Report and Order. The rates, terms and conditions (including rates which may be applicable under true-up) specified in both the GTE Terms and the AT&T Terms are further subject to amendment, retroactive to the Effective Date of the Agreement, to provide for charges or rate adjustments resulting from future Commission or other proceedings, including but not limited to any generic proceeding to determine GTE's unrecovered costs (e.g., historic costs, contribution, undepreciated reserve deficiency, or similar unrecovered GTE costs (including GTE's end user surcharge)), the establishment of a competitively neutral universal service system, or any appeal or other litigation. If the Commission (or any other commission or federal or state court) in reviewing this Agreement pursuant to applicable state and federal laws, including Section 252(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, deletes or modifies in any way this Section 49, MEBTEL agrees that this entire Agreement is void and will not become effective, and MEBTEL agrees to withdraw this Agreement from consideration by the Commission (or any other commission or federal or state court).
Report and Order. The rates, terms and conditions (including rates which may be applicable under true-up) specified in both the GTE Terms and the OtherCLEC Terms are further subject to amendment, retroactive to the Effective Date of the Agreement, to provide for charges or rate adjustments resulting from future Commission or other proceedings, including but not limited to any generic proceeding to determine GTE's unrecovered costs (e.g., historic costs, contribution, undepreciated reserve deficiency, or similar unrecovered GTE costs (including GTE's end user surcharge)), the establishment of a competitively neutral universal service system, or any appeal or other litigation. If the Commission (or any other commission or federal or state court) in reviewing this Agreement pursuant to applicable state or federal laws, including Section 252(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, deletes or modifies in any way this Section 46, then the Parties agree that they will reopen negotiations within ten (10) days after receipt of the final decision making such deletion or modification in order to attempt to craft the new provision that will provide substantially the same protections to GTE and DTI as this Section 46. If the Parties cannot reach agreement on such a provision within twenty (20) calendar days thereafter, the Parties agree that this entire Agreement is void and will not become effective, and DTI agrees to withdraw this Agreement from consideration by the Commission (or any other commission or federal or state court). In such event, each Party shall have 25 days following the close of the 20-day negotiation period within which to file a petition for arbitration before the Commission under Section 252(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 of the issues that remain in dispute under this paragraph.
Report and Order and Order requires that applicants must provide a detailed description of how the applicant will meet all non-waived mandatory minimum standards applicable to each form of TRS offered, including documentary and other evidence, and in the case of VRS, such documentary and other evidence shall demonstrate that the applicant leases, licenses or has acquired its own facilities and operates such facilities associated with TRS call centers and employs their own communications assistants (CAs), on a full or part-time basis, to staff such call centers at the date of the application. Such evidence shall include but not be limited to:
Report and Order and Order requires the provider must provide notification of temporary service outages to consumers on an accessible Web site, and the provider must ensure that the information regarding service status is updated on its Web site in a timely manner. On October 17, 2011, in document FCC 11–155, the Commission released a Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O), published at 76 FR 67070,
Report and Order the Commission stated that calls between a LEC and a CMRS provider that originate and terminate within the same Major Trading Area (MTA) at the time that the call is initiated are subject to reciprocal compensation obligations under section 251(b)(5), rather than interstate or intrastate access charges. As noted above, this rule, referred to as the “intraMTA rule,” also governs the scope of traffic between LECs and CMRS providers that is subject to compensation under section 20.11(b). The USF/ICC Transformation NPRM sought comment, inter alia, on the proper interpretation of this rule. The record presents several issues regarding the scope and interpretation of the intraMTA rule. Because the changes we adopt in this Order maintain, during the transition, distinctions in the compensation available under the reciprocal compensation regime and compensation owed under the access regime, parties must continue to rely on the intraMTA rule to define the scope of LEC-CMRS traffic that falls under the reciprocal compensation regime. We therefore take this opportunity to remove any ambiguity regarding the interpretation of the intraMTA rule. Connect America Order, ¶¶ 1003, 1004 (citations omitted). 8 Footnote 2059 from ¶ 979 makes it clear that the “one wireless provider” is Halo as it cites to certain letters from Halo counsel: “ Letter from W. Xxxxx XxXxxxxxxx, Counsel for Halo Wireless, Inc. to Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, GN Docket No. 09-51, CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-45, Attach. at 9 (filed Aug. 12, 2011) (Halo Aug. 12, 2011 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from W. Xxxxx XxXxxxxxxx, Counsel for Halo Wireless, Inc. to Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, GN Docket No. 09-51, CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-45 (filed Oct. 17, 2011) (Halo Oct. 17, 2011 Ex Parte Letter).” The FCC then addresses the issue that is specifically before this Commission, which is whether Halo can “re-orginate” a call effectively making it intraMTA. We first address a dispute regarding the interpretation of the intraMTA rule. Halo Wireless (Halo) asserts that it offers “Common Carrier wireless exchange services to ESP and enterprise customers” in which the customer “connects wirelessly to Halo base stations in each MTA.” It further using wireless equipment which is capable of operation while in motion.” Halo argues that, for purposes of applying the intraMTA rule, “[t]he origination point for Halo traffic is the base station ...
