CREW: Federal Communications Commission: Regarding McCain, Clinton and Obama: Clinton

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.20580
2AN 2 8 2003
Oftice of the Secretary
The Honorable Ellary Rodham Clinton

United States Senate
780 Third Avenue, Ste. 2601
New York, NY 10017
Re: FTC Ref. No. 2650982
Dear Senator Clinton:
Thank you for your letter of behalf of Jesse Archer, concerning his difficulties with
AT&T Wireless Services. As you know, the Federal Trade Commission has been directed by
Congress to act in the interest of all consumers to prevent deceptive or unfair practices and unfair
methods of competition, pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq. In
determining whether to take enforcement or other action in any particular situation, the
Commission may consider to a number of factors, including the type of violation alleged; the
nature and amount of consumer inquiry at issue and the number of consumers affected; and the
likelihood of preventing future unlawful conduct and securing redress or other relief. As a matter
of policy, the Commission does not generally intervene in individual disputes. However, letters
from your constituents provide valuable information that is frequently used to develop or support
Commission enforcement initiatives.
I appreciate learning of your constituent’s problem, but primary jurisdiction over this
issue lies with the Federal Communications Commission. Therefore, I have taken the liberty of
forwarding your inquiry to the Commission for their review. I appreciate your interest in this
matter, and please let us know whenever we can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Secretary of the Commission
cc: Director of Congressional Liaison

Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
NELZ’ Y O R t
SENATOR
December 10,2002
Ms. Anna Davis

Director
Office of Congressional Relations
Federal Trade Commission
Room 404
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Dear Ms. Davis:
Enclosed is a letter from Jesse Archer. Ms. Archer contacted my office regarding her
experience with AT&T Wireless Services. Ms. Archer feels that she was unfairly forced into
signing up for another one- year contract with AT&T due to their unreasonable billing practices.
Although her bill was “re-rated” she would like to bring this to the attention of the appropriate
authorities.
I would appreciate your reviewing the information that has been presented and providing
me with your comments. Please address your reply to my state office:
United States Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

780 Third Avenue, Suite 2601
New York, New York 10017-2024
Attention: Carrie V. Torres
Your cooperation and assistance are greatly appreciated. I look forward to hearing from
you soon.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
HRC/cvt
Jesse Archer
753 East 6* Street #6
New Y ork, NY 10009
AT&T Acct #025-20 1157724
Senator Hillary Clinton

476 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington DC, 205 10
CC: BBB
Senator Chuck Schumer
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
FCC
NYC Dept. of Consumer Affairs
Dear BBB,
I am Writing with a complaint regarding AT&T wireless services. I have been unable to resolve
this situation with AT&T despite many attempts. I had originally signed up for a year of
contracted service with AT&T last August, and had been happy with my service.
However, my last bill came to a grand total of $866. When I called to find out why I had been
charged for each call I made during nights and weekends, I was told that my contract having
ended, so to my night and weekend minute “benefits” had ended. They told me I had been made
aware of this in my last three bills. After much searching, I found their cryptic warning buried on
page 3 of my bill. It says merely “the benefits associated with the 2000 night and weekend are
valid through 8/26. Please call to hear about our exciting new offers.” Instead of valuing my
business, and continuing my account on the same plan, they discontinued my plan and charged
me for every call I made. This hidden warning mentioned nothing about what would happen
should I not call to hear about their exciting offers.
I was told by AT&T that they would offer me the “courtesyy’of re-rating my exorbitant bill
should I decide to sign up for another year of contracted service. Thus AT&T bullies their good
clients into yearly contracts. AT&T needs to know that their idea of “courtesyy’is extortion.
The management at AT&T feel they are invincible, and thus are haughty and rude.
When I asked several managers to speak with someone in a superior position, I was told that they
would not escalate this matter any further, and that I could take legal action if I so desired. They
told me that their warning was completely legal and entirely clear, “What’s not explicit?” I was
admonished. Not only is it ambiguous, unclear and unethical business, I doubt it is legal.
I had no problems with my previous AT&T service, but I was forced to sign up for another year
of contracted service in order to avoid the looming threat of an $866. AT&T has lost my trust and
my future business, and I will ensure that everyone in my world knows to choose another
company for their wireless service.
I seek insurance that this company in the future will provide detailed warnings as to what exactly
will happen when their “benefits” are ending, and I strongly suggest that they discontinue
extortion as a means of maintaining their customer base.
-
--
Account Name
Account Number
Date o f Invoice
Telephone Number
Attention N e w York Customers

