DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-142 Before the Federal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-142 Before the Federal Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-142 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re Applications of ) ) VOICESTREAM WIRELESS ) CORPORATION, ) ) POWERTEL, INC., ) ) Transferors, ) ) and ) ) DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG, ) IB Docket No. 00-187 ) Transferee, ) ) for Consent to Transfer ) Control of Licenses and Authorizations ) Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the ) Communications Act and ) Petition for Declaratory Ruling ) Pursuant to Section 310 of the Communications Act ) and POWERTEL, INC., ) ) Transferor, ) ) and ) ) VOICESTREAM WIRELESS ) CORPORATION, ) ) IB Docket No. 00-187 Transferee, ) ) for Consent to Transfer ) Control of Licenses and Authorizations ) Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the ) Communications Act ) and Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-142 ELISKA WIRELESS VENTURES LICENSE ) SUBSIDIARY I, L.L.C., WIRELESS ALLIANCE ) L.L.C., COOK INLET/VS GSM IV PCS, LLC and ) COOK INLET/VS GSM V PCS, LLC ) ) IB Docket No. 00-187 Petitions for Declaratory Ruling Pursuant to Section ) 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act ) ) and IOWA WIRELESS SERVICES HOLDING CORPORATION, ) et al. ) ) Petition for a Declaratory Ruling Pursuant to Section ) 310(b)(4) of the Act, and for a Ruling that the ) Transfer of a Minority Ownership Interest in the ) IB Docket No. 00-187 Licensee does not constitute a transfer of control ) under Section 310(d) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: April 24, 2001 Released: April 27, 2001 By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth approving in part, dissenting in part, and issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND...................................................................................1 A. The Applicants ................................................................................................................4 1. VoiceStream Wireless Corporation......................................................................4 2. Deutsche Telekom AG ........................................................................................6 3. Powertel, Inc.......................................................................................................8 B. The Merger Transactions .................................................................................................9 C. Applications and Review Process...................................................................................12 1. Commission Review .........................................................................................12 2. Department of Justice Review............................................................................16 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-142 D. Framework for Analysis ................................................................................................17 II. QUALIFICATIONS OF APPLICANTS.....................................................................................19 A. Qualifications of Transferors..........................................................................................19 1. Background ......................................................................................................21 2. The $5 Billion Investment .................................................................................23 3. Section 5.15 of the VoiceStream-DT Merger Agreement ....................................28 B. Qualifications of Transferee...........................................................................................30 III. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 310(a) AND (b).........................................33 A. Background...................................................................................................................34 B. Analysis........................................................................................................................38 C. Section 310(b)(4) Framework ........................................................................................49 IV. ALLEGED HARMS ASSOCIATED WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP ...........51 A. Foreign Government Control of DT ...............................................................................56 B. Foreign Government Ownership and Possible Financial Advantages ...............................60 1. Preferential Access to Capital and Government Subsidies...................................60 2. Possible Favorable Regulatory Treatment ..........................................................66 C. Strategic Trade Policy Concerns.....................................................................................71 D. National Security, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety Interests ....................................73 V. ALLEGED HARMS TO COMPETITION IN SPECIFIC U.S. MARKETS .................................78 A. Domestic Mobile Telephony Markets.............................................................................79 1. Relevant Markets and Significant Participants....................................................81 2. Competitive Analysis ........................................................................................83 3. Rural Market Entry ...........................................................................................93 B. U.S. International Services Market .................................................................................96 