1,578.8 1,183.1 395.7 169.7 71.2 144.4 385.4 10.4WI Wyoming 207.3 12.9 194.4 129.3 65.1 25.8 15.0 22.4 63.2 1.9WY Puerto Rico 1,164.7 104.0 1,060.7 740.5 320.2 204.8 75.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/00socc.pdf
  • 635.0 197.7 231.6 1,064.2 15.3 IN Iowa 1,530.1 115.9 1,414.2 957.1 457.0 204.8 91.8 158.7 455.4 1.7 IA Kansas 1,774.2 81.3 1,692.9 1,162.8 530.1 284.5 80.1 160.1 524.7 5.4 KS Kentucky 3,271.9 377.5 2,894.5 2,151.4 743.1 482.1 104.4 161.7 748.2 -5.1KY Louisiana 3,940.6 382.2 3,558.4 2,713.2 845.2 573.7 100.8 164.1 838.6 6.6 LA Maine 1,123.4 45.0 1,078.4 773.4 305.0 145.8 61.2 96.5 303.5 1.5ME Maryland 4,539.6 557.2 3,982.4 2,706.1 1,276.3 539.8 219.3 512.2 1,271.4 4.9MD Massachusetts 6,996.0 632.0 6,364.1 4,213.1 2,151.0 692.8 382.1 1,065.5 2,140.4 10.6MA Michigan 7,856.8 527.1 7,329.7 5,664.1 1,665.6 999.6 359.5 292.1 1,651.2 14.5 MI Minnesota 3,079.3 277.1 2,802.3 1,993.8 808.4 392.4 128.8 284.4 805.6 2.8MN Mississippi 2,383.3 262.0 2,121.3 1,570.1 551.2 373.4 72.8 100.1 546.4 4.8 MS
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/01socc.pdf
  • (7.2) 313.2 (320.4) (329.8) 54.5 33.2 7.4 13.6 54.2 0.267TN Texas 425.6 247.3 178.3 (15.1) 231.7 144.5 24.6 61.0 230.1 1.654TX Utah 392.4 309.4 83.0 54.0 38.5 19.2 7.1 11.9 38.2 0.292UT Vermont (70.3) (18.6) (51.7) (62.2) 11.6 5.2 2.7 3.3 11.2 0.336VT Virginia (518.0) (172.3) (345.7) (409.3) 138.5 70.0 23.8 44.1 137.8 0.702VA Washington 160.7 (346.1) 506.7 460.9 111.1 61.2 19.3 29.7 110.2 0.866WA West Virginia (25.4) (3.6) (21.8) (33.2) 21.5 11.7 4.4 5.3 21.4 0.148WV Wisconsin (541.7) (168.5) (373.2) (380.5) 101.0 57.9 22.6 19.7 100.2 0.818WI Wyoming (0.6) 5.6 (6.2) (8.9) 6.2 3.7 1.2 1.2 6.1 0.021WY Puerto Rico 135.6 53.4 82.1 60.3 28.4 18.3 9.0 1.1 28.4 PR See notes following Table 2.16. 110 Statistics of Communications Common
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/02socc.pdf
  • 39 1,567,762 81.1 0 0.0 365,535 18.9 1,933,297 81.1 OK Oregon 33 1,836,016 88.1 74,303 3.6 172,641 8.3 2,082,960 91.7 OR Pennsylvania 36 6,677,804 83.5 977,012 12.2 346,705 4.3 8,001,521 95.7 PA Rhode Island 1 595,651 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 595,651 100.0 RI South Carolina 27 1,675,116 72.5 0 0.0 636,910 27.5 2,312,026 72.5 SC South Dakota 30 240,762 61.2 0 0.0 152,412 38.8 393,174 61.2 SD Tennessee 25 2,582,666 78.5 243,399 7.4 465,076 14.1 3,291,141 85.9 TN Texas 58 11,411,173 89.5 400,391 3.1 944,759 7.4 12,756,323 92.6 TX Utah 13 1,017,668 91.2 0 0.0 98,198 8.8 1,115,866 91.2 UT Vermont 10 356,688 84.5 0 0.0 65,286 15.5 421,974 84.5 VT Virginia 21 4,107,367 88.5 411,111 8.9 120,643 2.6 4,639,121
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/03socc.pdf
  • 111.7 24.6 42.8 179.1 36.9 SC South Dakota 121.3 8.6 112.7 78.0 34.7 15.4 6.3 9.3 31.0 3.6 SD Tennessee 1,456.5 181.1 1,275.4 924.9 349.5 170.6 41.4 73.5 285.5 64.0 TN Texas 7,415.1 1,183.0 6,232.1 4,510.8 1,728.0 777.2 194.0 580.1 1,551.3 176.7 TX Utah 553.1 37.2 515.8 362.4 153.5 68.9 26.2 40.5 135.6 17.8 UT Vermont 205.0 9.4 195.6 134.4 61.2 24.6 9.6 16.0 50.2 11.0 VT Virginia 2,460.1 206.3 2,253.7 1,617.9 636.0 292.6 99.5 164.4 556.5 79.4 VA Washington 1,919.0 186.3 1,732.7 1,283.1 450.0 211.4 67.6 103.3 382.3 67.5 WA West Virginia 497.9 27.6 470.4 341.7 128.7 65.3 22.5 26.8 114.6 14.1 WV Wisconsin 1,053.3 67.7 985.6 748.6 237.9 103.9 46.6 59.1 209.6 28.2 WI Wyoming 145.1 9.0 136.1 94.6
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/95socc.pdf
  • 87.2 41.4 22.0 11.7 7.6 41.4 0.016 OR PENNSYLVANIA 544.8 172.4 372.5 313.2 65.5 38.3 15.7 11.5 65.5 0.016 PA RHODE ISLAND 37.8 20.5 17.3 12.5 6.5 2.9 2.8 0.8 6.5 RI SOUTH CAROLINA 80.1 50.8 29.2 21.7 0.7 1.1 0.6 (0.9) 0.7 SC SOUTH DAKOTA 29.3 14.6 14.7 12.9 2.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 2.0 SD TENNESSEE 161.0 82.9 78.1 61.2 0.9 1.1 0.5 (0.9) 0.7 0.224 TN TEXAS 618.5 179.1 439.3 378.7 64.1 37.4 13.9 12.7 64.1 0.020 TX UTAH 108.0 46.0 62.1 48.2 17.2 8.5 5.3 3.4 17.2 0.003 UT VERMONT 38.8 29.9 8.9 6.4 2.7 1.3 1.1 0.3 2.7 VT VIRGINIA 126.3 2.5 123.8 78.4 51.4 29.9 11.0 10.3 51.2 0.141 VA WASHINGTON 476.0 79.6 396.4 365.8 50.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/96socc.pdf
