FCC Web Documents citing 74.986

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2005 08 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Rates......................................................05/31/06. 3060­0463............Telecommunications Relay Services and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 47 CFR Part 64, Sec. 64.604(a)(3). 06/30/06. 3060­0465............Sec. 74.985..........................................................................................................01/31/07. 3060­0466............Sec. 74.1283........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0470............Secs. 64.901­64.903, Allocation of Cost, Cost Allocation Manual, RAO Letters 19 and 26. 03/31/05. 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. VerDate Aug 04 2004 08:38 Dec 10, 2004Jkt 203193PO 00000Frm 00048Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010C:\BABYBABY 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Rates......................................................05/31/06. 3060­0463............Telecommunications Relay Services and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 47 CFR Part 64, Sec. 64.604(a)(3). 06/30/06. 3060­0465............Sec. 74.985..........................................................................................................01/31/07. 3060­0466............Sec. 74.1283........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0470............Secs. 64.901­64.903, Allocation of Cost, Cost Allocation Manual, RAO Letters 19 and 26. 03/31/05. 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. VerDate Aug 04 2004 08:38 Dec 10, 2004Jkt 203193PO 00000Frm 00048Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010C:\BABYBABY 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Rates......................................................05/31/06. 3060­0463............Telecommunications Relay Services and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 47 CFR Part 64, Sec. 64.604(a)(3). 06/30/06. 3060­0465............Sec. 74.985..........................................................................................................01/31/07. 3060­0466............Sec. 74.1283........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0470............Secs. 64.901­64.903, Allocation of Cost, Cost Allocation Manual, RAO Letters 19 and 26. 03/31/05. 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. VerDate Aug 04 2004 08:38 Dec 10, 2004Jkt 203193PO 00000Frm 00048Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010C:\BABYBABY 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Rates......................................................05/31/06. 3060­0463............Telecommunications Relay Services and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 47 CFR Part 64, Sec. 64.604(a)(3). 06/30/06. 3060­0465............Sec. 74.985..........................................................................................................01/31/07. 3060­0466............Sec. 74.1283........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0470............Secs. 64.901­64.903, Allocation of Cost, Cost Allocation Manual, RAO Letters 19 and 26. 03/31/05. 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. VerDate Aug 04 2004 08:38 Dec 10, 2004Jkt 203193PO 00000Frm 00048Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010C:\BABYBABY 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Aug<31>2005 06:12 Nov 01, 2005Jkt 205195PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\205195.XXX205195 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0512............FCC Report 43­01...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0513............FCC Report 43­03...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0514............Sec. 43.21(b)........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0515............Sec. 43.21(c)........................................................................................................10/31/05. 3060­0519............Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02­278. 09/30/06. 3060­0526............Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Aug<31>2005 06:12 Nov 01, 2005Jkt 205195PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\205195.XXX205195 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0512............FCC Report 43­01...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0513............FCC Report 43­03...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0514............Sec. 43.21(b)........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0515............Sec. 43.21(c)........................................................................................................10/31/05. 3060­0519............Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02­278. 09/30/06. 3060­0526............Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Aug<31>2005 06:12 Nov 01, 2005Jkt 205195PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\205195.XXX205195 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0512............FCC Report 43­01...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0513............FCC Report 43­03...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0514............Sec. 43.21(b)........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0515............Sec. 43.21(c)........................................................................................................10/31/05. 3060­0519............Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02­278. 09/30/06. 3060­0526............Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Aug<31>2005 06:12 Nov 01, 2005Jkt 205195PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\205195.XXX205195 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0512............FCC Report 43­01...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0513............FCC Report 43­03...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0514............Sec. 43.21(b)........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0515............Sec. 43.21(c)........................................................................................................10/31/05. 3060­0519............Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02­278. 09/30/06. 3060­0526............Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Aug<31>2005 06:12 Nov 01, 2005Jkt 205195PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\205195.XXX205195 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0512............FCC Report 43­01...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0513............FCC Report 43­03...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0514............Sec. 43.21(b)........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0515............Sec. 43.21(c)........................................................................................................10/31/05. 