DOCSLIB.ORG

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Federal-State Joint Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ) Petition for Designation as an Eligible ) Telecommunications Carrier in the State of ) Alabama ) ) Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ) Petition for Designation as an Eligible ) Telecommunications Carrier in the State of ) North Carolina ) ) Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ) Petition for Designation as an Eligible ) Telecommunications Carrier in the ) Commonwealth ofVirginia ) ) Alltel Communications, LLC Petition for ) Designation as an Eligible ) Telecommunications Carrier in the State of ) Florida ) ) Alltel Communications, LLC Petition for ) Designation as an Eligible ) Telecommunications Carrier in the State of ) Georgia ) NOTICE OF RELINQUISHMENT OF ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER DESIGNATIONS Verizon Wireless and Alltel Communications, LLC ("Alltel") 1 (collectively, "Verizon Wireless"), pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(4) and 47 C.F.R. § 54.205(a)-(b), hereby notify the Commission of the relinquishment of its eligible telecommunications carrier ("ETC") 1 Formerly Alltel Communications, Inc. designations in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia effective December 31, 2012. Verizon Wireless is relinquishing its ETC status in these Commission-designated territories because its uni versa! service funding will be eliminated at the end of this year under the terms of the Alltel Acquisition Order. 2 The Commission confirmed the elimination of Verizon Wireless' ETC support in the USF-ICC Transformation Order3 and in a subsequent Wireline Competition Bureau ("WCB") decision.4 As discussed below, relinquishment of ETC status will have no impact on Verizon Wireless network coverage in any state, and there will be no impact on Verizon Wireless' announced, industry-leading roll-out of 4G LTE broadband and voice services. 5 In support of its notice of relinquishment, Verizon Wireless states as follows: 1. Verizon Wireless is licensed by the Commission to provide commercial mobile radio service ("CMRS") in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. 2 Applications of Cel!co Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Atlantis Holdings LLC For Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses, Authorizations, and Spectrum Manager and De Facto Transfer Leasing Arrangements and Petition for Declaratory Ruling that the Transaction is Consistent with Section 3JO(b)(4) of the Communications Act, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 23 FCC Red 17444, ~~ 192-95 (2008) ("Allte! Acquisition Order" ). 3 Connect America Fund, eta!., Report and Order and Fmther Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Red 17663 (2011) ("USF-ICC Transformation Order") Certain non-controlled partnerships and after­ acquired properties will continue to receive universal service suppott, subject to the larger phase-out of legacy competitive ETC support. 4 !d.,[ 520; Connect America Fund, eta!., Order, 27 FCC Red 2142, ~~ 6-8 (WCB 20 12). 5 Should Verizon Wireless later seek to participate in the developing and as-yet indeterminate Connect America Fund Phase II or Mobility Fund Phase II, Verizon Wireless will re-apply for ETC status in appropriate states and/or with the Commission. 2 2. By Order dated September 24, 2004, the WCB granted Alltel'~ request for designation as an ETC in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. 6 In 2004, the WCB also designated Virginia Cellular, LLC ("Virginia Cellular") as an ETC in Virginia. 7 In 2006, Alltel acquired Virginia Cellular's operations in Virginia. 3. In 2002, the Commission designated RCC Minnesota, Inc. ("RCC")8 as an ETC in Alabama. 9 In 2008, the Commission approved the expansion of Alltel's designated service areas in Alabama, North Carolina and Virginia and RCC's designated service area in Alabama. 10 4. On August 6, 2008, Verizon Wireless acquired Rural Cellular Corporation and each ofits subsidiaries and affiliates. 11 On January 9, 2009, Verizon Wireless acquired Alltel Corporation and each of its subsidiaries and affiliates. Alltel Acquisition Order. On May 28, 2010, the Commission approved a petition for pro forma amendment and consolidation of the 6 In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Allie! Communications, Inc. Petitions for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia, 19 FCC Red 20496 (WCB 2004). 7 In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Virginia Cellular, LLC Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Red 1563 (WCB 2004). 