1. Relevant Market and Significant Participants .....................................................97 2. Competitive Analysis ........................................................................................98 3. Dominant Carrier Safeguards...........................................................................100 C. Global Wireless Issues.................................................................................................103 1. Background ....................................................................................................105 2. Competitive Analysis ......................................................................................107 a. International roaming..........................................................................107 b. Third generation technology................................................................112 c. Expansion of global footprint..............................................................113 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-142 D. Conclusion..................................................................................................................115 VI. ALLEGED PRO-COMPETITIVE BENEFITS .........................................................................116 VII. CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................125 A. Section 310(b)(4).........................................................................................................125 B. Sections 214 and 310(d)...............................................................................................126 VIII. RELATED PETITIONS ..........................................................................................................127 A. CIVS IV and CIVS V ..................................................................................................129 B. Wireless Alliance, L.L.C..............................................................................................132 C. Iowa Wireless..............................................................................................................135 D. Eliska Wireless Ventures .............................................................................................139 IX. ORDERING CLAUSES ..........................................................................................................143 APPENDIX A: Commenters and Filings APPENDIX B: DT–VoiceStream/DOJ/FBI Agreement I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. In this Order, we consider the joint applications filed by Deutsche Telekom AG (DT), VoiceStream Wireless Corporation (VoiceStream), and Powertel, Inc. (Powertel) (collectively, Applicants), pursuant to sections 214(a) and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act),1 for authority to transfer control of licenses and authorizations held by VoiceStream and Powertel to DT in connection with their proposed merger.2 We conclude that approval of the applications to transfer control is in the public interest, subject to the conditions specified herein. We grant the petition filed by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to condition grant of the applications on the Applicants’ compliance with their joint agreement regarding foreign ownership and national security issues. We also grant, to the extent specified herein, the petitions for declaratory ruling pursuant to section 310(b)(4) of the Act filed by VoiceStream and Powertel and find that the public interest 1 47 U.S.C. §§ 214(a), 310(d). 2 VoiceStream Wireless Corp. and Deutsche Telekom AG, Application for Transfer of Control and Petition for Declaratory Ruling, IB Docket No. 00-187 (filed Sept. 18, 2000) (VoiceStream DT Application); Powertel, Inc. and Deutsche Telekom AG, Application for Transfer of Control and Petition for Declaratory Ruling, IB Docket No. 00- 187 (filed Sept. 18, 2000) (Powertel DT Application). 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-142 would not be served by denying the proposed indirect foreign ownership of VoiceStream and Powertel by DT in excess of 25 percent.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why Youtube Buffers: the Secret Deals That Make—And Break—Online Video When Isps and Video Providers Fight Over Money, Internet Users Suffer
    Why YouTube buffers: The secret deals that make—and break—online video When ISPs and video providers fight over money, Internet users suffer. Lee Hutchinson has a problem. My fellow Ars writer is a man who loves to watch YouTube videos— mostly space rocket launches and gun demonstrations, I assume—but he never knows when his home Internet service will let him do so. "For at least the past year, I've suffered from ridiculously awful YouTube speeds," Hutchinson tells me. "Ads load quickly—there's never anything wrong with the ads!—but during peak times, HD videos have been almost universally unwatchable. I've found myself having to reduce the quality down to 480p and sometimes even down to 240p to watch things without buffering. More recently, videos would start to play and buffer without issue, then simply stop buffering at some point between a third and two-thirds in. When the playhead hit the end of the buffer—which might be at 1:30 of a six-minute video—the video would hang for several seconds, then simply end. The video's total time would change from six minutes to 1:30 minutes and I'd be presented with the standard 'related videos' view that you see when a video is over." Hutchinson, a Houston resident who pays Comcast for 16Mbps business-class cable, is far from alone. As one Ars reader recently complained, "YouTube is almost unusable on my [Verizon] FiOS connection during peak hours." Another reader responded, "To be fair, it's unusable with almost any ISP." Hutchinson's YouTube playback has actually gotten better in recent weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Investment Holdings Dec. 31, 2016
