DOCSLIB.ORG

U-15166 Alltel V AT&T Michigan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U-15166 Alltel V AT&T Michigan 212 East Grand River Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48906 Tel. (517) 318-3100 ▪ Fax (517) 318-3099 www.clarkhill.com Haran C. Rashes Phone: (517) 318-3019 E-Mail: [email protected] December 27, 2006 Ms. Mary Jo Kunkle Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantile Way PO Box 30221 Lansing, MI 48909 Re: In the Matter of the Complaint and Application for Resolution of Alltel Communications, Inc. against Michigan Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Michigan for Improper Assessment of SS7 Messaging Charges MPSC Case No. U-15166 Dear Ms. Kunkle: Enclosed for filing please find the Formal Complaint and Application and Resolution of Alltel Communications, Inc. in the above captioned proceeding. The supporting testimony and exhibits of Ron Williams is also enclosed. These documents have been filed electronically with the Commission’s Electronic Docket Filing System. Very truly yours, CLARK HILL PLC Haran C. Rashes HCR:pat cc: Stephen B. Rowell Philip R. Schenkenberg Enclosures 5369596.1 26828/113002 Detroit Birmingham Lansing Grand Rapids STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the Matter of the Complaint and Application ) for Resolution of Alltel Communications, Inc. ) against Michigan Bell Telephone Company ) Case No. U-15166 d/b/a AT&T Michigan for Improper Assessment ) of SS7 Messaging Charges ) FORMAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR RESOLUTION Pursuant to Sections 201, 203, 204, 205, and 601 of the Michigan Telecommunications Act (“Michigan TA”), as amended, MCL 484.2201 et seq., and the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (“MPSC” or “Commission”) Rules of Practice and Procedure, MAC R 460.17101 et seq., Alltel Communications, Inc. (“Alltel”), by its attorneys, brings this Formal Complaint and Application for Resolution (“Complaint”) regarding Michigan Bell Telephone Co. d/b/a AT&T Michigan (“AT&T”). In support of its Complaint, Alltel files the accompanying testimony of Ron Williams and related exhibits and states as follows: PARTIES 1. AT&T is an incumbent local exchange provider in Michigan, and, according to the Commission’s list of Regulated Local Telephone Companies Licensed in Michigan, has its principal offices at 221 North Washington, Ground Floor, Lansing, Michigan 48933. 2. Alltel is a provider of commercial mobile radio services (“CMRS”) authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to provide wireless telecommunications services in certain geographic areas in Michigan, and has its principal offices at P.O. Box 3373, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203. 5369356.1 26828/113002 JURISDICTION 3. Section 201 of the Michigan TA, MCL 484.2201, provides the Commission with jurisdiction and authority to enforce the Michigan TA and to exercise its delegated authority under the federal Telecommunications Act. 4. Section 203 of the Michigan TA, MCL 484.2203, authorizes the Commission, upon receipt of a complaint, to conduct an investigation, hold hearings, and issue its findings and order under the contested case provisions of the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), MCL 24.201 et seq. 5. Section 204 of the Michigan TA, MCL 484.2204, provides that if two or more telecommunications providers are unable to agree on a matter relating to a regulated telecommunication issue between the parties, then either provider may apply to the Commission for resolution of the matter. 6. Section 205 of the Michigan TA, MCL 484.2205, authorizes the Commission to investigate and resolve complaints. 7. Section 601 of the Michigan TA, MCL 484.2601, permits the Commission to award remedies and/or penalties where a violation of the Michigan TA (or one of the Commission’s orders) is found. 8. As held by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Commission has delegated authority to interpret and enforce interconnection agreements under the federal Telecommunications Act. See e.g., Michigan Bell Tel Co v MCIMetro Access Transmission Services, Inc, 323 F3d 348, 356-57 (6th Cir. 2003). 9. The Commission also has jurisdiction and authority to enforce tariffs for regulated intrastate services. 2 5369356.1 26828/113002 10. This Complaint is filed with regard to SS7 message charges billed by AT&T for wireless calls originated by Alltel and terminated by AT&T in Michigan, and are within the Commission’s jurisdiction. These charges were billed by AT&T to VeriSign, Inc. (“VeriSign”) which transmits SS7 messages for Alltel. VeriSign has paid the charges billed by AT&T, and has demanded reimbursement from Alltel for all such SS7 message charges. 