8 Formerly RCC Holdings, Inc. See Letter from B. Lynn F. Ratnavale, Counsel for RCC Minnesota, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 96-45 (filed Mar. 2, 2007) (notice of name change from RCC Holdings, ]nc. to RCC Minnesota, Inc.). 9 In the Matter of Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service,· RCC Holdings, Inc. Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Throughout its Licensed Service Area in the State ofAlabama, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Red 23532 (WCB 2002). 10 In the Matter ofHigh-Cost Universal Service Support, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Alltel Communications, Inc., et al. Petitions for Designation as Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Red 8834 (2008). 11 In the Matter of Applications of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Rural Cellular Corporation for Consent To Tramfer Control of Licenses, Authorizations, and Spectrum Manager Leases, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 23 FCC Red 12463 (2008). 3 ETC designations held by Alltel, RCC, Virginia Cellular and their affiliated legal entities to reflect Verizon Wireless as the designated entity in Alabama, North Carolina and Virginia. 12 5. Verizon Wireless' designated ETC service areas in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia include each of the incumbent local exchange carrier ("ILEC") wire centers and/or study areas set forth in Exhibit A (the "Designated Areas"). 6. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(4) and 47 C.F.R. § 54.205(a)-(b) Verizon Wireless has determined to relinquish its ETC designations in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. 7. Relinquishment ofVerizon Wireless' ETC designations will not affect the amount of federal high-cost universal service support available to other ETCs, nor, as discussed below, Verizon Wireless' continued operations in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's recently amended universal service rules and associated orders, the federal high-cost universal service support available to Verizon Wireless will be phased out effective December 31, 2012. USF-ICC Transformation Order~ 520. Likewise, the Commission has capped the amount of federal high-cost universal service support available to all competitive ETCs and further clarified that the relinquislu11ent of an ETC designation by one carrier will not affect the amount of federal high-cost universal service support received by other ETCs. 9. 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(4) states, in pertinent part: A State commission (or the Commission in the case of a common carrier designated under paragraph (6)) shall permit an eligible telecommunications 12 In the Matter of Federal-State Board on Universal Service, Cellco Partnersh;p d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Petitions for Pro Forma Amendment of Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Designations in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the States of Alabama and North Carolina, 25 FCC Red 5955 (WCB 2010). 4 carrier to relinquish its designation as such a carrier in any area served by more than one eligible telecommunications carrier. An eligible telecommunications carrier that seeks to relinquish its eligible telecommunications carrier designation for an area served by more than one eligible telecommunications carrier shall give advance notice to the State commission (or the Commission in the case of a common carrier designated under paragraph (6)) of such relinquishment. Prior to permitting a telecommunications carrier designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier to cease providing universal service in an area served by more than one eligible telecommunications carrier, the State commission (or the Commission in the case of a common carrier designated under paragraph (6)) shall require the remaining eligible telecommunications carrier or carriers to ensure that all customers served by the relinquishing carrier will continue to be served, and shall require sufficient notice to permit the purchase or construction of adequate facilities by any remaining eligible telecommunications carrier. The State commission (or the Commission in the case of a common carrier designated under paragraph (6)) shall establish a time, not to exceed one year after the State commission (or the Commission in the case of a common carrier designated under paragraph (6)) approves such relinquishment under this paragraph, within which such purchase or construction shall be completed ld (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. § 54.205(a)-(b). Verizon Wireless satisfies all of these requirements. 10. Verizon Wireless seeks to relinquish its ETC designations throughout its Designated Areas, which are areas smaller than Verizon
