Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C REPLY COMMENTS OF PEERLESS NETWORK, INC.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C REPLY COMMENTS OF PEERLESS NETWORK, INC."

Transcription

1 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C In the Matter of AT&T Petition to Launch a Proceeding Concerning the TDM-to-IP Transition GN Docket No Petition of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association for a Rulemaking to Promote and Sustain the Ongoing TDM-IP Evolution. REPLY COMMENTS OF PEERLESS NETWORK, INC. Submitted: February 25, 2013 Henry T. Kelly Michael R. Dover KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 333 W. Wacker Drive, 26 th Floor Chicago, Illinois Telephone: (312) Counsel for Peerless Network, Inc.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Summary... 1 I. The FCC Does Not Disregard Applicable Regulations Based On The Format Of The Traffic Exchanged II. AT&T Fails To Demonstrate That The Commission May Forbear From All Regulations... 8 Conclusion i

3 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C In the Matter of AT&T Petition to Launch a Proceeding Concerning the TDM-to-IP Transition GN Docket No Petition of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association for a Rulemaking to Promote and Sustain the Ongoing TDM-IP Evolution. REPLY COMMENTS OF PEERLESS NETWORK, INC. Peerless Network, Inc. ( Peerless ), by its counsel, respectfully submits this reply to the comments filed in response to the AT&T 1 and NTCA 2 Petitions to initiate proceedings relating to the infrastructure transition of incumbent local exchange carriers ( ILECs ) from Time Division Multiplexing ( TDM ) to Internet Protocol ( IP ). INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The Commission should not be deceived by AT&T s cries that its wireline business is losing market share. AT&T knows full-well that its wireline and wireless services, taken in the aggregate, dominate the market, and provide leverage in negotiating favorable terms for 1 In the Matter of the Technological Transition of the Nation s Communications Infrastructure, Petition to Launch a Proceeding Concerning the TDM-to-IP Transition, GN Docket No (filed Nov. 7, 2012) ( AT&T Petition ). 2 In the Matter of the Technological Transition of the Nation s Communications Infrastructure, Petition of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association for a Rulemaking to Promote and Sustain the Ongoing TDM-to-IP Evolution, GN Docket No (filed Nov. 19, 2012) ( NTCA Petition ). 1

4 interconnection and traffic exchange between carriers. The dominant market power of the ILECs and their unregulated affiliates is widely recognized in the comments submitted in this matter. 3 AT&T asserts that it is forced to maintain two networks and that s unfair (or, in their words, detrimental to investment). 4 But these assertions in this proceeding contravene AT&T s public statements to investors. AT&T describes its network as including extensive wireless and wired access capabilities that carries 33 petabytes of data traffic on an average business day. 5 AT&T touts its existing IP capabilities by declaring that it has the nation s first coast-to-coast IP/MPLS network using new-generation routing technology that carriers data at 40 Gbps. More than 75 percent of the IP traffic carried over the company s backbone network rides on this newgeneration platform. 6 AT&T itself recognizes that there is an ever-increasing demand for online video, photos, music and IP-based business applications. 7 AT&T makes hay about its $8 billion investment in IP technology, but it is clear from its disclosures to its investors that AT&T already views this investment as both necessary and useful to serve its existing customers, for both wireline and wireless services, and to provide non-telecommunications services. AT&T s 3 See, e.g., Comments of Peerless Network, Inc., In the Matter of the Technological Transition of the Nation s Communications Infrastructure, GN Docket No (filed Jan. 28, 2013) ( Peerless Comments ), at 8-12; Comments of T-Mobile USA, Inc., In the Matter of the Technological Transition of the Nation s Communications Infrastructure, GN Docket No (filed Jan. 28, 2013) ( T-Mobile Comments ), at 9-10; Comments of the Association of Teleservices International, Inc., In the Matter of the Technological Transition of the Nation s Communications Infrastructure, GN Docket No (filed Jan. 28, 2013) ( ATSI Comments ), at 4; Comments of HyperCube Telecom, LLC, In the Matter of the Technological Transition of the Nation s Communications Infrastructure, GN Docket No (filed Jan. 28, 2013) ( HyperCube Comments ), at 16-17; Initial Comments of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, In the Matter of the Technological Transition of the Nation s Communications Infrastructure, GN Docket No (filed Jan. 28, 2013) ( NASUCA Comments ), at 20-21, AT&T Petition, at 11-12; see also Comments of Verizon and Verizon Wireless, In the Matter of the Technological Transition of the Nation s Communications Infrastructure, GN Docket No (filed Jan. 28, 2013) ( Verizon Comments ), at AT&T Company Information, Networks, available at: ( AT&T s Network Description ). 6 Id. 7 AT&T s Network Description. 2