    1 DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH § 285 HGB AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016 1. Subsidiaries Shareholders’ equity Indirectly Directly Total thousands of Net income/net loss Reporting No. Name and registered office Via % % nominal value Currency reporting currency thousands of € currency Note 1. 3.T-Venture Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH (3. TVB), Bonn 1.93. 100.00 25,000 EUR 6,382 764 EUR e) 2. Antel Germany GmbH, Karben 1.105. 100.00 25,000 EUR (119) (48) EUR i) 3. Arbeitgeberverband comunity, Arbeitgeberverband für EUR - - EUR Telekommunikation und IT e.V., Bonn 4. Assessment Point (Proprietary) Limited, Johannesburg 1.125. 100.00 100 ZAR (3,192) (6) ZAR e) 5. Atrada GmbH, Nuremberg 100.00 150,000 EUR 3,220 (2,210) EUR e) 6. Atrada Trading Network Limited, Manchester 1.5. 100.00 1 GBP 0 0 GBP e) 7. BENOCS GmbH, Bonn 1.327. 100.00 25,000 EUR 94 (765) EUR e) 8. Benocs, Inc., Wilmington, DE 1.7. 100.00 100 USD - - USD 9. CA INTERNET d.o.o., Zagreb 1.129. 100.00 20,000 HRK 228 11 HRK e) 10. CBS GmbH, Cologne 1.19. 100.00 838,710 EUR 18,055 0 EUR a) e) 11. CE Colo Czech, s.r.o., Prague 1.232. 100.00 711,991,857 CZK 854,466 88,237 CZK e) 12. COMBIS - IT Usluge d.o.o., Belgrade 1.14. 100.00 49,136 RSD (112,300) (9,378) EUR e) 13. COMBIS d.o.o. Sarajevo, Sarajevo 1.14. 100.00 2,000 BAM 5,297 969 BAM e) 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Separation of Telstra: Economic Considerations, International Experience
    WIK-Consult Report Study for the Competitive Carriers‟ Coalition Separation of Telstra: Economic considerations, international experience Authors: J. Scott Marcus Dr. Christian Wernick Kenneth R. Carter WIK-Consult GmbH Rhöndorfer Str. 68 53604 Bad Honnef Germany Bad Honnef, 2 June 2009 Functional Separation of Telstra I Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Economic and policy background on various forms of separation 4 3 Case studies on different separation regimes 8 3.1 The Establishment of Openreach in the UK 8 3.2 Functional separation in the context of the European Framework for Electronic Communication 12 3.3 Experiences in the U.S. 15 3.3.1 The Computer Inquiries 15 3.3.2 Separate affiliate requirements under Section 272 17 3.3.3 Cellular separation 18 3.3.4 Observations 20 4 Concentration and cross-ownership in the Australian marketplace 21 4.1 Characteristics of the Australian telecommunications market 22 4.2 Cross-ownership of fixed, mobile, and cable television networks 27 4.3 The dominant position of Telstra on the Australian market 28 5 An assessment of Australian market and regulatory characteristics based on Three Criteria Test 32 5.1 High barriers to entry 33 5.2 Likely persistence of those barriers 35 5.3 Inability of other procompetitive instruments to address the likely harm 38 5.4 Conclusion 38 6 The way forward 39 6.1 Regulation or separation? 40 6.2 Structural separation, or functional separation? 42 6.3 What kind of functional separation? 44 6.3.1 Overview of the functional separation 44 6.3.2 What services and assets should be assigned to the separated entity? 47 6.3.3 How should the separation be implemented? 49 Bibliography 52 II Functional Separation of Telstra Recommendations Recommendation 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Stellungnahme Der Deutsche Telekom AG Zum Entwurf Einer Neuen Förderrichtlinie „Mobilfunkförderung“ Des Bundes Vom 22.07.2020
    Stellungnahme der Deutsche Telekom AG zum Entwurf einer neuen Förderrichtlinie „Mobilfunkförderung“ des Bundes vom 22.07.2020 Der Mobilfunkausbau in Deutschland wird von den privatwirtschaftlichen Ausbauplänen der Mobilfunkbetreiber getragen. Die Telekom ist einer der wesentlichen Akteure dieses Ausbaus. Die Telekom investiert jedes Jahr über EUR 5 Mrd. in den Netzausbau in Deutsch- land – deutlich mehr als alle Wettbewerber. Dazu gehört der Bau von tausenden neuer Mobilfunkstandorte pro Jahr und Upgrades bestehender Masten. Zur Verbesserung der Netzabdeckung auch gerade in weißen Flecken kooperiert die Telekom auch mit den ande- ren beiden Mobilfunknetzbetreibern Vodafone und Telefónica. Hinzu kommt der bundes- weite Ausbau von Glasfasernetzen im Festnetz. Dieser privatwirtschaftliche Netzausbau ist im Kern wettbewerblich getrieben. Die Tele- kom betreibt bereits heute ein hochleistungsfähiges Mobilfunknetz, mit ausgezeichneter Übertragungsqualität und einer Netzabdeckung der Bevölkerung mit LTE von bundesweit über 98 %. Die ambitionierte Ausbaupläne der Telekom verfolgen unter der Maßgabe „5G bis 2025“ das Ziel, diese Spitzenposition im deutschen Mobilfunkmarkt zu halten und 99% der Haushalte und 90% der Fläche mit 5G zu versorgen und so sowohl die Coverage unseres Netzes zu erhöhen als auch den stetig steigenden Erwartungen unserer Kunden an mobile Datenmengen und Übertragungsqualitäten zu genügen.1 Zusätzlich zu diesen wettbewerblichen Anreizen hat sich die Telekom, wie die anderen Mo- bilfunknetzbetreiber, zu hohen Versorgungsauflagen verpflichtet, die der Frequenzauktion 2019 zugrunde lagen. Im Mobilfunkgipfel 2018 haben sich die Mobilfunknetzbetreiber zu- dem zu einem Netzausbau verpflichtet, der sogar noch über diese Auflagen hinausgeht: Die TDG wird zusammen mit Vodafone und Telefónica bis Ende 2020 99% der Haushalte bun- desweit und bis Ende 2021 99% der Haushalte in jedem Bundesland erschließen.
