DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Public Utilities Commission A REPORT ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES’ OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR 2007 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS 2007 Summary………………………………………………………………………….……………5 ILEC Companies and Territory Map………………………………………………..….….….6 & 7 South Dakota Telecommunications Association ILEC Map….…….……………….…………..8 ILEC and CLEC Lines/Lifeline/Enhanced Lifeline…………………….…………….………..….9 Access Lines for ILEC, CLEC, Wireless…….………………………………….……..……..….10 ILEC Company Ranking by Lines………………………………….………………….………….11 TSD/BIT Broadband and Fiber Information and Maps…………………………….…….12 & 13 Broadband Access and Fiber Miles……………………………………...………………….……14 Lifeline Link-up and Enhanced Lifeline Link-up Trends……………………………………….…14 Access Lines by Class of Customer (Business, Residential, Other)………………….………14 CLEC Company Ranking by Lines……………………………………………………….……….15 Square Miles Served by ILECs………………….………………………………………….………16 Eligible Telecommunications Companies and USAC Disbursement Data…..…...….………18 Telephone Rates per Company…………………………………………………….…….……….19 Telecommunications Companies Certified in South Dakota……………………………..……..23 Wireless Companies………………………………………………………………………….……30 Company Websites…………………………………………………………………………….…..31 *Not all CLECs report annually. - 3 - - 4 - South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Mission Statement: The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission will serve and protect South Dakota’s consumers by ensuring safe, reliable and high quality utility services. The commission will exercise its authority and influence to ensure that residential and business consumers have access to utility services at fair and reasonable rates. The commission will be proactive and solutions-oriented in striving to maximize consumer utility value and education while working to enhance the economic and environmental well-being for citizens of South Dakota. 2007 Summary: The commission has territory, complaint, and quality of service authority over all telecommunications companies operating within South Dakota. The commission retains its switched access rate making authority for all telecommunications companies providing local service, including small, independent and cooperative companies. The gross receipts taxes paid by regulated telecommunication companies in South Dakota for 2007 totaled $781,502. In 2007, 134 telecommunication dockets were filed with the commission. In addition to these dockets, six dockets were filed as formal complaint dockets and five were informational docket filings. The commission’s Consumer Affairs Division assisted consumers with telecommunications issues on 439 occasions. Additionally, assistance was given to consumers on 222 issues related to wireless service. Lifeline and Link-Up and Enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up provide qualifying South Dakotans access to affordable telephone service. In 2007, South Dakota telecommunications companies had a total of 11,681 Lifeline customers and 4,051 Enhanced Lifeline customers. This reflects a 17.3 percent decrease in total Lifeline and Enhanced Lifeline customers from 2006 totals. More information on Lifeline and Enhanced Lifeline trends can be found on page 14. Forty-five telecommunications companies in South Dakota received High Cost Support from the Federal Universal Service Fund administered through the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) in 2007. These companies are designated as Eligible Telecommunication Carriers or ETCs by the commission. In 2007, USAC distributed more than $93 million to these 45 South Dakota companies. More information on the USAC distribution trends can be found on page 18. - 5 - INCUMBENT TELEPHONE COMPANIES (Numbers correspond with map on following page) Independent 1. Qwest Corporation, Sioux Falls, S.D. 3. Armour Independent Telephone Company d/b/a Golden West Telecommunications, Armour, S.D. 4. Bridgewater-Canistota Independent Telephone Company d/b/a Golden West Telecommunications, Hartford, S.D. 5. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority, Eagle Butte, S.D. 31. PrairieWave Community Telephone, Inc., Irene, S.D. 6. Fort Randall/Mt. Rushmore Telephone Company, Willmar, Minn. 63. Hills Telephone Company, Garretson, S.D. (not in service in South Dakota until 6/1/2005) 13. Jefferson Telephone Company d/b/a Long Lines Ltd., Jefferson, S.D. 14. Kadoka Telephone Company d/b/a Golden West Telecommunications, Kadoka, S.D. 15. Kennebec Telephone Co., Inc., Kennebec, S.D. 18. RC Communications, Inc., New Effington, S.D. 20. Sioux Valley Telephone Company d/b/a Golden West Telecommunications, Dell Rapids, S.D. 21. Splitrock Properties, Inc., Garretson, S.D. 23. Stockholm-Strandburg Telephone Company, Stockholm, S.D. 24. Tri-County Telecom, Inc., Emery, S.D. 25. Union Telephone Co. d/b/a Golden West Telecommunications, Hartford, S.D. 28. Vivian Telephone Company d/b/a Golden West Telecommunications, Wall, S.D. 29. Western Telephone Company, Faulkton, S.D. Cooperative 30. Alliance Communications Cooperative, Inc., Garretson, S..D 32. Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Golden West Telecommunications, Wall, S.D. 33. Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc., Clear Lake, S.D. 34. James Valley Cooperative Telephone Company, Groton, S.D. 35. McCook Cooperative Telephone Company, Salem, S.D. 36. Midstate Communications, Inc., Kimball, S.D. 37. Roberts County Telephone Cooperative Association, New Effington, S.D. 38. Santel Communications Cooperative, Woonsocket, S.D. 40. Venture Communications Cooperative, Highmore, S.D. 41. Valley Telecommunications Cooperative Association Inc., Herreid, S.D. 42. West River Cooperative Telephone Company, Bison, S.D. Municipal 43. Beresford Municipal Telephone Company, Beresford, S.D. 44. City of Brookings Telephone Company d/b/a Swiftel Communications, Brookings, S.D. 45. Faith Municipal Telephone Company, Faith, S.D. Foreign 47. Consolidated Telecom, Dickinson, N.D. 48. Dickey Rural Communications, Inc., Ellendale, N.D. 49. Dickey Rural Telephone Cooperative, Ellendale, N.D. 50. Farmers Mutual Telephone Company, Bellingham, Minn. 51. Citizens Telecommunications Company of Minnesota, Inc., Mound City, Minn. 52. Great Plains Communications, Blair, Neb. 53. RT Communications, Inc., Worland, Wyo. 54. Red River Rural Telephone Association, Abercrombie, N.D. 55. Three River Telco, Lynch, Neb. 56. Qwest Corporation of Iowa 57. Qwest Corporation of Nebraska 58. Qwest Corporation of Minnesota 59. Valley Telephone Company, Browns Valley, Minn. 60. West River Telecommunications Cooperative, Hazen, N.D. 61. Northeast Nebraska Telephone Company, Jackson, Neb. 62. Heartland Telecom Co. d/b/a/ HickoryTech., Mankato, Minn. - 6 - - 7 - SDTA MAP - 8 - SOUTH DAKOTA TELEPHONE COMPANIES For the Year Ended December 31, 2007 Access Enhanced Lines Lifeline Lifeline Qwest Corporation - 1 147,785 4,161 0 Independents - 17 51,531 2,810 2,071 Municipals – 3 14,210 295 0 Cooperatives – 11 73,187 3,392 1,459 Foreign – 16 6,603 285 499 Competitive Local Exchange Companies – 52 180,523 738 22 Total 473,839 11,681 4,051 WIRELINE Qwest 38% Competitive LECs 28% Independents 12% Foreigns 2% Municipals 3% Cooperatives 17% - 9 - ACCESS LINES in SOUTH DAKOTA Number of Competitive LEC Number of Number of Incumbent LEC Providers Wireline Access Providers Wireless Providers Year Wireline Access Lines Reporting Lines Reporting Subscribers Reporting 2007 293,316 49 180,523 52 558,998 22 2006 317,635 48 147,216 30 481,979 14 2005 341,626 48 143,771 23 430,937 16 2004 360,886 48 148,155 20 371,598 10 2003 378,802 48 131,795 19 327,333 10 2002 405,257 50 81,032 16 295,951 20 2001 419,614 50 65,171 11 254,648 8 2000 438,778 51 38,616 9 224,991 8 1999 430,286 61 31,442 8 190,186 10 1998 428,889 61 30,663 7 60,594 5 1997 406,567 61 1996 403,215 60 1995 393,278 44 1994 379,198 44 1993 367,577 45 1992 355,613 45 1991 349,377 47 1990 338,355 48 1989 330,787 49 1988 323,569 52 1987 317,911 53 1986 313,366 55 1985 311,039 57 1984 309,594 57 1983 295,487 59 1982 275,076 60 1981 279,533 63 1980 279,712 79 1979 275,846 90 1978 270,010 139 1977 262,250 163 1976 253,960 - 10 - Rank 2007 ILEC RANKING by NUMBER OF LINES IN SERVICE 2007 2006 Company Lines Home Office 1 1 Qwest Corporation – S.D. 147,785 Sioux Falls 2 2 Vivian Telephone Co. d/b/a Golden West Telecomm. 18,393 Wall 3 3 Golden West Telecomm., Inc. 15,246 Wall 4 4 Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. 13,661 Clear Lake 5 5 Venture Communications Cooperative 12,879 Highmore 6 6 City of Brookings Telephone Co d/b/a Swiftel Communications 12,339 Brookings 7 7 Alliance Communications Cooperative, Inc. 8,552 Garretson 8 8 Fort Randall Telephone (includes Mt Rushmore Tele.) 7,824 Willmar, MN 9 9 Knology Community Telephone, Inc. 5,517 Irene 10 10 Sioux Valley Telephone Company d/b/a Golden West Telecomm. 5,045 Dell Rapids 11 12 Midstate Communications, Inc. 4,873 Kimball 12 11 Santel Communications Corporations 4,588 Woonsocket 13 15 Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority 4,284 Eagle Butte 14 13 James Valley Cooperative Telephone Company 3,803 Groton 15 14 West River Cooperative Telephone Company 3,639 Bison 16 16 Valley Telecommunications Cooperative Association, Inc. 3,346 Herried 17 17 West River Telecommunications Cooperative 3,316 Hazen, ND 18 18 McCook Cooperative Telephone Company 2,124 Salem 19 20 Union Telephone Company d/b/a Golden West Telecomm. 1,757 Hartford 20 21 Beresford Municipal Telephone Company 1,513 Beresford 21 22 Splitrock Properties, Inc. 1,476 Garretson 22 23 RC Communications 1,470 New Effington 23 19 Qwest Corporation Iowa 1,302 24 24 Western Telephone
Recommended publications
  • Federal Communications Commission DA 17-432 Before the Federal