5 proposal for a regulation free experiment to foster the development of IP networks is not necessary because these IP networks are already being deployed and used. The regulation-free experiment proposed by AT&T is fundamentally flawed. First, there is no justification to ignore the obligations of Sections 251 and 252 of the Act based on changes in technology. 8 The Commission is not inexperienced with swift changes in technology or even packet switched technology, and the Commission has upheld its authority without the chill on new technology investments AT&T now fears. Technological improvements are readily adopted by carriers because of the great potential they offer to both carriers and consumers, and the Commission is adept at applying existing laws and regulations to changing technology. 9 Likewise, there is no reason to believe that maintaining existing Commission regulations will chill investment in the deployment in IP infrastructure because of the great advantages an IP network brings to both ILECs and consumers. Second, AT&T s Comments surmise that the Commission can waive all regulatory requirements pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 160(a). 10 Tellingly, AT&T makes no effort to demonstrate that forbearance of the regulation at issue will not result in just and reasonable charges and practices, a requirement under Section 10(a). 47 U.S.C. 160(a)(1). Indeed, close review of each of the requirements of Section 10(a) demonstrates that none are satisfied. Consequently, AT&T raises no legal basis for the Commission to exempt all regulations to conduct its experiments. As Peerless explained in its Comments, AT&T often requires indirect connection for some forms of traffic through an AT&T regulated entity, using this structure to impose 8 47 U.S.C. 251 and And, unlike AT&T supposes, AT&T s regulation free request is unlike the conversion to D-TV because there the Commission did not exempt broadcasters from all regulations as part of the transition. 10 Comments of AT&T, Inc., In the Matter of the Technological Transition of the Nation s Communications Infrastructure, GN Docket No (filed Jan. 28, 2013) ( AT&T Comments ), at 4. 3

6 discriminatory terms for traffic exchange. 11 Peerless advocated that the Commission should not entertain any suggestion that the FCC eliminate the interconnection obligations under Section 251 and 252, especially based on AT&T s theory that it needs to be free of these obligations to promote investment in IP networks. The comments submitted in this matter are replete with similar concerns about the dominance of large ILECs like AT&T and Verizon in combination with their unregulated affiliated entities. 12 And, AT&T cannot dispute that it offers nonaffiliated entities discriminatory terms and pricing for transit and interconnection. 13 For the reasons stated herein and in Peerless initial comments, the Commission should deny AT&T s request to nullify the Act s pro-competitive regulations through AT&T s proposed one-sided experiments, and soundly reject AT&T s position exempting IP interconnections from Sections 251 and 252. I. The FCC Does Not Disregard Applicable Regulations Based On The Format Of The Traffic Exchanged Despite the protests in AT&T s Petition, voice technology has evolved from analog networks to high-speed fiber and digital switching networks seamlessly under the FCC s regulations. 14 There is no technological reason why transitioning to voice IP transmission requires the Commission to jettison its regulatory oversight to ensure nondiscrimination in the exchange of traffic. Moreover, AT&T s fear that the Commission s current regulations will chill investment in IP technology is misplaced. 11 Peerless Comments, at Supra, n Peerless Comments, at As correctly recognized by the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates ( NASUCA ) in NASUCA Comments, at 4-5, n

7 For example, in the 1980 s, the Commission was faced with the question of whether internetworking packet protocols (such as call setup, call routing, call cessation, calling or called party identification, billing, and accounting) used primarily between carriers are basic services requiring nondiscriminatory access. 15 The Commission concluded that it would continue to regulate the internetworking call signaling protocols as a regulated (Title II) basic service to ensure the proper exchange of traffic, even as the format of the traffic changed. 16 At the time, AT&T argued that maintaining regulatory authority over the manner in which carriers exchange traffic was required to promote the evolution of the nationwide network from circuit switching to packet switching, and other advanced switching methods. 17 AT&T asserted that the continued oversight of the exchange of traffic was required to ensure the continued evolution of end-user packet-switched capabilities. 18 Similarly, in the mid-1990 s, the Commission ordered ILECs to provide Frame Relay Service as a basic / regulated service under Title II, rejecting AT&T s assertions that subjecting 15 In re Amendments to Sections of the Commission s Rules and Regulations (Third Computer Inquiry), and Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities Authorizations Thereof Communications Protocols Under Section of the Comm'n's Rules and Regulations, CC Docket No , Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd. 3072, 3081 (rel. May 22, 1987) ( Computer III Phase II Order ), at 3, 69-71, recon., 3 FCC Rcd 1150 (1988), further recon., 4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1989), rev d on other grounds sub nom., California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9 th Cir. 1990), on remand, 6 FCC Rcd 7571 (1991), vacated in part and remanded, California v. FCC, 39 F.3d 919 (9 th Cir. 1994). 16 Our intent was to [define as a basic service ] those computer processing operations that a carrier performs to (a) set up a call by routing it to its destination, and (b) execute the necessary network management functions that arise when the call is completed. Thus, any code or protocol conversions (or any other computer processing functions) taking place before end-to-end communications have been established or after they have been completed, while a subscriber is interacting only with the network, would be considered to be basic services. In re Amendment of Sections of the Comm'n's Rules & Regulations (Third Computer Inquiry), and Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities Authorizations Thereof Communications Protocols Under Section of the Comm'n's Rules and Regulations, CC Docket No , Report and Order, 104 F.C.C.2d 958, 1107 (rel. Jun. 16, 1986). 17 In re Communications Protocols under Section of the Comm'n's Rules and Regulations, GN Docket No , Memorandum Opinion, Order, and Statement of Principles, 95 F.C.C. 2d 584, 603 (rel. Nov. 21, 1983) ( Third Computer Inquiry ), at Id. 5