Report and Order. If the Commission (or any other commission or federal or state court) in reviewing this Agreement pursuant to applicable state and federal laws, including Section 252(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, deletes or modifies in any way this Section 49, US Dial Tone agrees that this entire Agreement is void and will not become effective, and US Dial Tone agrees to withdraw this Agreement from consideration by the Commission (or any other commission or federal or state court).
Report and Order. In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Intercarrier Compensation for Bound FCC 01-13 1, CC Docket Nos. 96-98 and 99-68.
Report and Order. On Rehearing in Case No. EO-2004-0108 contains a typographical error that transposed the second and third digits in the annual contribution amount to the Missouri jurisdictional subaccount. (See 13 Mo.P.S.C.3d at 297 and 304 compared to 13 Mo.P.S.C.3d at 296). Because this error has an insignificant impact on trust fund funding, Ameren Missouri used this actual ordered amount as its present annual contribution amount. File No. ER-2011-0028. In Case Nos. XX-0000-0000, XX-0000-0000, and EO-2009-0081, a methodology was utilized by which Missouri ratepayers were responsible for less than 100% of Ameren Missouri’s decommissioning liability. Ameren Missouri serves wholesale customers, such as municipals, with power from Callaway. The provision of service to other than Missouri retail ratepayers was recognized by the utilization of an allocation methodology with a Missouri jurisdictional demand allocator of less than 100% to Missouri retail customers. Starting in Ameren Missouri’s last general rate increase case, File No. ER-2011-0028, and continued in the present Ameren Missouri general rate increase case File No. ER-2012-0166, Ameren Missouri did not perform and has not performed an allocation. Callaway was treated and is being treated as allocated 100% to the Missouri retail jurisdiction, and municipal customers, sales, and costs were and are being treated as off-system customers, sales, and costs. The $6,758,605 of annual decommissioning expense accrual was included in the determination of Ameren Missouri customer rates approved by the Commission as part of Re Union Electric Co., File No. ER-2011-0028 (July 13, 2011) when the Missouri jurisdictional demand allocator was reflected as 100%. The Staff agreed to this methodology in File No. ER-2011-0028, and the Staff has filed its direct case in the presently pending File No. ER-2012-0166 on the basis of this methodology.
Report and Order. 2 In this Order, we adopted only the proposals concerning International Fixed Public Radio and International High Frequency Broadcast Stations raised in paragraphs 55 and 56 in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the FY 2008 Report and Order. The remaining outstanding matters stemming from the August 8, 2008 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may, however, be decided at a later time in a separate Report and Order. See FY 2008 Report and Order.
Report and Order. 1. The Commission has before it for consideration its Notice of Proposed Rule Making, adopted Au gust 5, 1970 (FCC 70-858) proposing to amend its rules so as to provide for the operation of low-power relay stations in the Instructional Television Fixed Serv ice (ITFS). The Notice was based on petitions filed by the Xxxxxxx Electronics Corp. (xxxxxxx) and the Solid State Di vision, Micro-Link Products (Micro- Link) of Varian Associates, respectively (RM-1599 and RM-1613).