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 304 340 0325 Exchange and Long Distance Business in West Virginia
    2OB9-I 1 :I6 4’-:51 703 - 696 - 2960 >* 304 340 0325 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY UNITED STATES ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY $01 NORTH STUART STREET ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 222034837 November 16,2009 REPLY To An‘ltNTION OR Regulatory Law Office U 4192 VnJ&1 on-03 3 Sandra Squire TZaJ a U Executive Secretary 2s Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street, P.O.Box 812 Charleston, West Virginia 25323-0812 Subject: DoD/FEA’s Direct Testirnonv of Charles W. King In Re: Case No. 09-0871-T-PC- Frontier Communimtions Corporation, Citizens Telecommunications Company of West Virginin, dba Frontier Communications of West Virginia, Verizbn West Virginia hc., et al. Joint Petition for consent and approval of the transfer of Verizon’s local, exchange and long distance business in West Virginia to companies to be owned and controlled by Frontier Coimunioations. Dear Ms. Squire: Enolosed for filing in the above-captioned proceeding are the hard copy original and Twelve (12) copies of the Direct Testimony of Charles W. King 011 behalf ofthe United States Department of Defense and All Other Federal. Executive Agencies (collectively referred to herein as “DoDFEA”). A Certificate of Service is appended to this filing. Copies of this document are being sent in accord with the Certificate of Service. Inquiries to this office regarding this proceeding should be directed to the undersigned at (703) 696-1643, . Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. General Attorney Regulatory Law Office (JALS-RL) US. Army Litigation Center 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 700 Arlington, Virginia 22203-1 837 Telephone: (703) 696-1643 stmhenmelniko ffmhada.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Matter of VERIZO WJRELE
    PUBLIC VERSION CONFIDENTIAL VERSION FILED UNDER SEPARATE COVER Before the Federal Commtmications Commission Washington D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) WCDocketNo.09-197 Federal-State Joint Board ) on Universal Service ) CELLCO PARTNERSIDP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS 2010 ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER CERTIFICATION AND ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STUDY AREA CODE (SAC) 1990141 OCTOBER 1, 2010 VERIZO WJRELE John T. Scott, ill Stephen B. Rowell . 1300 I Street NW, Suite 400W Wasbjngton, D:C. 20005 (202) 589-3770 I Formerly SACs 199001 and 199006. PUBLIC VERSION CONFIDENTIAL VERSION FILED UNDER SEPARATE COVER I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.209, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries and affiliates providing commercial mobile radio service ("CMRS") in the Commonwealth of Virginia (collectively, "Verizon Wireless" or "Company"), submits this 2010 Eligible Telecommunications Carrier ("ETC") Certification and Annual Report and respectfully requests that the Commission certify its continued eligibility to receive high-cost support from the federal universal service fund ("USF") during calendar year 2011. II. CONFIDENTIALITY The data in this report and the attached exhibits represent commercial and financial trade secrets regarding Verizon Wireless' network build-out plans and other matters that are highly sensitive due to the competitive nature of the CMRS industry. Accordingly, Verizon Wireless respectfully requests that the Commission treat this data as confidential and withhold it from public inspection pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.457(d)(l) and 0.459. III. BACKGROUND In 2004, the Commission initially designated Alltel Communications, LLC 2 ("Alltel") as an ETC in certain non-rural telephone company wire centers pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Earl M. Robinson, CDP Principal