8 Frame Relay Service to Title II regulations would chill investment in ATM technologies. 19 The Commission concluded that [t]reating frame relay as a basic service provided competitive access to the underlying basic service of facilities-based carriers who are often better able to implement new communications technologies [and] allows competing enhanced service providers to more easily enter and compete in the market for such technologies. 20 The evolution of Signaling Systems Seven ( SS7 ) technology is another example where the Commission has asserted regulatory authority over new technologies, particularly new technologies involved in the exchange of communications from one carrier to another. In the mid-1990 s SS7 replaced multi-frequency ( MF ) signaling because SS7 took the call completion information away from the voice portion of the call, and placed this information on separate D links running on a parallel network using packet technology. 21 This separation led to an increased capacity with the call set up information, leading to the explosion of caller ID, voice mail, call waiting and caller blocking services, and similar previously unavailable services. There was not a chill on signaling technology investments when the Commission applied its regulations to ensure that carriers could exchange communications using SS7 technology. Even more recently, the FCC has reaffirmed that there is a clear obligation on the incumbent LECs, pursuant to sections 251(a), 251(c)(2) and our rules implementing these requirements, to provide 19 In re Matter of Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Ass n, et al., DA , Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd , (rel. Oct. 18, 1995), at 26, Id. 21 In re Matter of Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, CC Docket No , Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 11700, (rel. May 5, 1995), at 7. 6

9 for interconnection between their signaling networks and the signaling networks of alternative providers. 22 Like prior technological innovations, the technology of an IP infrastructure provides the promise of new consumer services (like online video, photos, and music), and improved efficiencies for carriers. The Commission should not and does not lose its authority to regulate the exchange of these voice calls just because the industry adopts a newer, more efficient delivery mechanism. Indeed, today s evolution of IP interconnection is no different than the technology advancements that the Commission was considering in the 1980s. In the 1980s, carriers were beginning to offer protocol conversion services to end users, and the Commission concluded that the end-user protocol conversion services would not be subject to regulation. 23 However, the Commission applied its regulations over the basic service functionalities of call signaling to ensure communications exchange between and among carriers, including the communications exchange of the enhanced services that were not subject to Commission regulation. In many ways, today s issues are almost identical to the issues faced by the FCC then. Now, parties advocate that the Commission needs to deregulate VoIP and other enhanced services to ensure the continued development of those end user services. However, the Commission does not need to deregulate the interconnection methodologies between carriers to promote the evolution of end user services. 22 In re Matter of Review of Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Deployment of Wireline Service offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket Nos , 96-98, , Report and Order and Order on Remand and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd , (rel. Aug. 21, 2003), at See e.g. 47 C.F.R ; Third Computer Inquiry, 95 F.C.C. 2d 584, 603 (1983). 7

10 II. AT&T Fails To Demonstrate That The Commission May Forbear From All Regulations Perhaps recognizing the extraordinary nature of its request, AT&T ventures to identify Commission authority for its regulation-free experiments in passing. 24 AT&T argues that 47 U.S.C. 160(a) permits the Commission to forbear applying its rules, and [a] fortiori, those criteria are certainly satisfied when the request is simply for forbearance on a trial basis in a few markets. 25 AT&T is wrong. None of the factors of Section 10(a) are satisfied. 47 U.S.C. 160(a) permits the Commission to forebear from applying any regulation or any provision of this chapter if the Commission determines three factors are present: (1) enforcement of the particular regulation is not necessary to ensure just and reasonable charges, practices, classifications or regulations, and the forbearance is not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory ; (2) enforcement of the regulation is not necessary for consumer protection; and (3) a forbearance is consistent with the public interest. As to the third prong, the Commission shall consider whether forbearance will promote competitive market conditions, including the extent to which such forbearance will enhance competition among providers of telecommunications services. 26 The three prongs of 10(a) are conjunctive. The Commission could properly deny a petition for forbearance if it finds that any one of the three prongs is unsatisfied. 27 AT&T has the burden of demonstrating each of the prongs is satisfied AT&T Petition, at 22-23; AT&T Comments, at Id. (emphasis in original) U.S.C. 160(b). 27 Cellular Telecomms. & Internet Ass n v. FCC, 330 F.3d 502, 509 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 28 Qwest Corp. v. FCC, 689 F.3d 1214, (10 th Cir. 2012), citing In the Matter of Petition to Establish Procedural Requirements to govern Proceedings for Forbearance Under Section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, 24 FCC Rcd 9543, (2009), at 20. 8