11. Alltel has standing to assert this Complaint because it is a person with an interest in the outcome of the Complaint. AT&T has billed VeriSign for SS7 messaging charges for Alltel calls, and VeriSign asserts that if those charges were properly assessed to VeriSign, Alltel must pay those amounts to VeriSign. Alltel seeks an order that such amounts were not properly assessed by AT&T, and requiring that AT&T refund any amounts paid by VeriSign with respect to Alltel intraMTA traffic. BACKGROUND 12. Alltel has exchanged telecommunications traffic with AT&T in the State of Michigan at all times relevant to this Complaint. The parties have operated in Michigan in accordance with interconnection agreements filed with and approved by the Commission. Most recently, on October 14, 2004 in Docket U-14300, the Commission approved a multi-state interconnection agreement that was effective upon Commission approval (the “2004 ICA”). Prior to that date the parties operated pursuant to other agreements, including an agreement dated as of October 14, 1999, between Ameritech Information Industry Services and CenturyTel Wireless, Inc. 13. The telecommunications traffic exchanged between Alltel and AT&T that is the subject of this Complaint originates and terminates in Michigan and in the same Major Trading Area, or “MTA.” 3 5369356.1 26828/113002 14. Signaling is a necessary part of the exchange of traffic between carriers because it provides the call processing and routing information. Alltel and AT&T utilize out-of-band SS7 signaling to exchange call processing and routing information. 15. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Alltel has contracted with VeriSign to transmit SS7 messages to and from AT&T and other telecommunications carriers in Michigan. VeriSign provides this service to Alltel in accordance with an agreement referred to as the “SS7 Agreement.” When a call destined to AT&T is initiated by an Alltel customer and in the reverse, VeriSign transmits the SS7 message and exchanges that SS7 information with AT&T, so that the call path is established and the call can be completed. The SS7 messages that are transmitted by VeriSign and exchanged with AT&T are referred to as “ISUP messages.” 16. The Commission has determined on several occasions that SS7 signaling is part and parcel of the delivery of traffic between carriers. In 1999 the Commission conducted an interconnection arbitration involving CenturyTel Wireless, Inc. and Thumb Cellular and Ameritech Michigan. In the matter of the application of CenturyTel Wireless, Inc. and Thumb Cellular for arbitration of interconnection agreements with Ameritech Michigan, MPSC Case No. U-11989, Opinion and Order (Sept. 14, 1999). In that decision, the Commission ordered SS7 services to be priced at Total Service Long Run Incremental Cost (“TSLRIC”) based rates because “signaling is part of interconnection and should not be viewed solely as a separate access service.” Id. at 14. See also, In the matter of the application of AirTouch Cellular, Inc. for arbitration of interconnection terms, conditions, and prices from Ameritech Michigan, MPSC Case No. U-11973, Opinion and Order (Aug. 17, 1999) (“signaling is part of interconnection”). 17. The 2004 ICA establishes a reciprocal rate for the termination of telecommunications traffic subject to 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5). This rate is contained in a 4 5369356.1 26828/113002 document titled “Amendment to Interconnection Agreement” that was executed at the same time as the 2004 ICA, and that provides the parties will exchange intraMTA traffic pursuant to the rate structure in the FCC’s ISP Compensation Order.1 This amendment, referred to as the “ISP Amendment,”2 caps the rate paid by the parties for terminating Section 251(b)(5) traffic at $0.0007 per minute of use. 18. The 2004 ICA (including the ISP Amendment) does not authorize AT&T to separately charge Alltel for receiving and processing ISUP messages that are necessary for the exchange of Section 251(b)(5) traffic. Instead, the 2004 ICA provides that “If SS7 services are provided by [AT&T], they will be provided in the applicable access tariffs.” This provision does not apply because access tariffs are not applicable to intraMTA wireless traffic subject to Section 251(b)(5). In addition, consistent with the ISP Compensation Order, the rate cap in the ISP Amendment prevents AT&T from recovering more than $0.0007 for intraMTA traffic by separately billing for receiving and processing ISUP messages. 19. Since August of 2003 and through the present, AT&T has billed VeriSign a per- message charge for receiving and processing ISUP messages for Section 251(b)(5) traffic originated by Alltel and terminated to AT&T. On information and belief, AT&T has issued these bills as access charges under one or more of its access tariffs. VeriSign has paid these charges and has invoiced Alltel for those charges. Alltel disputes that those charges are properly assessed by AT&T. VeriSign asserts that if the charges are properly assessed by AT&T, then Alltel is obligated to reimburse VeriSign under the terms of the SS7 Agreement. 1 In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic, FCC 01- 131, CC Docket Nos. 96-98 (rel. April 27, 2001) (“ISP Compensation Order”).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Before the Washington, D.C. 20554 in the Matter of ) ) Section 63.71 Application of ) ) File No. Bellsouth Telecommunications, L