    Earl M. Robinson, CDP Principal Mr. Robinson has over 40 years experience in the utility field and provides services relative to depreciation and cost-based valuation issues. He has testified before numerous regulatory agencies including state, federal, and property tax agencies throughout the U.S., Canada, and the Caribbean. He co-authored “An Introduction to Net Salvage of Public Utility Plant”. Additionally, Mr. Robinson has made presentations to indus- try organizations on the subject of depreciation studies, as well as depreciated replacement cost to property tax appraiser staffs. EXPERIENCE 1977 to Date wastewater utilities. In conjunction with the provi- sion of these services, Mr. Robinson has testified on AUS Consultants. Various positions - currently Prin- many occasions before numerous regulatory agen- cipal. Mr. Robinson prepares studies and coordinated cies (including state, federal, and property tax agen- analyses related to valuation, depreciation, original cies throughout the U.S., Canada, and the Caribbean in cost, trended original cost, cost of service, bill analy- support of the many studies completed for his diverse ses, as well as analyses of expenses, revenues and in- list of clients. In addition he has negotiated deprecia- come for various municipal and an extensive number tion rates with various state regulatory agencies, the of investor-owned electric, gas, water, wastewater, FCC Staff, and the FERC taff. Mr. Robinson has also and telecommunications utilities. participated in several FCC, state, company three-way depreciation re-prescription meetings. Studies prepared have required the review of compa- ny records, inspection of property, the preparation of With regard to valuation matters, Mr. Robinson has property inventories and original costs, preparation been involved with the development of cost indices and review of mortality studies, selection of proper from the earliest part of his career through the pres- service lives, life characteristics and analysis of sal- ent.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Telecom Meltdown for a Listing of Recent Titles in the Artech House Telecommunications Library, Turn to the Back of This Book
    The Great Telecom Meltdown For a listing of recent titles in the Artech House Telecommunications Library, turn to the back of this book. The Great Telecom Meltdown Fred R. Goldstein a r techhouse. com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the U.S. Library of Congress. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Goldstein, Fred R. The great telecom meltdown.—(Artech House telecommunications Library) 1. Telecommunication—History 2. Telecommunciation—Technological innovations— History 3. Telecommunication—Finance—History I. Title 384’.09 ISBN 1-58053-939-4 Cover design by Leslie Genser © 2005 ARTECH HOUSE, INC. 685 Canton Street Norwood, MA 02062 All rights reserved. Printed and bound in the United States of America. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. All terms mentioned in this book that are known to be trademarks or service marks have been appropriately capitalized. Artech House cannot attest to the accuracy of this information. Use of a term in this book should not be regarded as affecting the validity of any trademark or service mark. International Standard Book Number: 1-58053-939-4 10987654321 Contents ix Hybrid Fiber-Coax (HFC) Gave Cable Providers an Advantage on “Triple Play” 122 RBOCs Took the Threat Seriously 123 Hybrid Fiber-Coax Is Developed 123 Cable Modems
    [Show full text]
  • PRODUCT GUIDE VERIZON SOUTH INC. Original Contents Page 1 D/B/A Verizon North Carolina (Virginia) EFFECTIVE: August 1, 2010 S8
    PRODUCT GUIDE VERIZON SOUTH INC. Original Contents Page 1 d/b/a Verizon North Carolina (Virginia) EFFECTIVE: August 1, 2010 S8. COIN TELEPHONE SERVICE CONTENTS Page No. S8.1 PUBLIC TELEPHONE ACCESS SERVICE (PTAS) S8.1.1 General 1 S8.1.2 Responsibility of the Customer 3 S8.1.3 Violations of Regulations 6 S8.1.4 Optional Service Features 7 S8.1.5 Rates and Charges 8 S8.1.6 Charges to PTAS End-User 11 S8.2 CUSTOMER-OWNED PAY TELEPHONE (COPT) COIN LINE SERVICE S8.2.1 Definitions and Requirements 12 S8.2.2 Features 13 S8.2.3 Responsibility of the Subscriber 13 S8.2.4 Rates and Charges 14 PRODUCT GUIDE VERIZON SOUTH INC. Original Page 1 d/b/a Verizon North Carolina (Virginia) EFFECTIVE: August 1, 2010 S8. COIN TELEPHONE SERVICE S8.1 Public Telephone Access Service (PTAS) S8.1.1 General a. Public Telephone Access Service (PTAS) for customer-provided pay telephones is an exchange service line directly connected to the public network and provided at the request of the customer for telecommunications use by the general public at locations accessible to the general public. Extensions of the PTAS lines are not permitted. b. PTAS lines are provided for use with both customer- provided non-coin-operated pay telephones and customer-provided coin-operated pay telephones, as well as customer-provided equipment or processes used for the resale and transmittal of voice or data over the public switched network. c. PTAS is provided subject to the condition that telephone messages (local and long distance) placed from stations which are accessible to the public are completed over PTAS lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit N. CCS4.1 Page 1 of 5 Docket No. 01-035-01 Witness: John B