11 AT&T fails to carry its burden as to each of Section 10(a) s three prongs. First, AT&T makes no effort to demonstrate the first factor. As described above, numerous comments were submitted demonstrating that AT&T uses its unregulated entities to dominate the marketplace and extract discriminatory terms and conditions for interconnection from its competitors. A competitor s only recourse under these circumstances is Section 251 and 252. In addition, AT&T s statements that the Commission will be monitoring the trials essentially turn this prong on its head. 29 Forcing aggrieved carriers to petition the Commission under uncertain standards during a regulation-free experiment shifts the burden from AT&T to the aggrieved carriers to demonstrate that a regulation is not necessary to ensure just and reasonable charges, practices, classifications or regulations. AT&T s Petition and comments are tellingly devoid of any empirical data and justifications beyond complaints about its dwindling wireline subscriber count. These AT&T complaints are insufficient to demonstrate all regulations are not required to ensure just and reasonable charges, practices, classifications or regulations. As for the second and third prongs, AT&T argues that there is no risk of consumer harm by its regulation free experiments because they will be geographically limited and because they will be subject to the Commission s full scrutiny during their duration. 30 AT&T is again mistaken. The public interest and safety of consumers in the chosen trial markets may be harmed by AT&T regulation-free trial. Home security systems, personal and medical monitoring, and telehealth applications depend on the current TDM technology. 31 AT&T s Petition fails to address these concerns. AT&T s Petition is also devoid of references as to how E-911 will be handled during its regulation-free experiment. And, AT&T has failed to explain how the 29 AT&T Comments, at Id. 31 Comments of AARP, In the Matter of the Technological Transition of the Nation s Communications Infrastructure, GN Docket No (filed Jan. 28, 2013) ( AARP Comments ), at

12 competitive marketplace will be enhanced by nullifying pro-competitive interconnection obligations, especially in light of AT&T s use of regulated and unregulated entities to dominate the marketplace even with Commission rules in place. 32 In sum, AT&T has failed to carry its burden under all three of the prongs of Section 10(a). Attempting to bolster its weak arguments on this point, AT&T argues that the Commission could state that special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation will serve the public interest. 33 AT&T s argument here fails on two fronts. First, 47 C.F.R. 1.3 applies to waiver of the Commission s rules not U.S. Statutes such as Section 251 and 252. Second, 47 C.F.R. 1.3 requires good cause shown, which is demonstrably lacking in AT&T s Petition. As the Court stated in WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. Jun. 24, 1969), [s]ound administrative procedure contemplates waivers, or exceptions granted only pursuant to a relevant standard [t]he agency may not act out of unbridled discretion or whim in granting waivers any more than in any other aspect of its regulatory function. AT&T s Petition presents no evidence as to good cause for the Commission to grant a waiver. AT&T s general complaints about its responsibilities as an ILEC are insufficient. In its Petition, AT&T asks the Commission to waive all Commission rules and statutory regulations to conduct a regulation-free experiment based on its unfounded assertions that no regulations are required in an all-ip universe. AT&T s Petition presents no legal justification for its request and presents no empirical data demonstrating that a forbearance would not harm consumers and the marketplace. The Commission should deny AT&T s request. 32 See 47 U.S.C. 160(b). 33 AT&T Comments, at 4, citing Report and Memorandum and Opinion and Order, Section 272(f)(1) Sunset of the BOC Separate Affiliate and Related Requirements et al., 22 FCC Rcd 16440, n. 256 (2007) and 47 C.F.R

13 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein and in its initial comments, the Commission should deny AT&T s request for a regulation free experiment and explicitly reject AT&T s position exempting IP interconnections from Sections 251 and 252. Submitted: February 25, 2013 Respectfully submitted, PEERLESS NETWORK, INC. Henry T. Kelly Michael R. Dover KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 333 W. Wacker Drive, 26 th Floor Chicago, Illinois Telephone: (312) Counsel for Peerless Network, Inc. 11

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on ) WC Docket No. 13-307 Petition of Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF PCIA THE WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF PCIA THE WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band GN Docket No. 12-354

More information

Regulatory Issues Affecting the Internet. Jeff Guldner

Regulatory Issues Affecting the Internet. Jeff Guldner Regulatory Issues Affecting the Internet Jeff Guldner Outline Existing Service-Based Regulation Telephone Cable Wireless Existing Provider-Based Regulation BOC restrictions Emerging Regulatory Issues IP

More information

MAJOR COURT DECISIONS, 2009

MAJOR COURT DECISIONS, 2009 MAJOR COURT DECISIONS, 2009 Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 579 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) Issue: Whether the thirty percent subscriber limit cap for cable television operators adopted by the Federal Communications

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) ) Authorizing Permissive Use of the Next ) GN Docket No. 16-142 Generation Broadcast Television Standard ) ) OPPOSITION

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communciations

More information

) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY MEDIA

) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY MEDIA Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. In the Matter of Promoting Innovation and Competition in the Provision of Multichannel Video Programming Distribution Services MB Docket No.