    [Show full text]
  • US and Plaintiff States V. Deutsche Telekom AG, Et
    Case 1:19-cv-02232 Document 1 Filed 07/26/19 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division 450 5th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 STATE OF KANSAS, 120 S.W. 10th Avenue, 2nd Floor Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597 STATE OF NEBRASKA, Case No. 2115 State Capitol Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 Filed: STATE OF OHIO, 150 East Gay Street, 22nd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-4894 and STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, 1302 E. Highway 14, Suite 1 Pierre, South Dakota 57501-8501 Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG, Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 140 Bonn, Germany 53113 T-MOBILE US, INC., 12920 SE 38th Street Bellevue, Washington 98006 SOFTBANK GROUP CORP. 1-9-1 Higashi-shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan 105-7303 Case 1:19-cv-02232 Document 1 Filed 07/26/19 Page 2 of 13 and SPRINT CORPORATION 6200 Sprint Parkway, Overland Park, Kansas 66251-4300 Defendants. COMPLAINT The United States of America and the States of Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Dakota (“Plaintiff States”) bring this civil antitrust action to prevent the merger of T- Mobile and Sprint, two of the four national facilities-based mobile wireless carriers in the United States. The United States and Plaintiff States allege as follows: I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Mobile wireless service is an integral part of modern American life. The average American household spends over $1,000 a year on mobile wireless service, not including the additional costs of wireless devices, applications, media content, and accessories.
    [Show full text]
  • Commonwealth of Kentucky Before the Public Service
    COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of: PETITION OF GEARHEART ) COMMUNICATIONS INC. D/B/A COALFIELDS ) CASE NO. TELEPHONE COMPANY, FOR ARBITRATION ) 2006-00294 OF CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ) PROPOSED INTERCONNECTION ) AGREEMENT WITH CELLCO PARTNERSHIP ) D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, GTE WIRELESS ) OF THE MIDWEST INCORPORATED D/B/A ) VERIZON WIRELESS, AND KENTUCKY RSA ) NO. 1 PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON ) WIRELESS, PURSUANT TO THE ) COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS ) AMENDED BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ) ACT OF 1996 ) O R D E R Between May 30, 2006 and June 9, 2006, 12 incumbent local exchange carriers (“ILECs”) filed with the Commission 49 separate requests for arbitration of interconnection agreements with eight different commercial radio service providers (collectively “CMRS Providers”),1 pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 252(b). The Commission initially assigned each case a separate docket number. On July 25, 2007, the 1 Alltel Communications, Inc. (“Alltel”); New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, successor to BellSouth Mobility LLC, BellSouth Personal Communications LLC and Cincinnati SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Cingular Wireless (collectively, “AT&T Mobility”); Sprint Spectrum L.P., on behalf of itself and SprintCom, Inc., d/b/a Sprint PCS; T-Mobile USA, Inc., Powertel/Memphis, Inc., and T-Mobile Central LLC, (collectively “T-Mobile”); ComScape Telecommunications, Inc.; NTCH-West, Inc.; American Cellular Corporation f/k/a ACC Kentucky License, LLC; and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, GTE Wireless of the Midwest Incorporated (collectively, “Verizon Wireless”) and Kentucky RSA No. 1 Partnership. Commission issued an Order in Case No. 2006-00215 that consolidated the petitions to 12 separate proceedings, one for each ILEC.