    Exhibit N. CCS4.1 Page 1 of 5 Docket No. 01-035-01 Witness: John B. Legler Regulatory Participation of John B. Legler Company Docket No. Date Georgia Power Company GPSC 2663-U 4/75 Savannah Electric and Power GPSC 2842-U 8/75 Southern Bell (Georgia) GPSC 2897-U 12/75-1/76 Georgia Power Company NRC 50-424/425 1/76 Southern Bell (Georgia) GPSC 2994-U 11/76-12/76 Savannah Electric and Power GPSC 2995-U 5/77 Georgia Power Company GPSC 3002-U 6/77-7/77 South Central Bell (Mississippi) MPSC U-3359 2/78 Carolina Tel and Tel (North Carolina) NCUC P7, Sub 524 6/78 Southern Bell (South Carolina) SCPSC 78-353-C 11/78 Duke Power (South Carolina) SCPSC 78-189-E 12/78 Alabama Power Company APSC 17667 5/79 Savannah Electric and Power GPSC 3147-U 6/79 Georgia Power Company GPSC 3129-U 7/79 South Carolina Electric and Gas SCPSC 18,362 7/79 Tucson Electric Power Company ACC U-1933 8/79 Gas Light Company of Columbus (Georgia) GPSC 3162-U 11/79 Atlanta Gas Light Company GPSC 3167-U 12/79 Georgia Power Company GPSC 3129-U 12/79 Southern Bell (South Carolina) SCPSC 79-303-C 1/80 General Telephone of the Southeast (Alabama) APCS 17850 4/80 Alabama Power Company APSC 17859 5/80 Duke Power Company (South Carolina) SCPSC 79-300-E 7/80 South Central Bell (Mississippi) MPSC U-3804 7/80 Mississippi Power and Light Company MPSC U-3850 9/80 Gulf Power Company (Florida) FPSC 80001-EU 9/80 Savannah Electric and Power GPSC 3220-U 11/80 Carolina Power and Light SCPSC 80-69-E 11/80 Southern Bell (Georgia) GPSC 3231-U 2/81 Southern Bell (South Carolina) SCPSC 80-263-C 2/81
    [Show full text]
  • The American Telephone and Telegraph Company Divestiture: Background, Provisions, and Restructuring
    Report No. 84-58 E I -. <I?....*- ".YII. -n, -- THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY DIVESTITURE: BACKGROUND, PROVISIONS, AND RESTRUCTURING b Y Angele A. Gilroy Specialist in Industrial Organization Economics Division COLLECTION WKI HEKN !CNTUCKY LIBRARY April 11, 1984 11 i :::A L.'~~-l.ii.e makes jucn research available. without parti- ::;I.. in lr:m\ !orrns inc!uding studies. reports. cornpila- ;,)I!., I!:<?\[>. :md l:a~kqroi~ndhrietings. Cpon request. CRS .. ., :i ~ !>!r::z:rrir.e.;in ann1~-zingle+slative proposals and -tl:..b. :!nd in s>w;sinq the possible effects of these proposals . < :!I irie.The Ser~ice'ssenior specialists and ii,:c( r :iil.,;ii ?is are also at-aiiable for personal consultations ;xi-ir :.t>.;!?ecri\-elieid.; t~f'expertise. ABSTRACT On January 1, 1984, The American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) di- vested itself of a major portion of its organizational structure and functions. Under the post-divestiture environment the once fully-integrated Bell System is now reorganized into the "new" AT&T and seven Ladependent regional 5olding ?om- panies -- American Information Technologies Corp., 3ell Atlantic Corp., 3ell- South Corp., NYNEX Corp., Pacific Telesis Group., Southwestern Bell Corp., and U.S. West, Inc. The following analysis provides an overview of the pre- and post-divestiture organizational structure and details the evolution of the anti- trust action which resulted in this divestiture. CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................ iii INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1 1 . BELL SYSTEM CORPORATE REORGANIZATION .............................. 3 A . Predivestiture Bell System Corporate Structure ................ 3 B . Divested Operating Company Structure .......................... 5 C . Post-Divestiture AThT Organizational Structure ................ 7 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Competition and Deployment of New Technology in U.S. Telecommunications Howard A
