DOCSLIB.ORG

Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers November 1997 Jim Lande Katie Rangos Industry Analysis Division Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 This report is available for reference in the Common Carrier Bureau's Public Reference Room, 2000 M Street, N.W. Washington DC, Room 575. Copies may be purchased by calling International Transcription Service, Inc. at (202) 857-3800. The report can also be downloaded [file name LOCAT-97.ZIP] from the FCC-State Link internet site at http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/stats on the World Wide Web. The report can also be downloaded from the FCC-State Link computer bulletin board system at (202) 418-0241. Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers Contents Introduction 1 Table 1: Number of Carriers Filing 1997 TRS Fund Worksheets 7 by Type of Carrier and Type of Revenue Table 2: Telecommunications Common Carriers: 9 Carriers that filed a 1997 TRS Fund Worksheet or a September 1997 Universal Service Worksheet, with address and customer contact number Table 3: Telecommunications Common Carriers: 65 Listing of carriers sorted by carrier type, showing types of revenue reported for 1996 Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) and 65 Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) Cellular and Personal Communications Services (PCS) 68 Carriers Interexchange Carriers (IXCs) 83 Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) 86 Paging and Other Mobile Service Carriers 111 Operator Service Providers (OSPs) 118 Other Toll Service Providers 119 Pay Telephone Providers 120 Pre-paid Calling Card Providers 129 Toll Resellers 130 Table 4: Carriers that are not expected to file in the 137 future using the same TRS ID because of merger, reorganization, name change, or leaving the business Table 5: Carriers that filed a 1995 or 1996 TRS Fund worksheet 141 and that are unaccounted for in 1997 i Introduction This report lists 3,832 companies that provided interstate telecommunications service as of June 30, 1997. For each carrier, this report shows an address, a telephone number and the types of services that the carrier provided. This report is used by customers and other carriers to identify and locate sources of telecommunications service, by equipment vendors to identify potential customers, and by the FCC for various regulatory purposes. This report was compiled from two primary sources: 1997 Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund worksheets and September 1997 Universal Service Fund (USF) worksheets. The tables reflect database information extracted by the TRS and interim USF administrators in early October. Carriers that filed after that time or that filed incomplete information may not be shown in the lists of current interstate service providers. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires all providers of interstate telecommunications service to share in the costs of financing interstate TRS. TRS is a telephone transmission service that allows people with hearing or speech impairments to use the telephone. The FCC has established a TRS Fund and directed the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) to serve as the Administrator. Each carrier that provides interstate service must file an annual TRS Fund worksheet with the Administrator. The worksheet summarizes a carrier's revenues and is used to calculate its contribution to the TRS Fund. Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 requires providers of interstate telecommunications services to contribute to the preservation and advancement of universal service. The Commission established a federal universal service fund as a support mechanism for telecommunications services in high cost rural areas and for certain telecommunications services provided to schools, libraries and rural health care providers. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 97-157, 12 FCC Rcd 8776 (1997); Order on Reconsideration, FCC 97-246 (rel. July 10, 1997); Second Order on Reconsideration, FCC 97-253 (rel. July 18, 1997). Most interstate telecommunications service providers are required to file a semi-annual USF worksheet with the interim USF Administrator (NECA). The September 1997 worksheet summarizes a carrier's revenues for the first half of 1997 and will be used by the Administrator to calculate the carrier's contribution to the USF fund for the first half of 1998. This publication should include all carriers that provided interstate telecommunications services in 1996. Local telephone companies file both TRS and USF worksheets because they provide interstate access services. Similarly, competitive access providers, pay telephone operators and cellular telephone companies derive revenue from interstate services and accordingly are carriers required to file both TRS fund and USF worksheets. 