    [Show full text]
  • Anticipated Acquisition by BT Group Plc of EE Limited
    Anticipated acquisition by BT Group plc of EE Limited Appendices and glossary Appendix A: Terms of reference and conduct of the inquiry Appendix B: Industry background Appendix C: Financial performance of companies Appendix D: Regulation Appendix E: Transaction and merger rationale Appendix F: Retail mobile Appendix G: Spectrum, capacity, and speed Appendix H: Fixed-mobile bundles Appendix I: Wholesale mobile: total foreclosure analysis Appendix J: Wholesale mobile: partial foreclosure analysis Appendix K: Mobile backhaul: input foreclosure Appendix L: Retail fixed broadband: Market A Appendix M: Retail broadband: superfast broadband Glossary APPENDIX A Terms of reference and conduct of the inquiry Terms of reference 1. In exercise of its duty under section 33(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (the Act) the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) believes that it is or may be the case that: (a) arrangements are in progress or in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a relevant merger situation in that: (i) enterprises carried on by, or under the control of, BT Group plc will cease to be distinct from enterprises currently carried on by, or under the control of, EE Limited; and (ii) section 23(1)(b) of the Act is satisfied; and (b) the creation of that situation may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition within a market or markets in the United Kingdom (the UK) for goods or services, including the supply of: (i) wholesale access and call origination services to mobile virtual network operators; and (ii) fibre mobile backhaul services to mobile network operators.
    [Show full text]
  • Narrowband-Iot: Pushing the Boundaries of Iot
    Narrowband-IoT: pushing the boundaries of IoT Narrowband-IoT (NB-IoT) is a new standard connecting internet of things projects. vodafone.com/iot/nb-iot The future is exciting. Ready? Executive summary This paper gives technical decision-makers an overview of NB-IoT, the communications technology that will underpin industrial-grade internet of things deployments. Introducing LPWA and NB-IoT Low Power Wide Area (LPWA) describes a category of wireless communication technologies designed to support internet of things (IoT) deployments. LPWA technologies are designed to deliver: Strong coverage over large areas, Great power efficiency, so devices Massive scale, connecting even when devices are underground can run on batteries for 10 years or potentially millions of devices at once or deep within buildings more without a charge in a single deployment Low cost communications Low bandwidth, with most use cases hardware, enabling data collection requiring just a few bytes of data to be devices to be built for less than $10 transmitted per device per day A number of different technologies have been developed to fulfil LPWA requirements, and we believe Narrowband For more detail about LPWA, NB-IoT and its IoT (NB-IoT) not only offers enterprise-grade technical competition, see page 5. specifications, but is also the practical choice for carriers, device manufacturers and ultimately enterprise users. To understand why NB-IoT is uniquely suited to business IoT deployments, we compare NB-IoT against two LPWA alternatives, LoRa and Sigfox. Narrowband-IoT 2 2017 Key findings The evolution of the Internet of Things means that there is an urgent need for a low- power way to connect thousands of devices in field.
    [Show full text]
  • 19Q3 Deutsche Telekom ISP EN.Indd
    CUSTOMER CASE STUDY DEUTSCHE TELEKOM ISP GENERATES GREAT DEMAND WITH NEW APPROACH FOR DIGITAL WORKPLACES IT landscapes and processes for ordering and delivering apps tailored to local requirements and not designed to be as easy to use and quick to deploy as possible: This is how the IT structure CUSTOMER for digital workspaces at Deutsche Telekom's subsidiaries looked DEUTSCHE TELEKOM INDIVIDUAL in the past. The aim of the initially small IT team at Deutsche SOLUTIONS & PRODUCTS GMBH Telekom Individual Solutions & Products (ISP) GmbH was to WEB SITE make this landscape more fl exible, agile and consistent. A WWW.TELEKOM.COM/DE paradigm shift was the fi rst step: the focus should be on the INDUSTRY employee, not the IT architecture. An exceptionally close TELCO & SERVICE PROVIDER collaboration between Deutsche Telekom ISP and VMware LOCATION resulted in a multifaceted, yet modern and fresh solution. Today, BONN, GERMANY employees can download applications individually through a self- service app catalog on any device from any location. The solution KEY CHALLENGES • Deutsche Telekom's subsidiaries did has proven to be a great success: many of Telekom's external use di erent platforms for digital customers with partly more than 50,000 employees are now on workplaces a waiting list to implement the innovative solution. • The workplace environment of the various Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom Individual Solutions & Products (ISP) GmbH is part of subsidiaries has grown historically Deutsche Telekom AG - one of the world's leading telecommunications and has been optimized for local companies with approximately 178 million mobile communications customers, requirements and e ciency.