    University of Chicago Legal Forum Volume 2000 | Issue 1 Article 5 Competition and Deployment of New Technology in U.S. Telecommunications Howard A. Shelanski [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf Recommended Citation Shelanski, Howard A. () "Competition and Deployment of New Technology in U.S. Telecommunications," University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 2000: Iss. 1, Article 5. Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2000/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Chicago Legal Forum by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Competition and Deployment of New Technology in U.S. Telecommunications Howard A. Shelanskit Participants in regulatory and antitrust proceedings affect- ing telecommunications have, with increasing frequency, asserted that policy decisions designed to promote or preserve competition will have unintended, negative consequences for technological change.1 The goal of this study is to determine the initial pre- sumption with which regulators and enforcement agencies should approach such contentions. To that end, this Article examines how the introduction of new technology in U.S. telecommunica- tions networks has historically related to market structure. It analyzes deployment data from a sample of technologies and finds that innovations have been more rapidly deployed in tele- communications networks the more competitive have been the markets in which those networks operated. This positive correla- tion between competition and adoption of new technology sug- gests that regulators and enforcement officials should be wary of claims that, by adhering to policies designed to preserve competi- tion, they will impede firms from deploying innovations or bringing new services to consumers.2 f School of Law, University of California at Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • Recently Ordered Several Verizon Wireless Stores to Strike Certain Employee Handbook Policies
    JD–40–17 Philadelphia, PA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIVISION OF JUDGES VERIZON WIRELESS, and Case 02–CA–157403 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL–CIO VERIZON NEW YORK INC., EMPIRE CITY SUBWAY COMPANY (LIMITED), VERIZON AVENUE CORP., VERIZON ADVANCED DATA INC., VERIZON CORPORATE SERVICES CORP., VERIZON NEW ENGLAND INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP. AND VERIZON NEW JERSEY, INC. and Case 02–CA–156761 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA (CWA) VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP., AND VERIZON CORPORATE SERVICES CORP. and Case 04–CA–156043 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 2-13, AFL–CIO, CLC VERIZON WASHINGTON, D.C. INC., VERIZON MARYLAND INC., VERIZON VIRGINIA INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP., VERIZON ADVANCED DATA INC., VERIZON SOUTH INC. (VIRGINIA), VERIZON CORPORATE SERVICES CORP. AND VERIZON DELAWARE INC. and Case 05–CA–156053 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 2-13, AFL–CIO, CLC VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. AND VERIZON FEDERAL INC., VERIZON FLORIDA INC., VERIZON NORTH LLC, VERIZON SOUTHWEST INC., VERIZON CONNECTED SOLUTIONS INC., VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC. AND MCI INTERNATIONAL, INC. and Case 31–CA–161472 JD–40–17 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL–CIO, DISTRICT 9 5 Julie Polakoski-Rennie, Esq., for the General Counsel. E. Michael Rossman, Esq. and Elizabeth L. Dicus, Esq., 10 for the Respondents. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq., for the Charging Parties. DECISION 15 STATEMENT OF THE CASE DONNA N. DAWSON, Administrative Law Judge. The Charging Parties, consisting of Communication Workers of American and its named Districts (the Union) filed charges and 20 amendments thereto on various dates ranging from July 15, 2015 through October 20, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Worldwide Swoosh
    U.S. and International Companies Using Marvair Air Conditioners and Environmental Control Units ABB Dobson Cellular Qwest ADC Ericsson RCMP AGT Tel - Alberta Telephone FAA Radiofone AT&T First Cellular Rogers AT&T AT&T Broadband GTE Rogers Cable AT&T Wireless GTE Mobilenet SBC AirTouch Group Telecom STN - Small Talk Network Alcatel Guatel Sasktel - Saskatchewan Telephone AllTel Hondutel Siemens Ameritech Hydro One Sistemas Telefónicos Portacel Apotex ICE - Costa Rica South Central Bell B.C. Tel - British Columbia Tele- IMPSAT Southern Bell phone Infrasat Telecomunicações Ltda. Southwestern Bell Baja Celular Mexicana S.A. de C.V. Iusacel Southwestern Bell Wireless Bell Atlantic/Nynex Mobile Jordanian Communication System Sprint Bell Canada Kiewit - Peter Kiewit Sons Inc. TMN - Portugal Bell Mobility Kuwait Satellite Link System TWR BellSouth Larcan Telcel-Venezuelan Telephone BellSouth - Chile Level 3 System BellSouth - Nicaragua