Exhibit N. CCS4.1 Page 1 of 5 Docket No. 01-035-01 Witness: John B
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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. -
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 -
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. -
Appendix Non-Intercompany Settlement (Nics)
FACILITY-BASED NICS/SBC MIDWEST REGION 5-STATE PAGE 1 OF 5 SBC ILLINOIS, SBC MICHIGAN AND/ SBC WISCONSIN/LIGHTYEAR NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC 110504 APPENDIX NON-INTERCOMPANY SETTLEMENT (NICS) FACILITY-BASED NICS/SBC MIDWEST REGION 5-STATE PAGE 2 OF 5 SBC ILLINOIS, SBC MICHIGAN AND/ SBC WISCONSIN/LIGHTYEAR NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC 110504 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................3 2. DEFINITIONS .........................................................................................................................................................3 3. NICS DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................................................4 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES................................................................................................................4 5. BASIS OF COMPENSATION.................................................................................................................................4 6. TERM OF AGREEMENT........................................................................................................................................5 FACILITY-BASED NICS/SBC MIDWEST REGION 5-STATE PAGE 3 OF 5 SBC ILLINOIS, SBC MICHIGAN AND/ SBC WISCONSIN/LIGHTYEAR NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC 110504 APPENDIX NON-INTERCOMPANY SETTLEMENT (NICS) 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Appendix sets forth the terms and -
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. -
("South Central Bell"), on Behalf of the Local Exchange Carrier Interalia
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of: PROPOSED SPECIAL CONTRACT OF SOUTH ) CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY ON ) BEHALF OF THE LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER ) CASE NO. 95-151 TELEPHONE GROUP FOR THE KENTUCKY ) INFORMATION HIGHWAY RFP ET-41-95 ) 0 R D E R On March 17, 1995, South Central Bell Telephone Company ("South Central Bell" ), on behalf of the Local Exchange Carrier Telephone Group ("LECTG"), filed with the Commission the special contract awarded to it by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. On March 30, 1995, AT&T Communications of the South Central States ("AT&T") sought full intervention and a hearing. AT&T was granted intervention on April 6, 1995, and a hearing was set for May 22, 1995. MCI Telecommunications Corporation ("MCI") subsequently intervened on April 14, 1995. On May 22, 1995, in response to motions of the intervenors, the Commission granted certain representatives of AT&T and MCI access to confidential information pertaining to the special contract and continued the hearing to May 30, 1995. The intervenors contend that the contract should be rejected.'hey allege, inter alia, that the contract rates are AT&T has suggested that, in the alternative, the Commission should require South Central Bell to take its revenues and costs associated with the contract out of regulated rate base and to offer the service "below the line." ~e Prefiled Testimony of L.G. Sather, at 20. discriminatory, that South Central Bell has failed to observe the Commission-mandated imputation standard, and that the contract rates will be subsidized by other Kentucky ratepayers. -
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. -
Ragland Telephone Company, Inc. Price List
RAGLAND TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. PRICE LIST This Price List contains regulations and rates applicable for the furnishing of Local Exchange Service, Long Distance Message Telecommunications, and for other general customer services and facilities offered by Ragland Telephone Company, Inc. and its affiliates (the “Company”). Effective November 30, 2020 services other than basic unbundled) telephone service and certain stand-alone Optional Calling Features are no longer subject to regulation by the Alabama Public Service Commission (“APSC”) and are solely governed by this Price List and the Company’s Customer Service Agreement, and, if applicable to the service you have ordered, the Company’s Acceptable Use Policy. Each of these documents may be accessed on the Company’s website at http://ragland.net/. Since there will be no change in customer rates on November 30, 2020, the Company has reprinted its prior APSC tariff in its entirety to serve as its price list, pending further revision and streamlining. Subscribers will receive notice of any future changes in rates and terms of service as provided in Customer Service Agreement. Rates for basic, unbundled telephone service remain also subject to tariff filing requirements at the APSC. Any changes to such rates will also be mirrored in this price list for convenience. In the event of execution of a subscriber contract containing rates, terms or conditions that conflict or supersede those contained in the Price List, the rates, terms or conditions of the contract shall prevail. Date: October 15, 2020 CONSISTING OF SCHEDULE OF RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR TELEPHONE SERVICE WITHIN THE STATE OF ALABAMA APPLYING TO THE VICINITY OF RAGLAND ISSUED BY: MRS. -
Pany Entry Into Interlata Services Subpart C—Separate Affiliate