    Federal Communications Commission DA 17-432 Before the Federal

    Federal Communications Commission DA 17-432 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Joint Application of Consolidated Communications ) WC Docket No. 16-417 Holdings, Inc., and FairPoint Communications, ) Inc., to Transfer Indirect Control of Authorization ) Holders to Consolidated Communications ) Holdings, Inc. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: May 8, 2017 Released: May 8, 2017 By the Acting Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau; Acting Chief, International Bureau; and Acting Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. (Consolidated Holdings) and FairPoint Communications, Inc. (FairPoint) (collectively, Applicants), filed a series of applications pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),1 seeking approval for various assignments and the transfer of control of licenses and authorizations held by FairPoint to Consolidated Holdings.2 We find that approval of the transaction will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity and hereby grant the Applications. In addition, we find that the Applicants have demonstrated good cause for receipt of their requested waiver of Section 61.41(c)(2) of the Commission’s rules.3 2. A public notice accepting the Applications for filing and establishing a pleading cycle for public comments was released on January 12, 2017.4 The Commission received no petitions to deny or comments in opposition to grant of the Applications. On March 22, 2017, after the public comment period closed, Applicants filed additional information to supplement the Applications.5 1 47 U.S.C. §§ 214, 310(d). 2 See Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. and FairPoint Communications, Inc.
  • FCC-06-11A1.Pdf