  • 24.03 3,351.0 1,025.6 2,325.5 1,251.7 731.1 342.6 2,325.5 CA COLORADO 526.0 (0.77) 526.8 110.0 416.7 165.4 189.3 62.1 416.7 CO CONNECTICUT 388.1 0.05 388.0 28.6 359.4 138.3 171.3 49.9 359.4 CT DELAWARE 64.3 0.06 64.3 1.6 62.7 19.3 28.1 15.0 62.4 0.240 DE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 130.4 0.28 130.1 (0.0) 130.1 42.4 44.4 42.9 129.8 0.350 DC FLORIDA 2,081.7 20.52 2,061.2 611.0 1,450.2 779.2 484.9 182.8 1,446.9 3.234 FL GEORGIA 785.0 10.85 774.1 124.8 649.3 307.9 216.2 123.4 647.5 1.785 GA HAWAII 140.6 0.29 140.3 12.2 128.1 61.5 52.2 14.5 128.1 HI IDAHO 162.1 1.63 160.5 30.8 129.7 56.8 56.5 16.4 129.7 ID ILLINOIS 1,128.7 (11.38) 1,140.1 185.6 954.4 390.5 406.8 155.8 953.1 1.379 IL INDIANA 657.0 (6.06) 663.1 213.8 449.3
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/96socc.pdf
  • 1,916.0 166.1 1,749.9 1,323.4 426.6 199.2 176.8 50.5 426.6 0.001 HI IDAHO 1,274.6 14.6 1,260.0 874.3 385.6 206.6 108.9 70.1 385.6 0.007 ID ILLINOIS 11,098.7 437.0 10,661.7 8,022.4 2,639.3 1,373.6 902.9 361.0 2,637.5 1.768 IL INDIANA 5,589.6 206.9 5,382.8 4,061.9 1,320.9 773.7 363.7 181.6 1,319.0 1.927 IN IOWA 2,474.9 74.1 2,400.8 1,696.7 704.2 309.5 219.1 175.6 704.2 IA KANSAS 2,256.0 61.2 2,194.8 1,540.8 654.0 318.1 155.7 180.2 653.9 0.091 KS KENTUCKY 3,653.2 111.5 3,541.7 2,659.7 882.0 544.0 210.1 127.6 881.7 0.310 KY LOUISIANA 4,424.9 107.9 4,317.0 3,270.7 1,046.3 685.6 220.1 140.4 1,046.1 0.216 LA MAINE 1,354.4 4.0 1,350.4 986.2 364.2 180.2 137.2 46.8 364.2 ME MARYLAND 5,494.5 262.9 5,231.6 3,814.2 1,417.3 696.4 364.7 356.2 1,417.3 MD MASSACHUSETTS 7,920.1 62.6 7,857.4 5,632.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/97socc.pdf
  • 11.8 44.1 4.5 ND OHIO 4,130.0 385.6 3,744.4 2,877.3 867.1 395.5 280.3 161.1 836.9 30.3 OH OKLAHOMA 1,089.5 101.3 988.2 733.5 254.7 118.1 80.3 48.4 246.8 7.9 OK OREGON 1,205.6 67.3 1,138.3 798.4 339.9 134.8 120.8 58.0 313.6 26.3 OR PENNSYLVANIA 4,256.6 209.1 3,888.3 2,872.1 1,016.2 468.6 300.4 188.7 957.7 58.5 PA RHODE ISLAND 399.5 13.6 385.9 262.5 123.4 45.8 61.2 11.8 118.8 4.6 RI SOUTH CAROLINA 1,081.7 59.8 1,021.8 751.0 270.8 138.4 81.2 42.5 262.1 8.7 SC SOUTH DAKOTA 179.2 6.2 173.0 122.0 50.9 15.2 19.6 14.4 49.3 1.6 SD TENNESSEE 1,818.9 79.7 1,739.3 1,291.4 447.9 226.1 127.7 72.6 426.4 21.5 TN TEXAS 7,610.8 654.8 6,956.0 5,286.2 1,669.7 784.3 468.6 375.7 1,628.6 41.1 TX UTAH 650.7 30.9 619.8 429.5 190.3
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/98SOCC.PDF
  • 2.90 1.58 1955 32.2 49.7 27.7 30.94 3.06 2.18 1956 33.6 50.3 28.3 37.90 3.36 3.31 1957 34.1 48.9 27.5 40.54 3.89 3.81 1958 31.9 42.7 23.8 33.84 3.79 2.46 1959 35.7 53.4 29.7 35.88 4.38 3.97 1960 36.5 51.1 28.4 39.44 4.41 3.85 1961 36.7 51.0 28.2 38.34 4.35 2.97 1962 39.8 56.4 32.4 40.86 4.33 3.26 1963 42.1 61.2 34.9 43.67 4.26 3.55 1967 55.0 81.8 49.2 72.75 5.51 5.10 1968 58.1 90.6 51.2 76.42 6.18 5.90 1969 60.7 89.0 49.4 85.74 7.03 7.83 1970 58.7 78.4 44.0 91.91 8.04 7.71 1971 59.5 90.1 52.4 92.91 7.39 5.11 1972 65.3 104.5 62.6 103.40 7.21 4.73 1973 70.6 130.9 81.6 120.03 7.44 8.15 1974 69.6 142.8 91.0 139.67 8.57 9.84
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/99socc.pdf
  • 39.3 107.4 218.5 10.5DC Florida 7,273.2 638.7 6,634.5 4,799.2 1,835.3 1,030.8 359.5 376.7 1,767.0 68.3 FL Georgia 3,475.6 176.9 3,298.6 2,445.6 853.0 423.5 180.9 224.7 829.2 23.9GA Hawaii 590.7 89.6 501.1 362.4 138.7 66.0 36.0 30.3 132.3 6.4 HI Idaho 458.3 23.2 435.1 279.3 155.8 78.4 36.9 33.8 149.1 6.7 ID Illinois 4,921.5 321.6 4,599.9 3,475.4 1,124.5 507.8 242.3 311.1 1,061.2 63.3 IL Indiana 2,358.1 197.4 2,160.7 1,598.2 562.6 275.7 113.2 141.3 530.2 32.3 IN Iowa 809.5 44.5 765.0 523.7 241.3 117.2 51.0 65.2 233.4 7.9 IA Kansas 992.0 79.1 912.9 685.8 227.1 98.1 51.8 68.7 218.6 8.5KS Kentucky 1,435.4 78.1 1,357.3 1,010.7 346.6 184.9 75.9 74.1 334.9 11.7KY Louisiana 1,633.7 72.4 1,561.3 1,210.3 351.0 197.3 76.9 67.4 341.6 9.4 LA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001501.doc