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Section 63.71 Application of ) ) File No. BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC ) Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC ) Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated ) Michigan Bell Telephone Company ) Nevada Bell Telephone Company ) Pacific Bell Telephone Company ) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ) The Ohio Bell Telephone Company ) Wisconsin Bell, Inc. ) ) For Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of ) The Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, ) To Discontinue the Provision of Service ) SECTION 63.71 APPLICATION OF AT&T AT&T Services, Inc., on behalf of its affiliates, BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Alabama, AT&T Florida, AT&T Georgia, AT&T Kentucky, AT&T Louisiana, AT&T Mississippi, AT&T North Carolina, AT&T South Carolina, and AT&T Tennessee; Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Illinois; Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, d/b/a AT&T Indiana; Michigan Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Michigan; Nevada Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Nevada; Pacific Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T California; Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Arkansas, AT&T Kansas, AT&T Missouri, AT&T Oklahoma, and AT&T Texas; The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Ohio; and Wisconsin Bell, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Wisconsin, (collectively referred to herein as “AT&T”) applies for authority under Section 214(a) of the Communications Act, as amended (“the Act”), 47 U.S.C. § 214, and Section 63.71 of the Federal Communications Commission’s (“Commission”) rules, 47 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Settlement Terms, As Approved by Venus’S Counsel and Class Counsel, Subject to Approval by The
    Case3:15-cv-03578-EDL Document15 Filed09/29/15 Page1 of 29 1 LEXINGTON LAW GROUP Mark N. Todzo, State Bar No. 168389 2 Abigail Blodgett, State Bar No. 278813 503 Divisadero Street 3 San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 913-7800 4 Facsimile: (415) 759-4112 [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 HALUNEN LAW Melissa W. Wolchansky (pro hac vice pending) 7 Charles D. Moore (pro hac vice pending) 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 1650 8 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 9 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 [email protected] 10 [email protected] 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Classes 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 15 16 REBEKAH BAHARESTAN and JENA Case No. 3:15-cv-03578-EDL MCINTYRE, on behalf of themselves and all 17 others similarly situated, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 18 Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 19 v. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 20 Date: November 3, 2015 VENUS LABORATORIES, INC., dba EARTH Time: 10:00 a.m. 21 FRIENDLY PRODUCTS, INC., Location: Courtroom E Judge: Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte 22 Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 3:15-cv-03578-EDL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case3:15-cv-03578-EDL Document15 Filed09/29/15 Page2 of 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Page 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ....................................................................................... vi 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1 4 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................2 6 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Exchange / Seattle Public Library Queen Anne Warehouse 1529 4Th Avenue West, Seattle Landmark
    Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Exchange / Seattle Public Library Queen Anne Warehouse 1529 4th Avenue West, Seattle Landmark Nomination BOLA Architecture + Planning Seattle December 21, 2015 Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Exchange / Seattle Public Library Queen Anne Warehouse Landmark Nomination 1529 4th Avenue W, Seattle December 21, 2015 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 Background Research Seattle’s Landmark Designation Process Preservation Incentives Design Reviews of Proposed Changes to a Landmark 2. Property Data 4 3. Historic Context Statement 5 Historic Overview of Queen Anne Hill The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company in Seattle The Building’s Construction History The Original Designers The Role of Women as Switchboard Operators 4. Architectural Description 12 Neighborhood Context The Site The Structure and Exterior Facades Interior Layout and Features Changes to the Original Building 5. Bibliography and Resources 18 6. Photographs and Images 23 Figure Index Images Select Drawings Cover: Views looking southwest at the building: Museum of Communications, 1923; King County Tax Assessor’s Property Record Card, 1936; Contemporary, BOLA, July 2015. BOLA Architecture + Planning 159 Western Avenue West, Suite 486 Seattle, Washington 98119 206.447.4749 Name (common, present, or historic): The Pacific Telegraph and Telephone Garfield Exchange / Seattle Public Library Queen Anne Warehouse Year built: 1921-1922, 1929 (remodeled in 1950 and 1961); 1977 (Renovation) Street and number: 1529 4th Avenue West, Seattle WA 98119 Assessor's file no.: 423290-3170
    [Show full text]
  • BOOK II Bell History and Strategies
    The Unauthorized Bio Of The Baby Bells 88 BOOK II Bell History and Strategies: Shareholders First, Customers Last What does the Star Wars' Evil Empire and Bell Atlantic Have in Common? James Earl Jones was the Voice of Darth Vadar and is the Voice Of Bell Atlantic— Are There Other Commonalties? The Unauthorized Bio Of The Baby Bells 89 "Food For Thought" Interlude— Conspiracy or Miscalculation? Book 1 leaves us with a serious dilemma, especially about the I-Way. First, we know straightforwardly that the plans were all scrapped and the announced services were never delivered. But we are left with wondering how both the telephone companies as well as their consultants, were so wrong. Let's look at the options: There were three massive errors in judgment: • Mistakes in the costs of rolling out the network • Mistakes in overestimating demand • Mistakes by the research/consulting suppliers Let's walk through each one: • Mistakes in the Costs of Rolling Out the Network: The original cost model for the I-Way was estimated at around $1,200 per household. However, Bell Atlantic stated that the cost of their trials came to $16,000 per line. This includes the cost of the various Info Highway components in the home, described earlier, as well as the cost of the fiber- optic networks. But, that's a difference per line of 1233%. Of course there are caveats. Most importantly, that the trickle of a rollout was only a "test" of advanced services, and with larger volumes of users, the costs would decline. In fact, Bell Atlantic's original plans may have actually called for a great deal less spending than $1,200 a line.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 to Interconnection, Resale, Unbundling and Collocation Agreement with TCG South Florida
    Richard k Chapkis Vice President and General Counsel, Southeast Region Legal Department FLTC0007 201 North Franklin Street (33602) Post Office Box 110 Tampa, Florida 33601 -01 10 Phone 81 3 483-1256 Fax 81 3 273-9825 richardchapkis@ verizon.com December 8,2004 --:-. Ms. Blanca S. Bayo, Director Division of the Commission Clerk and Administrative Services Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Re: Docket No. Petition of Verizon Florida Inc. for Appri val of Amendment N . 3 to Interconnection, Resale, Unbundling and Collocation Agreement with TCG South Florida Dear Ms. Bayo: Please find enclosed for filing an original and five copies of the above-referenced Petition. The amendment consists of a total of 78 pages. Service has been made as indicated on the Certificate of Service. If there are any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (813) 483-1256. Since relv. Richard A. Chapkis RAC:tas Enclosures BEFORE THE FLORtDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Petition of Verizon Florida Inc. for Approval ) Docket No. of Amendment No. 3 to Interconnection, Resale, ) Filed: December 8, 2004 Unbundling and Collocation Agreement with ) TCG South Florida ) PETITION OF VERIZON FLORIDA INC. FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO INTERCONNECTION, RESALE, UNBUNDLING AND COLLOCATION AGREEMENT WITH TCG SOUTH FLORIDA Verizon Florida Inc. (Verizon), formerly known as GTE Florida Incorporated, files this petition before the Florida Public Service Commission (Commission) seeking approval of Amendment No. 3 to the interconnection, resale, unbundling and collocation agreement with TCG South Florida (TCG). In support of this petition, Verizon states: TCG adopted the Verizon/AT&T interconnection agreement in Docket No.