    FCC-06-11A1.Pdf

    Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-11 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition ) MB Docket No. 05-255 in the Market for the Delivery of Video ) Programming ) TWELFTH ANNUAL REPORT Adopted: February 10, 2006 Released: March 3, 2006 Comment Date: April 3, 2006 Reply Comment Date: April 18, 2006 By the Commission: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, and Tate issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 A. Scope of this Report......................................................................................................................... 2 B. Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 4 1. The Current State of Competition: 2005 ................................................................................... 4 2. General Findings ....................................................................................................................... 6 3. Specific Findings....................................................................................................................... 8 II. COMPETITORS IN THE MARKET FOR THE DELIVERY OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING ......... 27 A. Cable Television Service ..............................................................................................................
  • SMS) Transit Via SMS Gateways

    SMS) Transit Via SMS Gateways

    Carriers providing Short Message Service (SMS) transit via SMS gateways. This list explains which email address to use if one wants to send an email and have it arrive as a text message on someone's phone. The number must contain no punctuation. For instance, to send to a number typically expressed in the United States as 987-555-0100, one would email 9875550100@SMS- gateway. Some carriers have multiple gateways. The SMS gateway refers to Short Message Services which are capable of transmitting plain text messages only. MMS refers to "Multimedia Messaging Services" which are generally capable of carrying messages which include text, pictures and audio [email protected] (SMS), [email protected] (MMS) (Note: AT&T Mobility United States This gateway fails to handle complete phone numbers; the country code must be omitted, leaving only the ten-digit NANP number.) [email protected] AT&T Mobility (formerly [email protected] United States Cingular) [email protected] [email protected] AT&T Enterprise Paging United States [email protected] AT&T Global Smart Messaging United States [email protected] Suite - Powered By Soprano BellSouth United States [email protected] [email protected] (SMS) Bluegrass Cellular United States [email protected] (MMS) Global Telematic Solutions, LLC • PO Box 269 • Meridian, ID 83680 • Tel 855-487-9679 • Fax 855-487-9680 www.gtsfleet.com [email protected] (SMS) Boost Mobile United States [email protected] (MMS) Cellcom United States
  • 2020 Annual Report Dear Stockholders

    2020 Annual Report Dear Stockholders

    2020 ANNUAL REPORT DEAR STOCKHOLDERS, 2020 was a year like no other for Consolidated Communications. Searchlight’s investment enabled us to completely refinance our debt and We entered the year with strong momentum and a clear set of strategic extend our maturity profile by seven years. Importantly, this investment goals to guide our path and focus for the year: and partnership with an experienced strategic investor in our sector is • stabilize revenue and EBITDA while growing free cash flow enabling us to accelerate our fiber expansion plans immediately. • leverage our network across the regional territories we serve while • We are in a strong position to accelerate our fiber investments with continuing to invest in the expansion of our fiber network; and a fully funded build, supporting our growth initiatives across three customer groups; carrier, commercial and consumer. We have • continue to execute on our disciplined capital allocation plan, including a embarked on a five-year investment initiative to upgrade 1.6 million strategic refinancing, to position the Company for investment in the future. passings and enable multi-gigabit, symmetrical speeds over fiber services. And then the COVID-19 pandemic arrived, testing us in previously We have a proven track record of growing broadband, and we are now unimaginable ways. But your Company and its employees responded positioned to expedite our fiber expansion plans, boost customer speeds with incredible energy, engagement and support for one another. We and expand gigabit fiber services to 70 percent of our addressable market. focused immediately and intensely to ensure the safety of our employees As part of our fiber expansion plans, we intend to transform the customer and customers while at the same time ensuring business continuity and experience by making it easy for customers to do business with us.
  • Certificate of Service