Effective 8/1/2002, a Federal law simplified t
a change in taxes on your bill. Taxing is now based on either your residential or business
address which will be established as your primary place of use. The law requires that your
tax address be located within AT&T Wireless licensed service area. Non-business customers
on AT&T Wireless Digital One Rate, Regional Advantage or Shared Advantage plans must use
their residential address as their taxing address.
DETAIL OF PAYMENTS
-PAYMENT
TOTAL OF PAYMENTS
RECEIVED
RECEIVED THROUGH - -
- THANK YOU! w
The benefits associated w i t h the 2000 NIGHT 8, WEEKEND are

v a l i d through 08/18/02. Please c a l l t o hear about our e x c i t i n g new offers!
MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGES
.00
.00
CALLER ID .00
PCS VOICEMAIL W/NUMERIC MSG .00
DETAIL BILLING .00
I
‘J
c
AT&T 2-WAY TEXT MSG
AT&T TOLL FREE NATIONWIDE 4s
TOTAL MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGES
-
JESSE ARCHER 09/26/02 3
Accotint Number Telephone Number Service User

201157724 9 17- 319- 5986 JESSE ARCHER
STAYING CONNECTED. BEING FREE.

AT&T Wireless has made considerable system enhancements in the NY/NJ area. Improvements have
been made in the areas of ParkILexington Ave. & 55th St., Broadway and 8th, and 6th Ave. &
51st St. in Manhattan, BQE East near Manhattan Bridge in Brooklyn, and the Amityville Train
Station in Suffolk. In New Jersey a t Spring Lake in South Plainfield, Rte. 1 in South
Brunswick by Scutters Mill Rd. and Rte. 287 a t Campgaw Rd. & Darlington Ave. in Mahwah.
We're committed to ensuring that you, our loyal customer, receive the most from your wireless
service. Please watch for more information in your monthly bill on these and other
improvements coming your way.
DETAIL OF PAYMENT5
9/05/02 PAYMENT RECEIVED - THANK YOU! 55.45CR
TOTAL OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED THROUGH 9/26/02 55.45CR
. .
SUMMARY OF CHARGES I
/ '
8/25/02 Through 9/24/02

MONTHLY SERVICE - AT&T DIGITAL ADVANTAGE-$39.99 39.99
CALL WAIT ING .00
CALLER I D .00
PCS VOICEMAIL W/NUMERIC MSG .oo
DETAIL BILLING .oo
AT&T 2-WAY TEXT MSG $0.00 .00
AT&T TOLL FREE NATIONWIDE 4.99
AT&T TOLL FREE CREDIT 4.99CR
TOTAL MONlHLY SERVICE CHAR6ES 39.99

._
HOME AIRTIME CHARGES
8/25/02 Through 9/24/02 - AT&T DIGITAL ADVANTAGE-$39.99
Category Minutes Rate Charge

INCLUDED I N PLAN 400 .000 .oo
ADDITIONAL MINUTES 1243 .550 683.65
1643 683.65
L
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
MAR 7’ 2003
Control No. 0300394/aw
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

United States Senator
780 third Avenue
Suite 2601
New York, NY 10017-2024
Re: Informal Complaint 02-BOO11705
Thank you for your letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on behalf of your
constituent, Mr. Jesse Archer, regarding the problems he has experienced with AT&T
Wireless (AT&T). The FTC forwarded your correspondence to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for handling.
On December 4,2002, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed AT&T
to satisfy or answer the complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records and other
information. We also directed the company to send Mr. Archer a copy of the response that it
submits to the Commission.
Enclosed is a copy of the company’s response. In their response, AT&T states that
subscribers are advised of the term of a promotion when the promotion is provisioned and that
subscribers are reminded of the expiration date of the promotion in a message on their bill(s) for
three consecutive months prior to the expiration of the promotion. AT&T states that they have
been unable to reach Mr. Archer. AT&T invites Mr. Archer to contact Mr. Bannon at 800-
288-8954 x 2772 for further assistance with this matter. Based on the information provided, the
Commission does not plan to take any further action with respect to Mr. Archer’s complaint.
If you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Chief
Enclosure
Wireless
COMPLAINT RESPONSE FORM
AGENCY'S Federal Communications Commission COMPANY'S AT&T Wireless