§ 53.201 47 CFR Ch. I (10–1–10 Edition) with respect to such action entered on mission component, provided to the or after August 24, 1982. customer for a single charge. Bell Operating Company (BOC). The InterLATA Service. An interLATA serv- term Bell operating company ice is a service that involves tele- (1) Means any of the following com- communications between a point lo- panies: Bell Telephone Company of Ne- cated in a LATA and a point located vada, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, outside such area. The term Indiana Bell Telephone Company, In- ‘‘interLATA service’’ includes both corporated, Michigan Bell Telephone interLATA telecommunications serv- Company, New England Telephone and ices and interLATA information serv- Telegraph Company, New Jersey Bell ices. Telephone Company, New York Tele- Local Access and Transport Area phone Company, U S West Communica- (LATA). A LATA is a contiguous geo- tions Company, South Central Bell graphic area: Telephone Company, Southern Bell (1) Established before February 8, Telephone and Telegraph Company, 1996 by a BOC such that no exchange Southwestern Bell Telephone Com- area includes points within more than pany, The Bell Telephone Company of one metropolitan statistical area, con- Pennsylvania, The Chesapeake and Po- solidated metropolitan statistical area, tomac Telephone Company, The Chesa- or state, except as expressly permitted peake and Potomac Telephone Com- under the AT&T Consent Decree; or pany of Maryland, The Chesapeake and (2) Established or modified by a BOC Potomac Telephone Company of Vir- after February 8, 1996 and approved by ginia, The Chesapeake and Potomac the Commission. Telephone Company of West Virginia, Local Exchange Carrier (LEC). -
Weeks V. Southern Bell: Breaking Discriminatory Employment Barriers for Women in the Workforce
Weeks v. Southern Bell: Breaking Discriminatory Employment Barriers for Women in the Workforce Julianna Velgersdyk Junior Division Paper Paper Length: 2,497 words “I’m going to have that job, one way or another! Somebody’s going to listen to me, if I have to go all the way to Chief Justice Earl Warren.” ‒Lorena Weeks, 1969 Despite years of hard work and protest for equal rights, women still were not given the same opportunities as men. Continuing this fight, Lorena Weeks sought to break barriers in women’s employment in 1966 in Wadley, Georgia. After being denied a promotion at Southern Bell because of her gender, Weeks took her case to court as the first discrimination case filed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After three years of fighting in both district and appellate courts, Weeks’s determination and support from the women’s movement earned her the job as switchman and broke gender barriers. Weeks’ victory set a precedent for the many discrimination cases that would follow and advanced the larger fight for equality for women. Early History of Employment Barriers Women entered the workforce in the United States in the early 1800s, but with a lower status than men. Most were young and single and worked unskilled jobs or became teachers. By the 1920s, some women went to college and worked as secretaries or nurses. Organizations formed to better the low wages and unsafe working conditions for women. The Women’s Bureau and the Women’s Trade Union League sought to improve working conditions and welfare of women in the 1920s.1 1 Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. -
A Time Series and Cross-Sectional Classification of State Regulatory Policy Adopted for Local Exchange Carriers
NRRI 98-25 A TIME SERIES AND CROSS-SECTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF STATE REGULATORY POLICY ADOPTED FOR LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS Divestiture to Present (1984-1998) Jaison R. Abel and Michael E. Clements The National Regulatory Research Institute 1080 Carmack Road Columbus, Ohio 43210-1002 Website: www.nrri.ohio-state.edu December 1998 This report was prepared by The National Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI). Funding was provided by the member commissions of the National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners (NARUC). The opinions expressed herein are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or policies of the NRRI, the NARUC, or any NARUC-member commission. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables ........................................................ iv Foreword ........................................................... ix Acknowledgments ..................................................... xi I. Introduction ....................................................... 1 II. Research Method .................................................. 3 III. Forms of Regulatory Constraint Used in the Telecommunications Industry ...... 7 1. Ratebase Rate-of-Return .......................................... 7 2. Banded Rate-of-Return ........................................... 8 3. Rate Case Moratoriums ........................................... 8 4. Rate-of-Return Incentive (Earnings-Sharing) .......................... 8 5. Revenue-Sharing .............................................. 10 6. Indexed Price Cap ............................................ -
S:\CA\2016\URF Review\LLS Direct 03-15-16
Before the CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Order Instituting Investigation into the State of Competition Among Telecommunications Providers in California, and to Consider and Investigation 15-11-007 Resolve Questions raised in the Limited Rehearing of Decision 08-09-042. Direct Testimony of LEE L. SELWYN on behalf of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates of the California Public Utilities Commission March 15, 2016 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LEE L. SELWYN TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Qualifications, background and experience 1 Assignment 4 A NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY FRAMEWORK 6 Introduction and Background 6 Assessing the extent and effectiveness of competition – the Structure-Conduct- Performance (“S-C-P”) paradigm 9 Structure analysis 15 Conduct analysis 16 Performance analysis 18 Applying the S-C-P paradigm to current telecommunications market conditions in California 18 Analysis principles relating to Structure 19 Analysis principles relating to Conduct 20 Analysis principles relating to Performance 22 Structure 22 (1) Multiple providers should each be capable of achieving minimum efficient scale in order for the market to be considered as capable of supporting effective competition. 22 i ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) (2) Market share, concentration, and market power of infrastructure-based markets must be assessed only with respect to the specific geographic areas being served by each incumbent. 31 (3) The number and the relative size and strength of competing firms must be sufficient to engender actual price competition. 35 (4) The relative positions of dominant firms may change over time without necessarily resulting in a material change in the level of market concentration. 44 (5) Putatively competing services may not offer fully equivalent functionality in all respects.