    Certificate of Service

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Charlotte R. Graham, hereby certify that the persons on the attached list were served copies ofthe Public Notice ofNetwork Change Under Rule 51.329(a) filed on the 26th day of July, 2002, with the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Such notification was provided via U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid, or by electronic transmission at least five business days in advance of filing with the Commission. ~Q.~ Charlotte R. Graham _ ..__._-------------------------------------- 1-800-Reconex 1-800-Reconex 1-800-Reconex Bill Braun Jennifer Loewen Dale Merten 2500 Industrial Ave. 2500 Industrial Avenue 2500 Industrial Avenue Hubbard, OR 97032 Hubbard, OR 97032 Hubbard, OR 97032 1-800-Reconex 2-Infinity Access America Jennifer Sikes Lex Long Dan Barnett 2500 Industrial Ave 4828 Loop Central Dr. 315 W. Oakland Ave. Hubbard, OR 97032 Ste. 100 Johnson City, TN 37601 Houston, TX 77081 Access America Access Long Distance Access Long Distance Jack Coker Tammy Hampton Christina Moody 138 Fairbanks Plaza 215 S. State Street 3753 Howard Hughes Pkwy Oakridge, TN 37830 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Suite 131 Las Vegas, NV 89109 Access One (The Other Phone Company) ACN Communications ACT (Alternate Communications Kevin Griffo S. Meyer Technology) 3427 NW. 55th 32991 Hamilton Benjamin Bickham Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 6253 W. 800 N. Fountaintown, IN 46130 Adams Communications Adelphia Business Solutions Adelphia Business Solutions Jimmy Adams Rebecca Baldwin Stacey Chick P.O. Box 487 1221 Lamar Street 121 Champion Way Marianna, FL 324470487 Ste. 1175 Canonsburg, PA 15317 Houston, TX 770I0 Adelphia Business Solutions Adelphia Business Solutions Adelphia Business Solutions Rod Fletcher Richard Kindred Janet Livengood 121 Champion Way 500 Atrium Drive 3000 K St., NW.
  • Promoting Competition in the Telecommunications Markets: Why the FCC Should Adopt a Less Stringent Approach to Its Review of Section 271 Applications Eric M

    Promoting Competition in the Telecommunications Markets: Why the FCC Should Adopt a Less Stringent Approach to Its Review of Section 271 Applications Eric M

    Cornell Law Review Volume 84 Article 8 Issue 5 July 1999 Promoting Competition in the Telecommunications Markets: Why the FCC Should Adopt a Less Stringent Approach to Its Review of Section 271 Applications Eric M. Swedenburg Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Eric M. Swedenburg, Promoting Competition in the Telecommunications Markets: Why the FCC Should Adopt a Less Stringent Approach to Its Review of Section 271 Applications , 84 Cornell L. Rev. 1418 (1999) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol84/iss5/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE PROMOTING COMPETITION IN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS MARKETS: WHY THE FCC SHOULD ADOPT A LESS STRINGENT APPROACH TO ITS REVIEW OF SECTION 271 APPLICATIONS Eric M. Swedenburgj INTRODUcn ON ................................................. 1419 I. THE EVOLUTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW IN THE UNITED STATES ......................................... 1423 A. The Telecommunications Industry and Its Regulation Prior to the 1996 Act ................... 1423 1. Origins of the Telecommunications Industry and the FCC ............................................ 1423 2. The Divestiture of AT&T ......................... 1426 B. The Events Leading to Congress's Passing of the 1996 A ct ............................................ 1429 II. THE SECTION 271 APPuCATION PROCESS AND THE FCC APPROACH DURING THE FIRST Two YEARS OF THE 1996 A cr .................................................... 1432 A. The Mechanics of Section 271 ...................... 1433 1.