  • and unreasonable practice, in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. In addition, Rainbow contends: (i) that Bell Atlantic failed to substantially perform or reasonably discharge its duty under the tariff, in violation of section 203(a) of the Act; (ii) that the tariff was ambiguous and should be construed to require the return of the deposit to Rainbow under section 61.2 of the Commission's rules; and (iii) that the tariff was void and should have been rescinded. Finally, Rainbow alleges that Bell Atlantic's failure to provide access to the video dialtone platform by denying it the necessary EPIC interface software was an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Rainbow seeks the return of its $345,600
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00107.doc
  • In the Order, we agreed with Bell Atlantic that the challenged provisions of Global NAPs' Tariff violated section 201(b) of the Act. We concluded that, as of their filing date, Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff were unlawful in two respects. First, we found that the challenged Tariff provisions were not ``clear and explicit,'' as required by section 61.2 of our rules, because ``those provisions condition the imposition of charges on circumstances that were indeterminate when the [T]ariff took effect and remain indeterminate today.'' Specifically, the challenged Tariff provisions purported to apply only to ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs received no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement. In this instance, the parties had executed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00383.doc
  • handed off to Global NAPs for delivery to its Internet Service Provider (``ISP'') customers. We agree with Verizon that Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff is unjust and unreasonable under section 201(b) of the Act because: (1) it conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding regarding the scope of their interconnection agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey; and (2) it violates section 61.2 of our rules, which provides that tariffs must be clear and explicit. We therefore grant Verizon's complaint. Background Verizon and Global NAPs have interconnection agreements in at least eight states. The circumstances under which they reached agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey are especially relevant and require brief description. On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and Verizon entered into an
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1997/fc97115a.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1997/fc97115a.wp
  • 698.6 536.0 32977 2225 31649 2223 0.0 0.0 99.3 AZPHOENIX 10 23 626.1 558.0 33986 2225 31701 2216 0.0 0.0 99.7 AZPHOENIX 15 14 50.0 521.0 21332 2209 19733 2207 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPHOENIX 21 20 50.0 489.0 20189 2209 18885 2200 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPHOENIX 33 34 76.9 521.0 18207 2205 17530 2195 0.7 0.7 100.0 AZPHOENIX 45 26 61.2 545.0 23153 2219 20843 2202 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPHOENIX 61 49 58.8 541.0 18332 2205 17585 2192 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZPRESCOTT 7 25 50.0 856.0 18534 170 16876 137 0.3 0.0 99.8 AZSIERRAVISTA 58 44 50.0 81.0 4915 59 4711 59 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZTOLLESON 51 52 195.1 533.0 24691 2219 23161 2208 0.0 0.0 100.0 AZTUCSON 4 31 461.81100.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Reports/fcc00289.pdf
  • 00-289 B-14 Table 9E: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by County Service Block POPs in Those Counties (1)% of Total US POPs Square Miles in Those Counties % of Total US Counties A 181.1 million 71.6% 676,000 18.8% B 189.4 million 74.9% 714,000 19.8% C (4) 36.5 million 14.4% 200,000 5.6% D 95.9 million 37.9% 340,000 9.4% E 61.2 million 24.2% 308,000 8.6% F 39.3 million 15.5% 223,000 6.2% Table 9F: Estimated Broadband PCS Rollouts by Service Block by BTA Service BlockNumber of BTAs (3)POPs in Those BTAs (1) % of Total US POPs A 210 198,472,177 78.6% B 250 209,357,087 82.9% C (4) 83 37,926,975 15.0% D 132 108,837,628 43.1% E 96 68,165,625 27.0% F 63 43,968,412 17.4%