More information

Before the. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Before the. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) ) Authorizing Permissive Use of the ) Next Generation Broadcast ) GN Docket No. 16-142 Television Standard ) REPLY

More information

Perspectives from FSF Scholars January 20, 2014 Vol. 9, No. 5

Perspectives from FSF Scholars January 20, 2014 Vol. 9, No. 5 Perspectives from FSF Scholars January 20, 2014 Vol. 9, No. 5 Some Initial Reflections on the D.C. Circuit's Verizon v. FCC Net Neutrality Decision Introduction by Christopher S. Yoo * On January 14, 2014,

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Video Device Competition Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Commercial Availability

More information

STATE OF MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) COMCAST PHONE OF MAINE, LLC PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

STATE OF MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) COMCAST PHONE OF MAINE, LLC PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION STATE OF MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Public Utilities Commission Investigation into Whether Providers of Time Warner Digital Phone Service and Comcast Digital Voice Service Must Obtain a Certificate

More information

Re: GN Docket Nos , 09-51, ; CS Docket (Comments NBP Public Notice #27)

Re: GN Docket Nos , 09-51, ; CS Docket (Comments NBP Public Notice #27) December 4, 2009 Mr. Carlos Kirjner Senior Advisor to the Chairman on Broadband Federal Communications Commission 445 12 th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Mr. William Lake Chief, Media Bureau Federal

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) ) Promoting Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz ) GN Docket No. 17-258 Band ) ) I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY COMMENTS

More information

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OREGON PETITION FOR ARBITRATION OF VERIZON NORTHWEST INC.

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OREGON PETITION FOR ARBITRATION OF VERIZON NORTHWEST INC. BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OREGON Petition of Verizon Northwest Inc. for Arbitration of an Amendment to Interconnection Agreements with Competitive Local Exchange Carriers and

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the h Matter of Public Notice on Interpretation of the Terms Multichannel Video Programming Distributor and Channel as Raised in Pending

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming MB Docket No. 12-203

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) ) CSR-7947-Z Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. ) ) ) Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. 76.1903 ) MB Docket

More information

April 7, Via Electronic Filing

April 7, Via Electronic Filing Via Electronic Filing Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) CTIA The Wireless Association (CTIA) National Emergency Number Association (NENA) National Public Safety Telecommunications

More information

April 9, Non-Dominant in the Provision of Switched Access Services, WC Docket No (filed Dec. 19, 2012).

April 9, Non-Dominant in the Provision of Switched Access Services, WC Docket No (filed Dec. 19, 2012). Ex Parte Ms. Marlene Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12 th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Ms. Dortch: Re: Technology Transition Task Force, GN Docket No. 13-5; AT&T Petition

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Applications of AT&T Inc. and DIRECTV For Consent to Assign or Transfer Licenses and Authorizations MB Docket No. 14-90

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C ) In the Matter of ) WC Docket No Rural Call Completion ) )

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C ) In the Matter of ) WC Docket No Rural Call Completion ) ) Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 200554 ) In the Matter of ) WC Docket No. 13 39 Rural Call Completion ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS U.S. TelePacific Corp.

More information

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Communications Commission Case 3:16-cv-00124-TBR Document 68-1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 925 Federal Communications Commission Office Of General Counsel 445 12th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Tel: (202) 418-1740 Fax:

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington DC 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission s Rules to Facilitate the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and Other Uses

More information

Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The American Cable Association ( ACA ) hereby submits these comments in

Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The American Cable Association ( ACA ) hereby submits these comments in Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Channel Lineup Requirements Sections 76.1705 and 76.1700(a(4 Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative MB Docket No. 18-92 MB Docket

More information

RECEIVED IRRC 2010 NOV 23 P U: 20. November 23,2010

RECEIVED IRRC 2010 NOV 23 P U: 20. November 23,2010 RECEIVED IRRC Suzan DeBusk Paiva _ Assistant General Counsel IKKU 1/^31 ff^ofi Pennsylvania i r ^* * MM tfft 2010 NOV 23 P U: 20 1717 Arch Street, 17W Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215)466-4755 Fax: (215)563-2658

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Assessment and Collection of Regulatory ) MD Docket No. 13-140 Fees for Fiscal Year 2013 ) ) Procedure for Assessment

More information

BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C

BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter Lifeline and Link Up Reform and WC Docket No. 11-42 Modernization Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service CC Docket

More information

[MB Docket Nos , ; MM Docket Nos , ; CS Docket Nos ,

[MB Docket Nos , ; MM Docket Nos , ; CS Docket Nos , This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 11/27/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-25326, and on govinfo.gov 6712-01 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

More information

BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of the Commission's ) Rules with Regard to Commercial ) GN Docket No. 12-354 Operations in the 3550 3650

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Authorizing Permissive Use of Next ) MB Docket No. 16-142 Generation Broadcast Television ) Standard ) REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF NTCA THE

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Ameritech Operating Companies ) Transmittal No Tariff F.C.C. No.