  • ONN 6 Eng Codelist Only Webversion.Indd

    6-DEVICE UNIVERSAL REMOTE Model: 100020904 CODELIST Need help? We’re here for you every day 7 a.m. – 9 p.m. CST. Give us a call at 1-888-516-2630 Please visit the website “www.onn-support.com” to get more information. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CODELIST TV 3 STREAM 5 STB 5 AUDIO SOUNDBAR 21 BLURAY DVD 22 2 CODELIST TV TV EQD 2014, 2087, 2277 EQD Auria 2014, 2087, 2277 Acer 4143 ESA 1595, 1963 Admiral 3879 eTec 2397 Affinity 3717, 3870, 3577, Exorvision 3953 3716 Favi 3382 Aiwa 1362 Fisher 1362 Akai 1675 Fluid 2964 Akura 1687 Fujimaro 1687 AOC 3720, 2691, 1365, Funai 1595, 1864, 1394, 2014, 2087 1963 Apex Digital 2397, 4347, 4350 Furrion 3332, 4093 Ario 2397 Gateway 1755, 1756 Asus 3340 GE 1447 Asustek 3340 General Electric 1447 Atvio 3638, 3636, 3879 GFM 1886, 1963, 1864 Atyme 2746 GPX 3980, 3977 Audiosonic 1675 Haier 2309, 1749, 1748, Audiovox 1564, 1276, 1769, 3382, 1753, 3429, 2121 2293, 4398, 2214 Auria 4748, 2087, 2014, Hannspree 1348, 2786 2277 Hisense 3519, 4740, 4618, Avera 2397, 2049 2183, 5185, 1660, Avol 2735, 4367, 3382, 3382, 4398 3118, 1709 Hitachi 1643, 4398, 5102, Axen 1709 4455, 3382, 0679 Axess 3593 Hiteker 3118 BenQ 1756 HKPro 3879, 2434 Blu:sens 2735 Hyundai 4618 Bolva 2397 iLo 1463, 1394 Broksonic 1892 Insignia 2049, 1780, 4487, Calypso 4748 3227, 1564, 1641, Champion 1362 2184, 1892, 1423, Changhong 4629 1660, 1963, 1463 Coby 3627 iSymphony 3382, 3429, 3118, Commercial Solutions 1447 3094 Conia 1687 JVC 1774, 1601, 3393, Contex 4053, 4280 2321, 2271, 4107, Craig 3423 4398, 5182, 4105, Crosley 3115 4053, 1670, 1892, Curtis
  • Alltel [10-Digit Phone Number]@Message.Alltel.Com

    Alltel [10-Digit Phone Number]@Message.Alltel.Com

    Alltel [10-digit phone number]@message.alltel.com Alaska Communications System [10-digit phone number]@msg.acsalaska.com AT&T [10-digit phone number]@txt.att.net Boost: [10-digit phone number]@myboostmobile.com CellularOne (Dobson): [10-digit phone number]@mobile.celloneusa.com CellularOne West [10-digit phone number]@mycellone.com Cellular South: [10-digit phone number]@csouth1.com Centennial Wireless [10-digit phone number]@cwemail.com Cincinnati Bell [10-digit phone number]@gocbw.com Cricket [10-digit phone number]@sms.mycricket.com EinsteinPCS / Airadigm Communications [10-digit phone number]@einsteinsms.com Globalstar (satellite) [10-digit phone number]@msg.globalstarusa.com Idea Cellular [10-digit phone number]@ideacellular.net Iridium (satellite) [10-digit phone number]@msg.iridium.com i-wireless [10-digit phone number][email protected] Meteor [10-digit phone number]@sms.mymeteor.ie Metro PCS [10-digit phone number]@mymetropcs.com Metrocall Pager [10-digit phone number]@page.metrocall.com Mobilfone [10-digit phone number]@page.mobilfone.com Nextel [10-digit phone number]@messaging.nextel.com O2 (formerly BTCellnet) [username]@o2.co.uk Skytel – Alphanumeric [10-digit phone number]@skytel.com Sprint [10-digit phone number]@messaging.sprintpcs.com Southern Linc [10-digit phone number]@page.southernlinc.com Syringa Wireless [10-digit phone number]@rinasms.com T-Mobile UK [phone number]@t-mobile.uk.net T-Mobile USA [10-digit phone number]@tmomail.net Tracfone [10-digit phone number]@mmst5.tracfone.com Telus Mobility [10-digit phone number]@msg.telus.com Unicel [10-digit phone number]@utext.com US Cellular [10-digit phone number]@email.uscc.net Verizon [10-digit phone number]@vtext.com Viaero [10-digit phone number]@viaerosms.com Virgin Mobile Canada [10-digit phone number]@vmobile.ca Virgin Mobile USA [10-digit phone number]@ vmobl.com Vodafone UK [username]@vodafone.com .
  • 'Destination Television,' JD Power Finds Over-The-Top Streaming S