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1998/dd981112.html
  • The Commission resolved two formal complaints brought by complainants Halprin, Temple, Goodman & Sugrue (Halprin) and Freedom Technologies, Inc., that challenge the lawfulness and application of the "Non-Subscriber" rates contained in MCI's Tariff F.C.C. No. 1. Concluded that (1) the Tariff's description of when customers will be charged MCI's Non-Subscriber rates is not "clear and explicit," in violation of Part 61.2 of the Commission's rules; and (2) MCI's practice of charging Non-Subscriber rates for "direct-dialed" calls is unreasonable, in violation of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Action by the Commission. Adopted: November 10, 1998. by MO&O. (FCC No. 98-297). CCB Internet URL: [10]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98297.wp SAH ACQUISITION CORPORATION II. Granted must-carry complaint filed by WOAC against Adelphia Cable
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2011/dd110629.html
  • (DA No. 11-1130). (Dkt No 11-102 ). Comments Due: 07/12/2011. Reply Comments Due: 07/19/2011. WCB . Contact: Tracey Wilson at (202) 418-1394 or Alexis Johns at (202) 418-1167 [67]DA-11-1130A1.doc [68]DA-11-1130A1.pdf [69]DA-11-1130A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- NORTHERN VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS, LLC REVISIONS TO FCC TARIFF NO. 3. Rejected Transmittal No. 5 as patently unlawful, in violation of the Commission's order, section 61.2 of the Commission's rules, and section 201(b) of the Act. Action by: Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau. Adopted: 06/28/2011 by ORDER. (DA No. 11-1132). WCB [70]DA-11-1132A1.doc [71]DA-11-1132A1.pdf [72]DA-11-1132A1.txt References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308122A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308122A1.txt 3. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308123A1.pdf 4. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308123A1.txt 5. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308057A1.pdf 6. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308057A2.txt 7. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308056A1.pdf 8. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308056A2.txt 9. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308120A1.doc 10. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308120A1.pdf 11. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308120A1.txt 12. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308104A1.pdf 13. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308104A1.txt 14. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308126A1.pdf 15.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3574A1.html
  • the filed rate doctrine. According to the complaint, the District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve the issues concerning the filed rate doctrine and the lawfulness of MCIW's tariff.2 Garin further alleges in the formal complaint that MCIW violated sections 201(b) of the Act 3 and sections 61.25, 61.74, and 61.2 of the Commission's rules 4 by cross-referencing the tariffs of local exchange carriers and by being impermissibly vague in its tariff.5 Subsequent to that filing by Complainants, the parties to this proceeding reached a settlement of their dispute. On December 17, 2002, Complainant filed a Withdrawal of Formal Complaint, requesting that the Commission allow Garin to simply withdraw its complaint.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-127A1.html