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Ameritech Operating Companies ) Transmittal No Tariff F.C.C. No. Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of July 1, 2017 WC Docket No. 17-65 Annual Access Charge Tariff Filings Ameritech Operating Companies Transmittal No. 1859

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 15-1497 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

More information

RE: Verizon's Fiber Optic Networks are Title II Here s What the FCC Should Do. DOCKET: Open Internet Proceeding, (GN No.14-28)

RE: Verizon's Fiber Optic Networks are Title II Here s What the FCC Should Do. DOCKET: Open Internet Proceeding, (GN No.14-28) Dear FCC Chairman Wheeler, Commissioners, cc: Congress RE: Verizon's Fiber Optic Networks are Title II Here s What the FCC Should Do. DOCKET: Open Internet Proceeding, (GN No.14-28) This quote is from

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPPOSITION OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPPOSITION OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Revision of Part 15 of the Commission s Rules to Permit unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII Devices

More information

NO SEAN A. LEV GENERAL COUNSEL PETER KARANJIA DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL RICHARD K. WELCH DEPUTY ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL

NO SEAN A. LEV GENERAL COUNSEL PETER KARANJIA DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL RICHARD K. WELCH DEPUTY ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020706 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 1 FEDERAL RESPONDENTS UNCITED RESPONSE TO THE AT&T PRINCIPAL BRIEF IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Accessible Emergency Information, and Apparatus Requirements for Emergency Information and Video Description: Implementation

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF ITTA THE VOICE OF AMERICA S BROADBAND PROVIDERS

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF ITTA THE VOICE OF AMERICA S BROADBAND PROVIDERS Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Authorizing Permissive Use of the Next Generation Broadcast Television Standard GN Docket No. 16-142 COMMENTS OF ITTA

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Communications Commission

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Communications Commission Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019100659 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 Page: 1 No. 11-9900 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT IN RE: FCC 11-161 On Petition for Review of an Order

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Lifeline and Link Up Reform and WC Docket No. 11-42 Modernization Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for WC Docket

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission s Rules CS Docket No. 98-120

More information

ACCESS DENIED: THE FCC's FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT

ACCESS DENIED: THE FCC's FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT ACCESS DENIED: THE FCC's FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT OPEN ACCESS TO CABLE AS REQUIRED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT Earl W. Comstock and John W. Butler* I. INTRODUCTION As demand for high-speed, or broadband, internet

More information

BEFORE THE Federal Communications Commission WASHINGTON, D.C

BEFORE THE Federal Communications Commission WASHINGTON, D.C BEFORE THE Federal Communications Commission WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees ) MD Docket No. 13-140 For Fiscal Year 2013 ) ) Procedures for Assessment

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 Review of the Emergency Alert System ) EB Docket No. 04-296 ) AT&T Petition for Limited Waiver ) AT&T PETITION FOR LIMITED WAIVER Pursuant

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) ) Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum ) GN Docket No. 17-183 Between 3.7 and 24 GHz ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless ) GN Docket No. 14-166 Microphone Operations ) ) Expanding the Economic and

More information

The FCC s Pole Attachment Order is Promoting Broadband at the Expense of Electric Utilities By Thomas B. Magee, Partner, Keller and Heckman LLP

The FCC s Pole Attachment Order is Promoting Broadband at the Expense of Electric Utilities By Thomas B. Magee, Partner, Keller and Heckman LLP The FCC s Pole Attachment Order is Promoting Broadband at the Expense of Electric Utilities By Thomas B. Magee, Partner, Keller and Heckman LLP 46 electric energy spring 2013 Following several years of

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 5, 73, and 74 of the ) MB Docket No. 18-121 Commission s Rules Regarding Posting of Station

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matters of ) ) Local Number Portability Porting Interval ) WC Docket No. 07-244 And Validation Requirements ) REPLY COMMENTS The

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC In the Matter of ) ) Review of the Emergency Alert System ) EB Docket No.

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC In the Matter of ) ) Review of the Emergency Alert System ) EB Docket No. Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Review of the Emergency Alert System ) EB Docket No. 04-296 ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the ) MB Docket No. 17-318 Commission s Rules, National Television ) Multiple

More information

David P. Manni. Volume 13 Issue 2 Article 4

David P. Manni. Volume 13 Issue 2 Article 4 Volume 13 Issue 2 Article 4 2006 National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services: A War of Words, the Effect of Classifying Cable Modem Service as an Information Service David P.

More information

Before the NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Before the NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Before the NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Petition of New York Telephone Company ) for Approval of its Statement of Generally ) Available Terms and Conditions Pursuant ) Case No. 97-C-0271 to Section

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the ) MB Docket No. 08-253 Commission s Rules to Establish Rules for ) Replacement

More information

No IN THE ~uprem~ ~ourt o[ ~ ~n~b. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner, V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL., Respondents.