    [Show full text]
  • Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC AT&T Tariff ILL. C.C. NO. 22 D/B/A AT&T Illinois D/B/A AT&T Wholesale Part 22 S
    Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC AT&T Tariff ILL. C.C. NO. 22 d/b/a AT&T Illinois d/b/a AT&T Wholesale Part 22 Section 23 PART 22 - Resale Local Exchange Service 23rd Revised Sheet 1 SECTION 23 - Resale Local Exchange Services - Competitive Related This section sets forth the Local Exchange Services made available by Illinois Bell Telephone Company to Carrier for resale to its customers. General terms, conditions, service and feature descriptions as described in Illinois Guidebook, Part 4 and herein apply where appropriate, unless otherwise specified in this Part. The application thereof is to Carrier with regard to service ordering, repair requests or billing responsibility and to Carrier’s Customer when designating service location, use, activation, configuration, or sizing. 1. NETWORK ACCESS LINES 1.1 Network Access Line Rate Schedule (For service description, see Illinois Guidebook, Part 4, Section 2.) In addition to the following monthly rates, the End User Common Line charge and Service Provider Number Portability (SPNP) monthly charge apply. Access Area Description/Billing Codes A B C Business Direct Line NALCA NALMA NALSA Single Line Subscribers, each line $255.79(I) $341.42(I) $380.99(I) Multiline Subscribers, each line 255.79(I) 341.42(I) 380.99(I) P.B.X. Trunk/1/ Single Line Subscribers, each trunk - STF Not Applicable 255.79(I) 341.42(I) 380.99(I) - STF Applicable .04 .18 .17 Multiline Subscribers, each trunk - STF Not Applicable 255.79(I) 341.42(I) 380.99(I) - STF Applicable .04 .18 .17 Customer Owned Pay Line 0.00 2.78 6.49 COPTS Coin Line 1.39 5.67 9.72 /1/ P.B.X.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ohio Bell AT&T Tariff P.U.C.O. NO. 20 Telephone Company Part 1 Section 1 PART 1
    The Ohio Bell AT&T Tariff P.U.C.O. NO. 20 Telephone Company Part 1 Section 1 PART 1 - Preface 6th Revised Sheet 1 SECTION 1 - Title Sheet and Symbols Cancels 5th Revised Sheet 1 P.U.C.O. No. 20 AT&T Tariff of THE OHIO BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Cancels Exchange and Network Services Tariff P.U.C.O. No. 1 Message Toll Telephone Service Tariff P.U.C.O. No. 7 Private Line Service Tariff P.U.C.O. No. 2 Pole and Anchor Attachment and Conduit and Trench Occupancy P.U.C.O. No. 1 Customer Premises Equipment Tariff P.U.C.O. No. 1 Access Service Tariff P.U.C.O. No. 1 Effective as of varying dates The Ohio Bell Telephone Company offers services under this Tariff. AT&T Ohio is a registered trade (C) name of The Ohio Bell Telephone Company. Services offered pursuant to this Tariff may be offered under those registered trade names or under the brand name AT&T. All regulated and tariffed services offered by The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, whether under that name, the trade name AT&T Ohio, or under the brand name AT&T, are subject to the terms and conditions of this Tariff. (The Ohio Bell Telephone Company is also referred to herein as “the Company” or “Company”). Trademarks and Service Marks Telcordia® and Common Language® are registered trademarks and iconectiv, CLCI, CLEI, CLFI, CLLI, USOC, FID, NC, NCI and NC/NCI, are trademarks of Telcordia Technologies, Inc. The Common Language codes identified herein are the proprietary information of Telcordia Technologies, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • At&T Interstate Access Guidebook
    AT&T, the Globe Logo, and all product names referenced herein are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property or one of its affiliates, and are used with permission. PART 1 - Preface 4th Revised Page 1 SECTION 1 - Title Page and Legal Notice AT&T INTERSTATE ACCESS GUIDEBOOK Regulations, Rates and Charges applying to the provision of Access Services within a Local Access and Transport Area (LATA) or equivalent Market Area and for the provision of InterLATA services for connection to interstate communications facilities for Customers of the (C) Issuing Carriers as provided herein: Legal Names of Issuing Carriers Companies of