  • ISP Tariff were void ab initio under section 201(b) of the Act, for two reasons. First, the filing of the Second ISP Tariff conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding that their interconnection agreements alone would govern whether Global NAPs would receive compensation for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic.11 Second, Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff was indeterminate, in violation of section 61.2 of our rules,12 which requires that tariffs be clear and explicit as to their proper application.13 In its Petition, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs asserts that the Order's finding of a mutual understanding not to file a federal tariff imposing charges for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic lacks record support and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-111A1.html
  • requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not "clear and explicit" as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern Valley to revise its Tariff within ten days of release of this Order. We decline, however, to declare the Tariff void ab initio or
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-87A1.html
  • an interstate or foreign telecommunications service"). Complaint, Exhibit B (Tariff) at Original Page No. 8. On the other hand, it defines "end user" as an entity that does not pay (an end user "need not purchase any service provided by [Northern Valley]"). Id. This inconsistency may violate the Commission's requirement that tariffs be "clear and explicit." See 47 C.F.R. S: 61.2(a). We do not address this issue, however, because Qwest did not raise it, and both parties assert that the Tariff's "end user" definition establishes that Northern Valley may impose charges for calls to or from parties that have not purchased services from Northern Valley. See, e.g., Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., 550 U.S. 45, 52-55 (2007) (citations
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001501.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001501.txt
  • and unreasonable practice, in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. In addition, Rainbow contends: (i) that Bell Atlantic failed to substantially perform or reasonably discharge its duty under the tariff, in violation of section 203(a) of the Act; (ii) that the tariff was ambiguous and should be construed to require the return of the deposit to Rainbow under section 61.2 of the Commission's rules; and (iii) that the tariff was void and should have been rescinded. Finally, Rainbow alleges that Bell Atlantic's failure to provide access to the video dialtone platform by denying it the necessary EPIC interface software was an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Rainbow seeks the return of its $345,600
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.txt
  • In the Order, we agreed with Bell Atlantic that the challenged provisions of Global NAPs' Tariff violated section 201(b) of the Act. We concluded that, as of their filing date, Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff were unlawful in two respects. First, we found that the challenged Tariff provisions were not ``clear and explicit,'' as required by section 61.2 of our rules, because ``those provisions condition the imposition of charges on circumstances that were indeterminate when the [T]ariff took effect and remain indeterminate today.'' Specifically, the challenged Tariff provisions purported to apply only to ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs received no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement. In this instance, the parties had executed
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.txt
  • handed off to Global NAPs for delivery to its Internet Service Provider (``ISP'') customers. We agree with Verizon that Global NAPs' Second ISP Tariff is unjust and unreasonable under section 201(b) of the Act because: (1) it conflicts with the parties' mutual understanding regarding the scope of their interconnection agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey; and (2) it violates section 61.2 of our rules, which provides that tariffs must be clear and explicit. We therefore grant Verizon's complaint. Background Verizon and Global NAPs have interconnection agreements in at least eight states. The circumstances under which they reached agreements in Massachusetts and New Jersey are especially relevant and require brief description. On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and Verizon entered into an