No IN THE ~uprem~ ~ourt o[ ~ ~n~b. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner, V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL., Respondents. ;:out t, U.S. FEB 2 3 20~0 No. 09-901 OFFiCe- ~, rile CLERK IN THE ~uprem~ ~ourt o[ ~ ~n~b CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner, V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL., Respondents. ON PETITION

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPORT ON CABLE INDUSTRY PRICES

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPORT ON CABLE INDUSTRY PRICES Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 Statistical Report

More information

New Networks Institute

New Networks Institute Bruce Kushnick bruce@newnetworks.com February 3 rd, 2016 Sent via ECFS Ms. Marlene Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission Re: USTelecom Petition for Forbearance from Certain Incumbent LEC

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) MB Docket No. 12-83 Interpretation of the Terms Multichannel Video ) Programming Distributor and Channel ) as raised

More information

Licensing & Regulation #379

Licensing & Regulation #379 Licensing & Regulation #379 By Anita Gallucci I t is about three years before your local cable operator's franchise is to expire and your community, as the franchising authority, receives a letter from

More information

WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM

WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Andrew Cohen-Cutler FROM: Robert C. May REVIEWER: Jonathan L. Kramer DATE: RE: Technical Review for Proposed Modification to Rooftop Wireless Site (File No. 160002523)

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Promoting Innovation and Competition in the Provision of Multichannel Video Programming Distribution Services MB Docket

More information

National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services: Resolving Irregularities in Regulation?

National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services: Resolving Irregularities in Regulation? Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 5 Issue 2 Spring Article 8 2007 National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services: Resolving Irregularities

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS Before the Federal Communications Commission, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment to the FCC s Good-Faith Bargaining Rules MB RM-11720 To: The Secretary REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF CTIA THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF CTIA THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission s Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television and Television

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable ) MB Docket No. 05-311 Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended

More information

SUMMARY: In this document the Commission revises its Schedule of Regulatory Fees to recover an

SUMMARY: In this document the Commission revises its Schedule of Regulatory Fees to recover an This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/08/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-25578, and on FDsys.gov 6712-01 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment to the Commission s Rules ) MB Docket No. 15-53 Concerning Effective Competition ) ) Implementation of

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.3555(e of the Commission s Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule MB Docket No.

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 22, 24, 27, 90 ) WT Docket No. 10-4 and 95 of the Commission s Rules to Improve ) Wireless

More information

BY ELECTRONIC FILING. March 25, 2009

BY ELECTRONIC FILING. March 25, 2009 BY ELECTRONIC FILING March 25, 2009 Marlene H. Dortch Office of the Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Suite TW-A325 Washington, DC 20554 Re: Rural Broadband Strategy Comments

More information

GROWING VOICE COMPETITION SPOTLIGHTS URGENCY OF IP TRANSITION By Patrick Brogan, Vice President of Industry Analysis

GROWING VOICE COMPETITION SPOTLIGHTS URGENCY OF IP TRANSITION By Patrick Brogan, Vice President of Industry Analysis RESEARCH BRIEF NOVEMBER 22, 2013 GROWING VOICE COMPETITION SPOTLIGHTS URGENCY OF IP TRANSITION By Patrick Brogan, Vice President of Industry Analysis An updated USTelecom analysis of residential voice

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) REPORT AND ORDER. Adopted: October 21, 2015 Released: October 22, 2015

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) REPORT AND ORDER. Adopted: October 21, 2015 Released: October 22, 2015 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions ) ) ) ) ) GN Docket No. 12-268

More information

Re: Universal Service Reform Mobility Fund, WT Docket No Connect America Fund, WC Docket No

Re: Universal Service Reform Mobility Fund, WT Docket No Connect America Fund, WC Docket No Alan Buzacott Executive Director Federal Regulatory Affairs Ex Parte 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20005 Phone 202 515-2595 Fax 202 336-7922 alan.buzacott@verizon.com Ms. Marlene H.

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Spectrum Networks Group, LLC ) WT Docket No. 14-100 Waiver Request to Provide Commercial ) Machine-to-Machine Service

More information

Latham & Watkins Communications Practice Group

Latham & Watkins Communications Practice Group Number 821 February 26, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Communications Practice Group D.C. Circuit Upholds FCC Ruling Enforcing Retention Marketing Restrictions Barring further action on rehearing or

More information

Marc Richter Vice President Regulatory Services. June 3, 2015 CONTAINS CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION. By Electronic Delivery

Marc Richter Vice President Regulatory Services. June 3, 2015 CONTAINS CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION. By Electronic Delivery Marc Richter Vice President Regulatory Services CONTAINS CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION By Electronic Delivery Honorable Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C REPLY COMMENTS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C REPLY COMMENTS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) ) In the Matter of Amendment of ) GN Docket No. 12-354 the Commission s Rules with Regard ) to Commercial Operations

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of ) Advanced Telecommunications ) Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) GN Docket No. 13-5 Technology Transitions ) COMMENTS OF MARASHLIAN & DONAHUE, LLC IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION OF

More information

Testimony of Timothy J. Regan Senior Vice President for Global Government Affairs Corning Incorporated