1 There are some differences between TRS filers and USF filers. A few carriers, such as purely international carriers and carriers with minimal revenues, are required to file TRS worksheets but need not file USF worksheets. Private carriers and shared tenant service providers are required to file USF worksheets, but not TRS fund worksheets. In addition, some carriers that have filed TRS worksheets in the past have subsequently merged, reorganized, changed name, stopped offering interstate services, etc and so are no longer required to file TRS or USF worksheets. Other carriers that went into business in the first half of 1997 were exempt from filing a 1997 TRS worksheet. A small number of carriers filed USF worksheets but are not yet in compliance with TRS filing requirements. In the TRS and USF worksheets, each carrier has been asked to select a single category that best describes its overall status even though it may provide more than one type of service. The TRS Fund worksheet directs carriers to list themselves in one of the following categories: ! Competitive Access Provider (CAP) or Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) ! Cellular or Personal Communications Services (PCS) Carrier ! Interexchange Carrier ! Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) ! Paging or other Mobile Service Carrier ! Operator Service Provider (OSP) ! Other Toll Service Provider ! Pay Telephone Provider ! Pre-paid Calling Card Provider ! Toll Reseller 2 The USF worksheet uses a similar, but more detailed, classification system, using the following categories: ! Competitive Access Provider (CAP) or Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) ! Cellular, Personal Communications Service (PCS) or Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) service providers (wireless telephony) ! Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) ! Interexchange Carrier (IXC) ! Local Reseller ! Operator Service Provider (OSP) ! Other Local ! Other Mobile Service Carrier including SMRs that do not provide wireless telephony ! Other Toll Service Provider ! Paging and messaging ! Pay Telephone Provider ! Private Service Provider ! Pre-paid Calling Card Provider ! Satellite Service Providers ! Shared Tenant Service Provider ! Toll Reseller ! Wireless Data Service Provider Figure 1 compares both classification systems and presents the number of current interstate service providers using each system. At present, some carriers are not in both the TRS and USF data bases. In such cases, the carriers have been assigned the most similar carrier type code in the alternate system. Some carriers were reclassified following staff research. Table 1 is taken from Telecommunications Industry Revenue: TRS Fund Worksheet Data, November 1997, which provides extensive data about the size and composition of the telecommunications industry. Table 1 is based on data for TRS filers only and thus excludes carriers that filed USF worksheets but not TRS Fund worksheets. The table includes some carriers that filed 1997 TRS worksheets on April 26, 1997, but which have disappeared because of merger, reorganization, name change, or leaving the business. Thus, the counts in Table 1 are different than the counts in Figure 1. 3 Figure 1: Types of Interstate Service Providers TRS Carrier Classification USF Carrier Classification Carrier Number of Carrier Number of Type Carriers Type Carriers Code in Table 2 Code in Table 2 CAP CAPS & CLECs 94 OTHL Other local service provider 13 TENS Shared tenant service provider 4 1 Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) LRES Local reseller 8 and Competitive LECs (CLECs) 119 subtotal 119 2 Cellular, Personal Communications Service (PCS) & Specialized Mobile CEL Cellular, PCS & SMR Radio (SMR) 853 wireless telephony 853 3 Interexchange carrier 149 IXC Interexchange carrier 149 4 Local exchange carrier 1376 LEC Incumbent local exchange carrier 1376 PAG Paging 200 DAT Wireless Data Service Providers 1 OTHM Other mobile service including SMRs that do not provide 5 Paging and other mobile service wireless telephony 163 carriers 364 subtotal 364 6 Operator Service Provider 27 OSP Operator Service Provider 27 SAT Satellite Service Provider 22 OTHT Other Toll 28 7 Other Toll 50 subtotal 50 8 Pay Telephone Provider 533 PAYP Pay Telephone Provider 533 9 Prepaid Calling Card Provider 16 PCCP Prepaid Calling Card Provider 16 10 Toll Reseller 345 TRES Toll Reseller 345 4 Table 2 lists current interstate service providers, the mailing address of their corporate headquarters, their carrier type using both the TRS and USF classification systems, and a telephone number that can be used for customer inquiries. Each legal entity that provides interstate telecommunications service must file a separate TRS worksheet. Thus, over one hundred GTE subsidiaries and affiliates are listed in Table 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc. GENERAL EXCHANGE TARIFF D/B/A Centurylink Title Page (C) First Revised Sheet No