    'Destination Television,' JD Power Finds Over-The-Top Streaming S

    Americans Love Streaming TV Services but Can’t Give Up ‘Destination Television,’ J.D. Power Finds Over-the-Top Streaming Services Gain in Customer Satisfaction, but Regularly Scheduled Program Viewing Continues to Rise COSTA MESA, Calif.: 28 Sept. 2017 — Pay-TV subscribers in the United States are growing increasingly satisfied with over-the-top streaming TV services vs. traditional cable TV, but they also are spending nearly an hour more a week watching regularly scheduled television programming than they did two years ago. That increasingly complex consumer relationship with streaming and cable television is explored in detail in a trio of J.D. Power studies released today. The related studies are the J.D. Power 2017 U.S. Residential Television Service Provider Satisfaction StudySM; the J.D. Power 2017 U.S. Residential Internet Service Provider Satisfaction StudySM; and the J.D. Power 2017 U.S. Residential Telephone Service Provider Satisfaction Study.SM “Although it seems like the world is consumed with idea of cord-cutting in the wake of Hulu’s first Emmy and the proliferation of new shows on Netflix and Amazon, the number of current pay-TV customers who plan to cut the cord has actually declined, and the number of hours spent watching old-fashioned, time-slot television is growing,” said Peter Cunningham, Technology, Media, and Telecommunications Practice Lead at J.D. Power. “We’re seeing a trend toward the co-existence of traditional and alternative service providers, with each offering some lessons to the other on how best to drive an increase in customer satisfaction.” Following are some of the key findings of the study: Streaming services make gains as traditional TV declines: Customer satisfaction with the overall streaming video service experience (7.91 on a 10-point scale) and performance and reliability (7.97) has slightly improved year over year.
  • U.S. Communications Service Provider Quarterly

    U.S. Communications Service Provider Quarterly

    FOCUS Telecom Technology and Services Group U.S. Communications Service Provider Quarterly Winter 2017 Report Vol. 7, No. 1 In this Issue Strategic, Personal, Dedicated 2 Introduction and Sub Sector Definitions 3 U.S. Summary Comments: Public Markets Investment Banking and Advisory Services 4 Public Market Summary Charts 1-6 FOCUS Investment Banking LLC is a leading 5 U.S. Summary Comments: M&A investment bank with specialized telecom technology M&A Summary Charts 1-2 7 Announced Transactions with and services expertise, concentrating on providing Revenue Multiples highly tailored services to emerging middle market and 9 Sub Sector Analysis: Alternative larger organizations in this sector: Telecom Charts 1-6 10 Sub Sector Analysis: Alternative Mergers & Acquisition Advisory Telecom Charts 1-6 11 Sub Sector Analysis: Hosted and Corporate Development Consulting Managed Services Charts 1-6 Strategic Partnering & Alliances 12 Sub Sector Analysis: ILEC and Diversified ILEC Charts 1-6 Capital Financing, Debt & Equity 13 Sub Sector Analysis: Cable and Corporate Valuations Video Charts 1-6 14 FOCUS Telecom Technology and Services Team www.focusbankers.com/telecom Atlanta •Los Angeles •Washington, DC U.S. Communications Service Provider Quarterly By Richard Pierce, FOCUS Managing Director and Telecom Technology and Services Team Leader FOCUS believes that the need for communications ser- • Has a breadth of knowledge that covers most segments vices has never been greater. Large enterprises, small and of the telecom industry, medium sized businesses, and individuals have all come to rely upon ubiquitous access to voice, video, and data ser- • Has bankers with C-level operating experience in the vices to run their day-to-day activities.
  • Addresses for Text Notices