    [Show full text]
  • Dl-Studiemoodys-Data.Pdf
    CORPORATES CREDIT OPINION Deutsche Telekom AG 21 June 2021 Update following outlook change to stable Update Summary Deutsche Telekom AG's (Deutsche Telekom) Baa1 rating primarily reflects the company's large size and scale; its geographical diversification in Germany, the US, and Central and Eastern Europe; its strong market positions across its geographical footprint, despite the potential for increased competition; its high capital spending requirements, given the low fibre coverage in RATINGS Germany; and the marginal impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the company's operating Deutsche Telekom AG performance. Domicile Bonn, Germany Long Term Rating Baa1 Deutsche Telekom’s rating also factors in management’s financial policy that includes a Type Senior Unsecured - Fgn leverage comfort zone of net debt/EBITDA (as reported by the company) between 2.25x and Curr 2.75x (equivalent to Moody’s-adjusted net leverage of around 3.0x); its continued commitment Outlook Stable towards the net leverage corridor and deleveraging after the consolidation of T-Mobile USA, Please see the ratings section at the end of this report Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Ba2 stable); the strong evolution of the company's US subsidiary, the for more information. The ratings and outlook shown group's key growth engine; and its excellent liquidity management, with a minimum two-year reflect information as of the publication date. pre-funding policy. Given Deutsche Telekom's status as a government-related issuer (GRI), the Baa1 rating benefits Contacts from a one-notch uplift stemming from our expectation of support from the Government of Carlos Winzer +34.91.768.8238 Germany (Aaa stable).
    [Show full text]
  • Itu-T List of Mobile Country Or Geographical Area Codes
    Annex to ITU Operational Bulletin No. 1117 – 1.II.2017 INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION ITU-T TELECOMMUNICATION STANDARDIZATION SECTOR OF ITU COMPLEMENT TO RECOMMENDATION ITU-T E.212 (09/2016) _________________________________________________________________ LIST OF MOBILE COUNTRY OR GEOGRAPHICAL AREA CODES (POSITION ON 1 FEBRUARY 2017) _________________________________________________________________ Geneva, 2017 List of Mobile Country or Geographical Area Codes Note from TSB 1. This List of mobile country or geographical area codes replaces the previous one published as Annex to ITU Operational Bulletin No. 1005 of 1 June 2012. Since then, various new assignments have been made, and they have been published in the ITU Operational Bulletin. 2. This List includes : - a list of mobile country or geographical area codes - in numerical order; - a list of mobile country or geographical area codes - in alphabetical order. 3. This List will be updated by numbered series of amendments published in the ITU Operational Bulletin. Furthermore, the information contained in this Annex is also available on the ITU website www.itu.int/itu-t/bulletin/annex.html. 4. Please address any comments concerning this publication to the Director of TSB: Tel: +41 22 730 5887 Fax: +41 22 730 5853 Email: [email protected] 5. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this List do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of ITU concerning the legal status of any country or geographical area, or of its authorities. Annex
    [Show full text]
  • Acquisitions by Partially Privitized Firms: the Case of Deutsche
    Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 54 | Issue 1 Article 2 12-1-2001 Acquisitions by Partially Privitized Firms: The aC se of Deutsche Telekom and Voicestream J. Gregory Sidak American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Communications Law Commons, and the Consumer Protection Law Commons Recommended Citation Sidak, J. Gregory (2001) "Acquisitions by Partially Privitized Firms: The asC e of Deutsche Telekom and Voicestream," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 54: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol54/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Communications Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Acquisitions by Partially Privatized Firms: The Case of Deutsche Telekom and VoiceStream J. Gregory Sidak* I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 2 II. THE FCC'S INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTORY FRAM EWORK .............................................................................6 A. Statutory Interpretationof Sections 310(a) and (b) ............. 7 B. The Effects of the Foreign ParticipationOrder on Section 310(b)(4) ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]