    United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc. GENERAL EXCHANGE TARIFF d/b/a CenturyLink Title Page (C) First Revised Sheet No. 1 Cancels Original Sheet No. 1 GENERAL EXCHANGE TARIFF Schedule of Rates and Charges Together With Rules and Regulations Applicable To Services Provided In The Territory Served By This Company Within The State of Texas ISSUED: October 21, 2009 EFFECTIVE: November 20, 2009 United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc. GENERAL EXCHANGE TARIFF d/b/a CenturyLink Adoption Notice (C) First Revised Sheet No. 1 Cancels Original Sheet No. 1 GENERAL EXCHANGE TARIFF ADOPTION NOTICE Effective July 28, 2009, United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc. registered the fictitious name (N) CenturyLink. Effective November 20, 2009, United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc. d/b/a Embarq, began operating under the name CenturyLink. As such, United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink hereby adopts, ratifies, and makes its own, in every respect as if the same had been originally filed by it, all schedules, rules, notices, concurrences, schedule agreements, divisions, authorities or other instruments whatsoever, filed with the Public Utility Commission, State of Texas, by or adopted by United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc. d/b/a Embarq between June 5, 2006 and November 19, 2009. By this notice, United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink also adopts and ratifies all supplements or amendments to any of the above schedules, etc., which United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc. d/b/a Embarq has heretofore filed with said Commission. (N) Effective June 5, 2006, United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Graham Bell
    WEEK 2 LEVEL 7 Alexander Graham Bell Alexander Graham Bell is the famous inventor of the telephone. Born in Scotland on March 3, 1847, he was the second son of Alexander and Eliza Bell. His father taught students the art of speaking clearly, or elocution, and his mother played the piano. Bell’s mother was almost deaf. His father’s career and his mother’s hearing impairment influenced the course of his career. He became a teacher of deaf people. As a child, Bell didn’t care for school, and he eventually dropped out. He did like to solve problems though. For example, when he was only 12, he invented a new farm implement. The tool removed the tiny husks from wheat grains. After the deaths of his two brothers from tuberculosis, Bell and his parents moved from Europe to Canada in 1870. They thought the climate there was healthier than in Scotland. A year later, Bell moved to the United States. He got a job teaching at the Boston School for Deaf Mutes. © 2019 Scholar Within, Inc. WEEK 2 LEVEL 7 One of his students was a 15-year-old named Mabel Hubbard. He was 10 years older than she was, but they fell in love and married in 1877. The Bells raised two daughters but lost two sons who both died as babies. Bell’s father-in-law, Gardiner Hubbard, knew Bell was interested in inventing things, so he asked him to improve the telegraph. Telegraph messages were tapped out with a machine using dots and dashes known as Morse code.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Network Competition
    Chapter 15 LOCAL NETWORK COMPETITION Glenn A Woroch* University of California, Berkeley Contents 1. Introduction 1.1.Scope and objectives 1.2.Patterns and themes 2. Local Network Competition in Historical Perspective 2.1.Local competition in one city, a century apart 2.2.U.S. experience with local competition and monopoly 2.3.The experience abroad 3. Economic Conditions of Local Network Competition 3.1.Defining local services and markets 3.2.Demand for local network services 3.3.Cost of local service and technical change 4. The Structure and Regulation of the Local Network Industry 4.1.Structure of the U.S. local exchange industry 4.2.Regulation of local network competition 5. Strategic Modelling of Local Network Competition 5.1.Causes and consequences of local network competition 5.2.Strategic choices of local network entrants 5.3.Strategic models of local network competition 5.4.Entry barriers 6. Empirical Evidence on Local Network Competition 7. Wireless Local Competition 7.1.Wireless communications technologies 7.2.Wireless services as wireline competitors 7.3.Structure of the wireless industry 7.4.An assessment of the wireless threat 8. The Future of Local Competition References * I have received helpful comments on earlier drafts from Mark Armstrong, Bob Crandall, David Gabel and Lester Taylor. Ellen Burton of the FCC and Amy Friedlander of CNRI supplied useful empirical and historical information. I am especially grateful to Ingo Vogelsang for his encouragement, guidance, and inexhaustible patience throughout this project. I. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Scope and Objectives of this Chapter This chapter surveys the economic analysis of competition in markets for local telecommunications services.1 Its main objective is to understand patterns of competition in these markets and evaluate its benefits and costs against the alternative forms of industrial organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Sprint Terms and Acronyms