3060­0519............Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02­278. 09/30/06. 3060­0526............Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Aug<31>2005 06:12 Nov 01, 2005Jkt 205195PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\205195.XXX205195 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0512............FCC Report 43­01...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0513............FCC Report 43­03...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0514............Sec. 43.21(b)........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0515............Sec. 43.21(c)........................................................................................................10/31/05. 3060­0519............Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02­278. 09/30/06. 3060­0526............Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Aug<31>2005 06:12 Nov 01, 2005Jkt 205195PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\205195.XXX205195 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0512............FCC Report 43­01...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0513............FCC Report 43­03...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0514............Sec. 43.21(b)........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0515............Sec. 43.21(c)........................................................................................................10/31/05. 3060­0519............Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02­278. 09/30/06. 3060­0526............Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Aug<31>2005 06:12 Nov 01, 2005Jkt 205195PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\205195.XXX205195 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0512............FCC Report 43­01...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0513............FCC Report 43­03...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0514............Sec. 43.21(b)........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0515............Sec. 43.21(c)........................................................................................................10/31/05. 3060­0519............Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02­278. 09/30/06. 3060­0526............Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Aug<31>2005 06:12 Nov 01, 2005Jkt 205195PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\205195.XXX205195 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0512............FCC Report 43­01...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0513............FCC Report 43­03...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0514............Sec. 43.21(b)........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0515............Sec. 43.21(c)........................................................................................................10/31/05. 3060­0519............Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02­278. 09/30/06. 3060­0526............Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Aug<31>2005 06:12 Nov 01, 2005Jkt 205195PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\205195.XXX205195 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0512............FCC Report 43­01...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0513............FCC Report 43­03...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0514............Sec. 43.21(b)........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0515............Sec. 43.21(c)........................................................................................................10/31/05. 3060­0519............Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02­278. 09/30/06. 3060­0526............Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Aug<31>2005 06:12 Nov 01, 2005Jkt 205195PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\205195.XXX205195 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0512............FCC Report 43­01...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0513............FCC Report 43­03...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0514............Sec. 43.21(b)........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0515............Sec. 43.21(c)........................................................................................................10/31/05. 3060­0519............Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02­278. 09/30/06. 3060­0526............Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Aug<31>2005 06:12 Nov 01, 2005Jkt 205195PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\205195.XXX205195 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0512............FCC Report 43­01...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0513............FCC Report 43­03...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0514............Sec. 43.21(b)........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0515............Sec. 43.21(c)........................................................................................................10/31/05. 3060­0519............Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02­278. 09/30/06. 3060­0526............Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/CFRparts/PART0.PDF
  • Aug<31>2005 06:12 Nov 01, 2005Jkt 205195PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\205195.XXX205195 49 Federal Communications Commission §0.408 OMB control No. FCC form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB expiration date 3060­0473............Sec. 74.1251........................................................................................................02/28/06. 3060­0474............Sec. 74.1263........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0483............Sec. 73.687..........................................................................................................12/31/06. 3060­0484............Sec. 63.100..........................................................................................................04/30/05. 3060­0489............Sec. 73.37............................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0490............Sec. 74.902..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0491............Sec. 74.991..........................................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0492............Sec. 74.992..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0493............Sec. 74.986..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0494............Sec. 74.990..........................................................................................................04/30/04. 3060­0496............FCC Report 43­08...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0500............Sec. 76.1713........