the Ameritech Operating Companies: Illinois Bell Telephone Company Indiana Bell Telephone Company Michigan Bell Telephone Company The Ohio Bell Telephone Company Wisconsin Bell, Inc. BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC Nevada Bell Telephone Company Pacific Bell Telephone Company The Southern New England Telephone Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ATT TN IS-12-0025 EFFECTIVE: AUGUST 18, 2012 AT&T INTERSTATE ACCESS GUIDEBOOK PART 1 - Preface Original Sheet 2 SECTION 1 - Title Page and Legal Notice LEGAL NOTICE The AT&T Interstate Access Guidebook (“Guidebook”), which is part of the AT&T Interstate Guidebook, applies to the AT&T Broadband Services that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). Broadband Services, as described in this document, are special access services for which tariffs are subject to withdrawal pursuant to FCC Memorandum Opinion and Order No. FCC 07-180 released October 12, 2007. The Broadband Services described in the Guidebook are common carrier services under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, as applicable to non-dominant carriers.
    [Show full text]
  • AT&T Debt Information
    AT&T Inc. and Subsidiary Debt Detail - September 30, 2010 This chart shows the principal amount of AT&T Inc.'s and its subsidiaries' outstanding long-term debt issues as of the date above. AT&T intends to update this chart quarterly after filing its Form 10-Q or Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Outstanding Long-term Notes and Debentures Amount Outstanding at Unconditional Guarantee Entity (Original Issuer) Maturity Coupon Maturity Date Current Portion Long-term Portion Total by AT&T Inc. SBC Communications Inc. $1,000,000,000 5.300% 11/15/2010 $1,000,000,000 - $1,000,000,000 AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. $3,000,000,000 7.875% 3/1/2011 $3,000,000,000 - $3,000,000,000 SBC Communications Inc. $1,250,000,000 6.250% 3/15/2011 $1,250,000,000 - $1,250,000,000 BellSouth Corporation $1,000,000,000 4.295% 4/26/2021 (a) $1,000,000,000 - $1,000,000,000 Yes BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. $152,555,337 6.300% 12/15/2015 $24,012,263 $128,543,074 $152,555,337 Ameritech Capital Funding Corporation $59,802,300 9.100% 6/1/2016 $7,299,540 $52,502,760 $59,802,300 Various $112,492,335 Various Various $103,734,725 $8,757,610 $112,492,335 BellSouth Corporation $1,000,000,000 6.000% 10/15/2011 - $1,000,000,000 $1,000,000,000 AT&T Corp. $1,500,000,000 7.300% 11/15/2011 - $1,500,000,000 $1,500,000,000 Yes Cingular Wireless LLC $750,000,000 6.500% 12/15/2011 - $750,000,000 $750,000,000 SBC Communications Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC NOTICE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 445 12Th STREET S.W
    PUBLIC NOTICE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 445 12th STREET S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20554 News media information 202-418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202-418-2830; Internet: http://www.fcc.gov (or ftp.fcc.gov) TTY (202) 418-2555 Report No. SES-00706 Wednesday April 20, 2005 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INFORMATION RE: ACTIONS TAKEN The Commission, by its International Bureau, took the following actions pursuant to delegated authority. The effective dates of the actions are the dates specified. SES-AMD-20050311-00312 E E020223 GCI Communication Corp. Amendment Grant of Authority Date Effective: 04/19/2005 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Nature of Service: Domestic Fixed Satellite Service, Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: Fort Yukon LOCATION: No Street Address Available, Fort Yukon, AK 66 ° 34 ' 6.50 " N LAT. 145 ° 14 ' 42.20 " W LONG. ANTENNA ID: 1 9.1 meters Scientific - Atlanta 8009A 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 45K0G7W 61.60 dBW PSK modulation for telephony, facsimile and data 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 36M0G7W 70.80 dBW PSK modulation for telephony, facsimile and data 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 60K0G7W 62.90 dBW QAM modulation for telephony, facsimile