Lityan - Russia Telecel - Portugal BellSouth - Panama Look TV (LMDS) Telecomunicaciones del Golfo BellSouth Mobility Lucent Telecomunicacões de São Paulo BellSouth Mobility DCS MCI Telefonica España Brasilsat MCOMCAST (Metrophone) Teléfonos de México (Telmex) British Telecom McCaw Cellular Telegoiás - Telecomunicações de C&N Railroad Maritime Telephone Goiás C&P Telephone Metro Mobile Telemig - Telecomunicações de CANTV - Venezuela Michigan Bell Minas Gerias CRT - Compania Riograndense de Microcell Communications (Fido) Telepar Cellular Telecomunicações MobileTel Telerj - Telecomunicações de Rio CTI - Compãnía de Teléfonos del Motorola de Janeiro Interior S.A. Movilnet - Venezuela Telesc - Telecomunicações de Cabovisão - Portugal Movitel del Noroeste, S.A. de C.V Santa Catarina Canac/Microtel NFLD Tel - Newfoundland Telephone Telus Mobility Cantel - Canadian Telephone NY Telephone - New York 360° Communications Cellular Inc. Nevada Bell Transit Communications Cellular One Nexacor Tricon - Dominican Republic Celular de Telefonía, S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • G:\6X9 Folder\192154Folder\1921
    Nos. 04-277 & 04-281 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, et al., Petitioners, - and - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioners, v. BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES, et al., Respondents. _______________________________ ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS THE VERIZON TELEPHONE COMPANIES, GTE.NET LLC d/b/a VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTIONS, and VERIZON INTERNET SERVICES INC. IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL WILLIAM P. BARR ANDREW G. MCBRIDE MICHAEL E. GLOVER Counsel of Record EDWARD SHAKIN EVE KLINDERA REED JOHN P. FRANTZ KATHRYN COMERFORD TODD VERIZON WILEY REIN & FIELDING LLP 1515 N. Courthouse Road 1776 K Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 Arlington, VA 22201 (202) 719-7000 (703) 351-3860 Attorneys for Respondents the Verizon telephone companies, GTE.Net LLC d/b/a Verizon Internet Solutions, and Verizon Internet Services Inc. i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statutory definitions contained in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151, et seq., prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from classifying broadband Internet access service as only an “information service,” subject to minimal regulatory constraints, without a separately regulated “telecommunications service” component. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Pursuant to Rule 24.2 of the Rules of this Court, Respondents adopt the list of parties to the proceeding in the court of appeals that is contained in the Brief of the Federal Communications Commission and the United States, with the exception of the “Verizon” respondents, which are identified below pursuant to Rule 29.6.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the NORTHERN DISTRICT of ALABAMA JASPER DIVISION FAYETTE COUNTY E-911 DISTRICT, Plaintif
    Case 6:03-cv-00699-LSC Document 55 Filed 11/08/05 Page 1 of 7 FILED 2005 Nov-08 PM 12:29 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA JASPER DIVISION FAYETTE COUNTY E-911 ) DISTRICT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action Number vs. ) 6:03-cv-00699-UWC ) CENTURYTEL OF AL, LLC, ) VERIZON SOUTH, INC. f/k/a ) GTE SOUTH, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Fayette County E-911 District initiated this action against Defendants, CenturyTel of AL, LLC and Verizon South, Inc., to recover payments allegedly owed under the Alabama Emergency Telephone Service Act. ALA. CODE §§ 11- 98-1 to 7 (1975). Presently before the Court are Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) & (6). Based on a review of the relevant facts and applicable law, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are due to be DENIED. 1 Case 6:03-cv-00699-LSC Document 55 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 7 I. Factual Background 1. The Alabama Emergency Telephone Service Act The Alabama Emergency Telephone Service Act (the “Telephone Act”) was enacted by the Alabama Legislature in 1984 “to shorten the time required for a citizen to request and receive emergency aid.” ALA. CODE § 11-98-3. To this end, municipalities and counties in Alabama are authorized, by passage of a resolution or ordinance, to create enhanced 911 (“E911”) communication districts to administer emergency telephone services within their respective jurisdictions. See City of Hoover Communications Dist.
    [Show full text]