    Addresses for Text Notices

    ADDRESSES FOR TEXT NOTICES List of Text Message Gateways Carrier Gateway 3 River Wireless [email protected] Advantage Communcations [email protected] AirFire Mobile [email protected] AirVoice [email protected] Aio Wireless [email protected] Alaska Communications [email protected] Alltel (Allied Wireless) [email protected] Ameritech [email protected] Assurance Wireless [email protected] AT&T Mobility [email protected] AT&T Enterprise Paging [email protected] BellSouth [email protected] BellSouth (Blackberry) [email protected] BellSouth Mobility [email protected] Bluegrass Cellular [email protected] Bluesky Communications [email protected] Boost mobile [email protected] Call Plus [email protected] Carolina Mobile Communications [email protected] CellCom [email protected] Cellular One [email protected] Cellular One East Coast [email protected] Cellular One PCS [email protected] Cellular One South West [email protected] Cellular One West [email protected] Cellular South [email protected] Centennial Wireless [email protected] Central Vermont Communications [email protected] CenturyTel [email protected] Chariton Valley Wireless [email protected] Chat Mobility [email protected] Charter *see ‘Spectrum Mobile’ ADDRESSES FOR TEXT NOTICES Cincinnati Bell [email protected] Cingular Wireless [email protected] Cingular (GSM) [email protected] Cingular (TDMA) [email protected]
  • Verizon Communications Inc., Et Al. V. National Union

    Verizon Communications Inc., Et Al. V. National Union

    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., ) NYNEX LLC, VERIZON NEW ) ENGLAND INC., and VERIZON ) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES ) LLC, ) C.A. No. N18C-08-086 EMD CCLD ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, XL ) SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ) NATIONAL SPECIALITY INSURANCE ) COMPANY, U.S. SPECIALITY ) INSURANCE COMPANY, AXIS ) INSURANCE COMPANY, and ST. ) PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. ) Submitted: November 16, 2020 Decided: February 23, 2021 Upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defense Costs GRANTED Upon Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings DENIED Jennifer C. Wasson, Esquire, Carla M. Jones, Esquire, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Robin L. Cohen, Esquire, Keith McKenna, Esquire, Cohen Ziffer Frenchman & McKenna LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Verizon Communications, Inc., NYNEX, LLC, Verizon New England, Inc., and Verizon Technologies, LLC. Kurt M. Heyman, Esquire, Aaron M. Nelson, Esquire, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Lisa C. Solbakken, Esquire, Deana Davidian, Esquire, Arkin Solbakken LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. Bruce E. Jameson, Esquire, John G. Day, Esquire, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Alexis J. Rogoski, Esquire, Tammy Yuen, Esquire, Skarzynski Marick & Black, LLC, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant XL Specialty Insurance Company. Robert J. Katzenstein, Esquire, Eve H. Ormerod, Esquire, Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Michael P. Duffy, Esquire, Scarlett M. Rajbanshi, Esquire, Peabody & Arnold LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, Attorneys for Defendant National Specialty Insurance Company. John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire, David A. Bilson, Esquire, Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Joseph A.