and data 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 36M0G7W 70.80 dBW QAM modulation for telephony, facsimile and data 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 45K0G7W PSK modulation for telephony, facsimile and data 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 36M0G7W PSK modulation for telephony, facsimile and data Page 1 of 19 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 60K0G7W QAM modulation for telephony, facsimile and data 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 36M0G7W QAM modulation for telephony, facsimile and data Points of Communication: Fort Yukon - ALSAT - (ALSAT) Fort Yukon - ANIK F2 - (111.1 W.L.) SES-ASG-20041223-01882 E STA HNS License Sub, LLC Application for Consent to Assignment Grant of Authority Date Effective: 04/18/2005 Current Licensee: Hughes Network Systems, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Amazon's Document
    REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Project Clancy TALENT A. Big Questions and Big Ideas 1. Population Changes and Key Drivers. a. Population level - Specify the changes in total population in your community and state over the last five years and the major reasons for these changes. Please also identify the majority source of inbound migration. Ne Yok Cit’s populatio ge fo . illio to . illio oe the last fie eas ad is projected to surpass 9 million by 2030.1 New York City continues to attract a dynamic and diverse population of professionals, students, and families of all backgrounds, mainly from Latin America (including the Caribbean, Central America, and South America), China, and Eastern Europe.2 Estiate of Ne York City’s Populatio Year Population 2011 8,244,910 2012 8,336,697 2013 8,405,837 2014 8,491,079 2015 8,550,405 2016 8,537,673 Source: American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Population Change for New York City and Counties Time period: April 1, 2010 - July 1, 2016 Total Natural Net Net Net Geographic Area Population Increase Migration: Migration: Migration: Change (Births-Deaths) Total Domestic International New York City Total 362,540 401,943 -24,467 -524,013 499,546 Bronx 70,612 75,607 -3,358 -103,923 100,565 Brooklyn 124,450 160,580 -32,277 -169,064 136,787 Manhattan 57,861 54,522 7,189 -91,811 99,000 1 New York City Population Projections by Age/Sex & Borough, 2010-2040 2 Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in 2012-2016, American Community Survey PROJECT CLANCY PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL 4840-0257-2381.3 1 Queens 102,332 99,703 7,203 -148,045 155,248 Staten Island 7,285 11,531 -3,224 -11,170 7,946 Source: Population Division, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix Direct/At&T-13State
    APPENDIX DIRECT/AT&T-13STATE AT&T-13STATE/TCG ST. LOUIS 020106 APPENDIX DIRECT 0000152 APPENDIX DIRECT/AT&T-13STATE AT&T-13STATE/TCG ST. LOUIS 020106 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................1 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................2 SERVICE .......................................................................................................................................................................3 RESPONSIBILITIES OF AT&T-12STATE ....................................................................................................................4 RESPONSIBILITIES OF CLEC.....................................................................................................................................5 RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOTH PARTIES ....................................................................................................................6 LIABILITY......................................................................................................................................................................7 BILLING.........................................................................................................................................................................8 USE OF SUBSCRIBER LISTING INFORMATION........................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]