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0501............Secs. 76.206........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0502............Sec. 73.1942........................................................................................................09/30/04. 3060­0506............FCC 302­FM........................................................................................................06/30/06. 3060­0508............Rewrite of Part 22................................................................................................08/31/04. 3060­0511............FCC Report 43­04...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0512............FCC Report 43­01...............................................................................................Pending OMB approval. 3060­0513............FCC Report 43­03...............................................................................................03/31/07. 3060­0514............Sec. 43.21(b)........................................................................................................05/31/06. 3060­0515............Sec. 43.21(c)........................................................................................................10/31/05. 3060­0519............Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02­278. 09/30/06. 3060­0526............Density Pricing Zone Plans, Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
  • SERVICE Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedure exclusive to instructional television fixed service stations. Need: These rules promote procedures for instructional television fixed service (ITFS) broadcasting stations, frequencies on fixed broadcast stations, fixed service applications, multi-channel distribution and all other procedures applicable to television fixed service. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, 554. Section Number and Title: 74.986 Involuntary ITFS station modifications. 74.990 Use of available instructional television fixed service frequencies by wireless cable entities. 74.991 Wireless cable application procedures. 74.992 Access to channels licensed to wireless cable entities. SUBPART L - FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR STATIONS AND FM BROADCAST BOOSTER STATIONS Brief Description: These rules prescribe operating procedures exclusive to FM broadcast translator and FM broadcast booster stations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.txt
  • two stations, but did not demonstrate a lack of interference to the Board's station from MMDS, Inc.'s station. The Division also noted that MMDS, Inc. did not file a modification application requesting a change of the due date for filing the specific documentation required by the conditional license. Moreover, the Division found that MMDS, Inc. was not authorized under Sections 74.986 or 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules to require the Board to migrate involuntarily to another frequency. On September 8, 1993, MMDS, Inc. filed its AFR. discussion In its AFR, MMDS, Inc. contends that the Division's decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. MMDS, Inc. raises four reasons to reinstate its license. First, MMDS, Inc. argues that the Division wrongfully cancelled MMDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15,920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). Our rules treat certain amendments as new applications that receive a new filing date as of the date the applicant submits the amendment. Amendments that we treat as new applications include applications submitted up to fourteen days after the application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • our rules permit ITFS licensees to exchange channels evenly with each other or with MDS licensees after filing pro forma applications. 47 C.F.R. § 74.902(f). Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 ¶ 207 (1998). See 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.947(b). See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶ 160. See NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6786 ¶¶ 161-163; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.901 et. seq. See BellSouth Comments at 13-14 n.21. See IMLC Comments at iii, 8. See Coalition
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture time "is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • only, and not mandatory). In light of our intentions that cellularization not be mandatory for ITFS licensees, we ask that parties consider ITF's request that we prevent the filing of involuntary modification applications that jeopardize existing and future instructional service. Specifically, is abuse of this mechanism upon implementation of two-way digital services anticipated? Should we restrict the scope of Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules to involuntary modifications that are consistent with downstream transmissions only? In speculating as to how this mechanism may be utilized in a two-way environment, commenting parties may also recount the extent to which it is currently employed. 56 ITFS Channel Loading Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3366. 57 The Commission previously has stated that ready recapture
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • FCC 2d at 90. 308 Thus, for example, while a wireless cable operator transmitting obscene language or other matter over frequencies leased from an ITFS licensee could be prosecuted for such transmissions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and/or §1468, we believe that the ITFS licensee in such a case should not be subject to prosecution. 309 47 C.F.R. § 74.986. 310 12 FCC Rcd at 22210 n.70. 63 ultimately responsible for full compliance with . . . Commission rules."305 We also will continue to review excess capacity leases to ensure that they contain no provisions abdicating ultimate licensee control. Therefore, we are not concerned that an ITFS licensee's ultimate control over its facilities and licenses will be jeopardized significantly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-288A1.txt
  • Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, GN Docket No. 80-112, CC Docket No. 80-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 98 FCC 2d 129, 132-33 ¶ 12 (1983). File No. BPMD-8305624 (granted May 28, 1992). In 1996, the authorization was assigned to WBSWP. File No. BALMD-9350734 (granted Jul. 1, 1996). At the time, Section 74.986 of the Commission's Rules allowed the filing of involuntary station modification applications in order to avoid interference. The party filing the application would be required to make the modifications at its own expense. Petition at 2. Petition at 2. Market Settlement Agreement (filed May 24, 1995). File Nos. 19950524DN, 19950524DE. File No. BMPMD-9550711. Petition at 2. See Public Notice, Report
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-177A1.pdf