Testimony of Timothy J. Regan Senior Vice President for Global Government Affairs Corning Incorporated Testimony of Timothy J. Regan Senior Vice President for Global Government Affairs Corning Incorporated Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 22, 24, 27, 90 ) WT Docket No. 10-4 and 95 of the Commission s Rules to Improve ) Wireless

More information

OGC Issues Roundtable

OGC Issues Roundtable The Catholic Lawyer Volume 32, Number 3 Article 9 OGC Issues Roundtable Katherine Grincewich Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Communication Commons

More information

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FCC 387

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FCC 387 Federal Communications Commission Approved by OMB Washington, D.C. 20554 3060-1105 INSTRUCTIONS FOR FCC 387 DTV TRANSITION STATUS REPORT GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS A. FCC Form 387 is to be used by all licensees/permittees

More information

PUBLIC NOTICE MEDIA BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE VIDEO DESCRIPTION MARKETPLACE TO INFORM REPORT TO CONGRESS. MB Docket No.

PUBLIC NOTICE MEDIA BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE VIDEO DESCRIPTION MARKETPLACE TO INFORM REPORT TO CONGRESS. MB Docket No. PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12 th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 DA 19-40 February 4, 2019

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Promoting Diversification of Ownership In the Broadcasting Services 2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review Review of the

More information

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 16 CFR Part 410. Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of. Viewable Pictures Shown by Television Receiving Sets

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 16 CFR Part 410. Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of. Viewable Pictures Shown by Television Receiving Sets This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/09/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-21803, and on govinfo.gov [BILLING CODE 6750-01S] FEDERAL TRADE

More information

SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS

SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS TESTIMONY OF ANDREW S. WRIGHT, PRESIDENT SATELLITE BROADCASTING AND COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION RURAL WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY May 22, 2003 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) WT Docket 11-79 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks ) DA 11-838 Comment on Spectrum Needs for the ) Implementation

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Connect America Fund ) WC Docket No. 10-90 ) Universal Service Reform Mobility Fund ) WT Docket No. 10-208 REQUEST

More information

COURT & FCC DEVELOPMENTS IMPACTING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

COURT & FCC DEVELOPMENTS IMPACTING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Connecting America s Public Sector to the Broadband Future COURT & FCC DEVELOPMENTS IMPACTING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS by Tim Lay TATOA Annual Conference Seabrook, Texas October 25, 2013 1333 New Hampshire Avenue,

More information

March 10, Re: Notice of Ex parte presentation in MB Docket No.07-57

March 10, Re: Notice of Ex parte presentation in MB Docket No.07-57 March 10, 2008 ELECTRONIC FILING Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission Office of the Secretary 445 Twelfth St., NW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Notice of Ex parte presentation in MB

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Elimination of Main Studio Rule MB Docket No. 17-106 COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS 1771 N Street,

More information

Frequently Asked Questions: Cable TV and Next Generation CAP EAS

Frequently Asked Questions: Cable TV and Next Generation CAP EAS Frequently Asked Questions: Cable TV and Next Generation CAP EAS 1. What has changed in Federal Communications Commission EAS rules, and how will that affect Cable Television Operations? On July 12, 2007,

More information

ADVISORY Communications and Media

ADVISORY Communications and Media ADVISORY Communications and Media SATELLITE TELEVISION EXTENSION AND LOCALISM ACT OF 2010: A BROADCASTER S GUIDE July 22, 2010 This guide provides a summary of the key changes made by the Satellite Television

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review Review of the Commission s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant

More information

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Spectrum Bridge, Inc. and Meld Technologies, Inc. ) ET Docket No. 13-81 Request for Waiver of Sections 15.711(b)(2)

More information

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554 ) In the Matter of ) AT&T Petition to Launch a Proceeding ) Concerning the TDM-to-IP Transition; ) Petition of the National Telecommunications

More information

January 11, Re: Notice of Ex parte presentation in MB Docket No.07-57

January 11, Re: Notice of Ex parte presentation in MB Docket No.07-57 January 11, 2008 ELECTRONIC FILING Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission Office of the Secretary 445 Twelfth St., SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Notice of Ex parte presentation in

More information

S Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

S Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, S. 1680 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited

More information

FOR PUBLIC VIEWING ONLY INSTRUCTIONS FOR FCC 387 DTV TRANSITION STATUS REPORT. All previous editions obsolete. transition. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

FOR PUBLIC VIEWING ONLY INSTRUCTIONS FOR FCC 387 DTV TRANSITION STATUS REPORT. All previous editions obsolete. transition. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Federal Communications Commission Approved by OMB Washington, D.C. 20554 3060-1105 INSTRUCTIONS FOR FCC 387 DTV TRANSITION STATUS REPORT GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS transition. A. FCC Form 387 must be filed no

More information

After NARUC I: The FCC Communicates Its Intention to Abandon the Common Carrier/ Private Carrier Distinction

After NARUC I: The FCC Communicates Its Intention to Abandon the Common Carrier/ Private Carrier Distinction University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Entertainment & Sports Law Review 4-1-1989 After NARUC I: The FCC Communicates Its Intention to Abandon the Common Carrier/ Private

More information