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • the tariffed charges at the time that they are allegedly incurred. We find that Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this tariff when the very applicability of the tariff has yet to be determined. . The contingent and unclear applicability of the tariff defies the Commission's longstanding interpretation of section 201(b) of the Act, as reflected in section 61.2 of our rules. Those authorities require that the applicability of the tariff rate, and its terms, be clear and explicit. . Moreover, it seems evident that any federal tariff purporting to govern inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic could be reasonable only if it mirrors any applicable terms of the party's interconnection agreement, as construed by the appropriate state commission. Using
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files/ITRND01.pdf
  • 141.8 154.9 197.9 237.4 298.1 331.6 669.3 1,016.7 38.5 France 263.7 304.9 362.8 442.6 511.0 560.3 577.1 539.4 725.5 653.5 681.4 4.8 Germany 572.6 604.1 662.3 782.4 1,008.3 1,153.4 1,466.4 1,251.4 886.9 1,057.4 1,501.9 0.0 Greece 75.6 82.1 86.5 91.3 97.5 115.3 183.8 213.8 259.9 172.9 203.6 8.5 Guatemala 93.8 105.4 115.1 128.0 127.3 144.7 189.8 233.1 368.9 909.1 1,455.9 61.2 Haiti 52.9 62.8 73.6 79.2 93.6 99.6 135.9 94.4 67.3 107.8 231.8 9.5 Hong Kong 143.2 213.9 315.8 539.7 677.3 565.3 193.0 163.3 278.1 171.2 232.6 -11.5 India 134.2 191.6 285.7 428.0 583.3 749.7 960.1 1,243.5 1,332.7 1,512.2 1,319.4 12.9 Israel 162.7 195.7 214.3 239.8 214.2 220.4 363.8 307.3 267.8 309.5 536.5 11.6 Italy 229.7 250.9 279.4 336.3 476.6 515.1
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files05/CREPOR05.pdf
  • 11.8 0.0 4.157.2 27.0 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines $3,125,343 10.4 0.014.918.5 56.2 $70,201 0.0 0.0 8.912.2 79.0 $16,956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 18,436,529 10.9 0.014.125.6 49.4 Trinidad and Tobago $37,328,121 52.7 0.0 0.312.0 35.0 $1,435,764 25.4 0.0 8.310.1 56.2 $289,140 72.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 27.6 412,530,904 62.2 0.0 2.1 6.4 29.3 Turks and Caicos Islands $2,535,638 9.1 0.0 0.029.7 61.2 $125,088 0.0 0.0 0.034.2 65.8 $1,297 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 99.9 15,401,945 9.3 0.0 0.025.3 65.4 Virgin Islands, British $3,241,457 1.5 0.0 8.210.9 79.4 $447,739 0.0 0.060.9 5.6 33.5 $13,891 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 24,816,136 1.6 0.038.6 8.9 50.9 Navassa Island $0 $0 $0 0 Puerto Rico $3,219 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $70 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $0 57,136 0.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files06/CREPOR06.PDF
  • 0.518.5 66.4 $1,403,257 0.0 4.8 0.032.2 62.9 $397,523 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 124,126,780 0.0 5.2 0.619.5 74.7 Paraguay $5,804,588 0.019.9 1.7 7.7 70.7 $342,408 0.015.6 0.023.9 60.5 $14,881 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 41,901,120 0.022.1 3.312.2 62.4 Peru $65,903,166 0.014.2 0.927.3 57.5 $3,410,913 0.014.6 0.012.8 72.5 $5,365,638 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 1,389,679,727 0.0 4.6 1.524.1 69.7 Suriname $6,902,343 0.0 7.5 0.031.3 61.2 $212,771 0.0 0.0 0.030.5 69.5 $90,348 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 46,368,028 0.0 3.1 0.040.5 56.4 Uruguay $11,260,103 0.018.9 0.213.1 67.7 $385,082 0.013.9 0.019.6 66.5 $288,540 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 97.3 121,085,826 0.011.7 0.318.3 69.6 Venezuela $43,909,469 1.740.4 0.310.9 46.7 $3,298,920 0.0 7.7 0.070.2 22.1 $367,868 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 465,306,986 0.720.9 0.227.7 50.5 South America $589,982,403 0.125.6 0.816.6 56.9 $37,098,987