    User Guide Sprint Terms and Acronyms All terms and conditions detailed in these Guidelines are subject to change pending future action by the FCC or individual state regulatory commissions. 2 Contents A..............................................................3 B ..............................................................4 C ..............................................................4 D .............................................................6 E ..............................................................7 F ..............................................................8 G..............................................................8 H..............................................................8 I ...............................................................8 J ..............................................................8 L ..............................................................8 M ...........................................................10 N ...........................................................10 O............................................................11 P ............................................................12 R ...........................................................12 S ............................................................13 T ............................................................14 U............................................................14 W...........................................................14 X............................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Journey of Mobile Generation and Cognitive Radio Technology in 5G
    International Journal Of Mobile Network Communications & Telematics (IJMNCT) Vol. 6, No.4/5/6, December 2016 JOURNEY OF MOBILE GENERATION AND COGNITIVE RADIO TECHNOLOGY IN 5G Parnika De and Shailendra Singh Department of Engineering and Application, National Institute of Technical Teacher Training and Research, Bhopal, India. ABSTRACT The ever increasing number of smart network devices may reach up to 24 billion in year 2020 as stated in the recent survey conducted by Forbes magazine. This may obsolete the current 4G technology for handling smart bandwidth allocation to such a large number of devices. In order to cope the challenging need for fast and efficient data transfer over these devices, demands next generation mobile network technology. In literature 5G technology has been suggested that offers appropriate solution to the above issues. 5G is a futuristic technology that would solve many problem of day to day life. By using 5G high data rates can be achieved in the range of Gbps with minimal latency. But the question is how to make such futuristic technology realistic. This can be done by efficiently utilizing the bandwidth in the allotted spectrum. Despite numerous benefits, 5G may critically suffer from tedious implementation problems that have been discussed in this paper. Cognitive radio (CR) is an intelligent radio that works on the principle of dynamic spectrum allocation. Cognitive Radio is capable of learning and adapting to external environment and reuses the frequency when primary user is absent. This paper combine the advantage of two technology 5G terminal and Cognitive radio terminal where 5G provide quality of service and high data rate whereas Cognitive radio give flexibility and adaptability to 5G.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc
    Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc. 102 South Tejon Street, 11th Floor Colorado Springs, CO 80903. Telecommunications Service Guide For Interstate and International Services May 2016 This Service Guide contains the descriptions, regulations, and rates applicable to furnishing of domestic Interstate and International Long Distance Telecommunications Services provided by Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc. (“Central Telecom Long Distance” or “Company”). This Service Guide and is available to Customers and the public in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Public Availability of Information Concerning Interexchange Services rules, 47 CFR Section 42.10. Additional information is available by contacting Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc.’s Customer Service Department toll free at 888.988.9818, or in writing directed to Customer Service, 102 South Tejon Street, 11th Floor, Colorado Springs, CO 80903. 1 INTRODUCTION This Service Guide contains the rates, terms, and conditions applicable to the provision of domestic Interstate and International Long Distance Services. This Service Guide is prepared in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission’s Public Availability of Information Concerning Interexchange Services rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 42.10 and Service Agreement and may be changed and/or discontinued by the Company. This Service Guide governs the relationship between Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc. and its Interstate and International Long Distance Service Customers, pursuant to applicable federal regulation, federal and state law, and any client-specific arrangements. In the event one or more of the provisions contained in this Service Guide shall, for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Service Guide shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Annual Budget, General Fund Revenues Are Estimated at $98.2 Million
    JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA 2019 PROPOSED BUDGET JEFFERSON PARISH OFFICIALS Jefferson Parish President Michael S. Yenni MEMBERS, JEFFERSON PARISH COUNCIL Christopher L. Roberts Councilman-at-Large, Division A Council Chairman Cynthia Lee-Sheng Ricky J. Templet Councilwoman-at-Large, Division B Councilman, 1st District Paul D. Johnston Mark D. Spears, Jr. Councilman, 2nd District Councilman, 3rd District Dominick F. Impastato, III Jennifer Van Vrancken Councilman, 4th District Councilwoman, 5th District Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented a Distinguishing Budget Presentation Award to Jefferson Parish, Louisiana for its Annual Budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2018. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as a financial plan, as an operations guide, and as a communications device. This award is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements, and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another award. 2019 Jefferson Parish Annual Budget i Table of Contents by Function Description Page Description Page Budget Award i Public Safety (Cont.) Table of Contents ii Board of Zoning Adjustments 115 Transmittal Letter 1 Inspection & Code Enforcement 117 Administrative Adjudication 119 Parish Profile Bureau of Administrative Adjudication 121 Parish Profile 5 Dept of Property Maint Zoning/Quality of Life 122
    [Show full text]
  • PAETEC CEO Chesonis to Opine on CLEC Resurgence Letterman-Style Arunas Chesonis Is the Man of the Hour
    Day 1 Show ShowDaily produced by COMPTEL Monday, Oct. 9, 2006 — Vol. 6, No. 2 Published by: PAETEC CEO Chesonis to Opine on CLEC Resurgence Letterman-Style Arunas Chesonis is the man of the hour. His company, 8-year-old PAETEC Communications (Booth said, noting that while auditing and TEM traditionally have been a focus for consultants, it “really 407), has just announced that it will acquire fellow CLEC US LEC, creating a billion-dollar “Super Tier needs to be something that every carrier does.” 2” provider, rivaling XO Communications Inc. (Booth 715) and the would-be combination of Time Another item might be: Cooperate with other CLECs to deliver comprehensive coverage. Warner Telecom Inc.-Xspedius, another recently announced CLEC deal. Chesonis said CLECs are doing this more readily today than two years ago. They no longer are as Chesonis serves as chairman of the board and CEO for PAETEC and is responsible for the vision, concerned about enabling a competitor in their market. leadership and direction of the company, which serves more than 17,000 U.S. business customers. While offering such advice to his peers may seem awkward on its face, Chesonis doesn’t think it He has been invited to address his peers at this week’s COMPTEL PLUS where he will talk about is. “When you talk to your competition, what’s the biggest market share chunk we are going to have what he describes as the CLEC resurgence. “Anyone who has weathered the storm and is focused on collectively — 4 or 5 percent? We are not the bad guys to one another.
    [Show full text]
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9,152,309 B1 Arréhn Et Al
    US009 152309B1 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9,152,309 B1 Arréhn et al. (45) Date of Patent: Oct. 6, 2015 (54) TOUCH SCREEN LOCKING AND 2005/00852.15 A1 4, 2005 Kokko et al. UNLOCKING 2006/O125814 A1* 6/2006 Asai et al. ..................... 345.204 2007/0275752 A1* 11/2007 Noba. ... 455,550.1 (75) Inventors: Tobias Arréhn, Malmo (SE); Martin 39; A. ck 1339. Khali g Chakirov, Trelleborg (SE) 2008/O122796 A1* 5, 2008 JobS et al. ... ... 345,173 2008. O161058 A1* 7, 2008 Park et al. ... ... 455,564 (73) Assignee: Google Inc., Mountain View, CA (US) 2008.0167022 A1* 7, 2008 Lee et al. ....... ... 455,415 2008/0168395 A1* 7/2008 Ording et al. T15,833 (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this 39882 A. : 39. State et al. .................43.. patent is extended or adjusted under 35 2008/0195976 A1* 8, 2008 Cho et al. ...................... T15,840 U.S.C. 154(b) by 1128 days. 2008/0292078 A1* 11/2008 Chen .............. ... 379,142.06 2009,0005011 A1* 1/2009 Christie et al. ... 455,412.2 (21) Appl. No.: 12/058,166 2009/0106679 A1 4/2009 Anzures et al. 715,765 2009/0170487 A1* 7/2009 Ding .............. ... 455,415 1-1. 2009/017.4677 A1* 7, 2009 Gehani et al. .. ... 345,173 (22) Filed: Mar. 28, 2008 2009,0177981 A1* 7, 2009 Christie et al. 715/758 2009, 0207.184 A1* 8, 2009 Laine et al. .... ... 345,619 (51) Int. Cl. 2009,0265627 A1* 10, 2009 Kim et al. ...... 7157702 G06F 3/0484 (2013.01) 2010/0121766 A1* 5/2010 Sugaya et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Staff Report
    CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF NEW ORLEANS MITCHELL J. LANDRIEU ROBERT D. RIVERS MAYOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LESLIE T. ALLEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR City Planning Commission Staff Report Executive Summary Summary of Uptown and Carrollton Local Historic District Proposals: The Historic Preservation Study Committee Report of April 2016, recommended the creation of the Uptown Local Historic District with boundaries to include the area generally bounded by the Mississippi River, Lowerline Street, South Claiborne Avenue and Louisiana Avenue, and the creation of the Carrollton Local Historic District with boundaries to include the area generally bounded by Lowerline Street, the Mississippi River, the Jefferson Parish line, Earhart Boulevard, Vendome Place, Nashville Avenue and South Claiborne Avenue. These partial control districts would give the Historic District Landmarks Commission (HDLC) jurisdiction over demolition. Additionally, it would give the HDLC full control jurisdiction over all architectural elements visible from the public right-of-way for properties along Saint Charles Avenue between Jena Street and South Carrollton Avenue, and over properties along South Carrollton Avenue between the Mississippi River and Earhart Boulevard. Recommendation: The City Planning Commission staff recommends approval of the Carrollton and Uptown Local Historic Districts as proposed by the Study Committee. Consideration of the Study Committee Report: City Planning Commission Public Hearing: The CPC holds a public hearing at which the report and recommendation of the Study Committee are presented and the public is afforded an opportunity to consider them and comment. City Planning Commission’s recommendations to the City Council: Within 60 days after the public hearing, the City Planning Commission will consider the staff report and make recommendations to the Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 3
    Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 3 SUMMARY The telecommunications infrastructure is vitally important to electronic delivery of Federal services because most of these services must, at some point, traverse the infrastructure. This infrastructure includes, among other components, the Federal Government’s long-distance telecommunications program (known as FTS2000 and operated under contract with commercial vendors), and computer networks such as the Internet. The tele- communications infrastructure can facilitate or inhibit many op- portunities in electronic service delivery. The role of the telecommunications infrastructure in electronic service delivery has not been defined, however. OTA identified four areas that warrant attention in clarifying the role of telecommunications. First, Congress and the administration could review and update the mission of FTS2000 and its follow-on contract in the context of electronic service delivery. The overall perform- ance of FTS2000 shows significant improvement over the pre- vious system, at least for basic telephone service. FTS2000 warrants continual review and monitoring, however, to assure that it is the best program to manage Federal telecommunications into the next century when electronic delivery of Federal services likely will be commonplace. Further studies and experiments are needed to properly evaluate the benefits and costs of FTS2000 follow-on options from the perspective of different sized agencies (small to large), diverse Federal programs and recipients, and the government as a whole. Planning for the follow-on contract to FTS2000 could consider new or revised contracting arrangements that were not feasible when FTS2000 was conceived. An “overlapping vendor” ap- proach to contracting, as one example, may provide a “win-win” 57 58 I Making Government Work situation for all parties and eliminate future de- national infrastructure will be much stronger if bates about mandatory use and service upgrades.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Matter Ofamendment Ofthe Commission's Rules to Permit Flexible Service Offerings in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No
    In the Matter of Amendment ofthe Commission's Rules to Permit Flexible Service Offerings in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services BEPLY COMMENTS OF PCS PRIMECO. L,P, PCS PrimeCo, L.P. ("PrimeCo"), an A and B Block broadband PCS licensee, l hereby files the following limited reply comments in response to the Commission's Notice ofProposed Rulemaking in the above-captioned proceeding. 2 PrimeCo supports the Commission's efforts in this docket to remove existing uncertainty concerning what fixed services may be offered by Commercial Mobile Radio Service ("CMRS") providers, and on what terms. PrimeCo supports the majority ofcommenters that have recommended adoption ofrules that would allow provision offixed services on CMRS frequencies. PrimeCo urges the Commission to confirm in this proceeding that CMRS providers may offer a full range offixed service applications. In addition, PrimeCo submits that such services should be regulated as CMRS. Providing such service flexibility will spur the development ofnetworks and new service technologies and will facilitate increased competition. PrimeCo is licensed or owns a majority ownership interest in the following MTAs: Chicago, Milwaukee, Richmond-Norfolk, Dallas-Ft. Worth, San Antonio, Houston, New Orleans-Baton Rouge, Jacksonville, Tampa-St. Petersburg­ Orlando, Miami and Honolulu. 2 In the Matter ofAmendment ofthe Commission's Rules to Permit Flexible Service Offerings in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No. 96-6, FCC 96-17 (released January 25, 1996) ("Notice"). 0- . No. of Goples rec'd U)--0 UstAtiCDE ~ _._--.._------- 2 PrimeCo supports the Commission's tentative conclusion to allow PCS providers, as well as other CMRS carriers, to provide wireless local loop services.
    [Show full text]