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files07/CREPOR07.PDF
  • $6,943,415 0.0 34.1 0.8 10.7 54.3 $453,294 0.0 0.6 0.0 6.8 92.6 $22,304 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 70,805,593 0.0 11.1 1.4 14.0 73.5 Croatia $5,018,426 0.0 16.2 10.4 16.5 56.9 $105,397 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.4 69.6 $3,583 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 58,052,283 0.0 6.1 31.7 21.1 41.1 Czech Republic $10,655,238 0.0 39.6 2.1 13.0 45.3 $283,121 0.0 33.4 0.0 5.4 61.2 $23,701 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 101,661,497 0.0 20.6 3.7 13.5 62.3 Estonia $2,311,227 0.0 2.4 2.9 57.3 37.4 $30,357 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.8 5.2 $474 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 16,595,458 0.0 1.2 20.6 37.9 40.3 Georgia $2,674,880 0.0 11.7 0.8 50.5 37.0 $27,884 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.0 43.0 $532 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 33,862,787 0.0 6.1 1.6 54.4 37.9
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1996/swbell.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1996/swbell.wp
  • the new rates were not discriminatory because they would be available to similarly situated customers; and the deviation would foster economic efficiency. The Commission ultimately concluded that the tariff amendment was unlawful, on what it claimed were three "independent" grounds. The Commission found that the tariff amendment's language was vague and ambiguous in violation of Commission rules, see 47 C.F.R. 61.2, 61.54(j) (1995), requiring tariff language to be clear and explicit. The Commission also determined--although Southwestern Bell had never contended to the contrary, and does not now--that the tariff amendment was inconsistent with the Commission's geographically averaged rate requirement and did not comply with the Commission's explicitly recognized deviations from that requirement. And the tariff failed the first prong of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.pdf
  • 206 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 2. Tariff Requirements Under Section 201(b) of the Telecommunications Act, all interstate communications "charges, practices, classifications, and regulations" must be "just and reasonable." 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). Carriers must publish rate tariffs before they go into effect. Published tariffs "must contain clear and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations." 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 (a). Tariffs may not "make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument." Id. at § 61.74(a). Tariffs filed by nondominant carriers, such as GNAPs, take effect on only one day's notice. Such tariffs receive streamlined review and are presumed lawful by the Commission. Failure to comply with the relevant regulatory provisions "may be grounds
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2011archive.html
  • Comments On PAC-WEST Telecomm, Inc. And Verizon Petitions For Declaratory Ruling. (Dkt No 11-115 ). Comments Due: 08/08/2011. Reply Comments Due: 08/23/2011. [50][Word] [51][Acrobat] 7/1/2011 Public Notice: Protested Tariff Transmittals Action Taken. [52][Word] [53][Acrobat] 6/28/2011 Order: Northern Valley Communications, LLC Revisions To FCC Tariff No. 3. Rejected Transmittal No. 5 as patently unlawful, in violation of the Commission's order, section 61.2 of the Commission's rules, and section 201(b) of the Act. [54][Word] [55][Acrobat] 6/9/2011 Order: ELECTRONIC TARIFF FILING SYSTEM (ETFS). The FCC enables carriers to replace paper filings with online filings. Electronic filing eases burden on carriers, increases transparency for public. (Dkt No. 10-141 ). [56][Word] [57][Acrobat] 6/9/2011 News Release:FCC Enables Carriers To Replace Paper Filings With Online Filings. News Release.