NAME: NAME:
ADDRESS: Consumer Information Bureau ADDRESS: Regulatory Response Team
Consumer Information Network Division PO Box 9706 1
445 12th St. SW Redmond, WA 98073
Washington, DC 20554
AGENCY NIA COMPLAINANT'S Jesse Archer

REP: NAME:
AGENCY'S 02-BO0 1 1705 COMPANY'S 11882618
FILE NO.: FILE NO.:
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. files this response to the above referenced informal complaint on behalf of its
affiliate licensed to provide wireless service in the area associated with the subscriber's assigned wireless
telephone number(s) and operating under the "AT&T Wireless'' brand name.
AT&T Wireless Executive Specialist Randy Bannon made several unsuccessful attempts to reach Mr. Jesse
Archer about the complaint Mr. Archer filed with your agency. Nevertheless, we will attempt to address Mr.
Archer's concerns herein and invite Mr. Archer to contact Mr. Bannon at 800-288-8954 x2772 for further
assistance with this matter.
In his complaint, Mr. Archer requested assurances that AT&T Wireless will provide more detailed notices in the
future about the expiration of subscriber promotions. We would like to thank Mr. Archer for his feedback. While
we believe the current text and placement of these notices to be sufficient, we value the opinions of our
subscribers and are currently reviewing both aspects to see how they may be improved. Please be advised that
subscribers are advised of the term of a promotion when the promotion is provisioned. Additionally, they are
reminded of the expiration date of the promotion via a bill message for three consecutive months prior to the
expiration. While we appreciate receiving feedback like Mr. Archer's, we also believe it is critical that
subscribers read their service agreement and be familiar with the specific terms to which they are subject.
AT&T Wireless values Mr. Archer as a customer and apologizes for any inconvenience this matter may have
caused him.
BY: Response sent via E-mail DATE: February 25,2003

Renee O'Connor, Manager, Administrative Complaints
cc: Jesse Archer

Office of the Attorney General, Your File No. CFN02All703
Better Business Bureau, Your File No. 11004969
April 17,2003
VIA HAND-DELIVERY
The Honorable John Shimkus

U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shimkus:
I invite you to the first meeting of the Federal Communications Commission's Wireless
Enhanced 91 1 Coordination Initiative, which will be held at Commission headquarters on 445
121hStreet, S.W., Washington, D.C., on April 29,2003, from 9:OO a.m. to 4:OO p.m.
My colleagues and I have launched this Coordination Initiative to bring together relevant
industry, public safety and government stakeholders to share experiences and devise strategies
for expediting wireless E91 1 deployment. Our specific objective on April 29'h will be to discuss
how those that have successfully deployed wireless E91 1 resolved critical issues to reach
deployment, and how those experiences may inform ongoing deployment efforts.
Dale Hatfield, who recently delivered an independent report on E91 1 deployment to the
Commission, will join us to review his findings and recommendations. We will also review
current collaborative efforts to resolve deployment issues. Our substantive discussion that day
will focus on four critical issues: wireless carrier implementation, PSAP funding and operation,
LEC issues, and rural deployment issues.
I look forward to working with you on this critical issue, and appreciate your continued
*
&
strong leadership and tireless efforts to bring wireless E91 1 services to the public. If you wish to
attend, please respond to my confidential assistant, Ms. Judith Mann, at (202) 41 8- 1000.
Sin rely,
Michael K. Powell
Washington, D.C.
April 17,2003
VIA HAND-DELIVER Y
The Honorable Anna Eshoo

Washington, D.C. 205 15
Dear Congresswoman Eshoo:
12'hStreet, S.W., Washington, D.C., on April 29,2003, from 9:OO a.m. to 4:OO p.m.

attend, please respond to my confidential assistant, Ms. Judith Mann, at (202) 41 8- 1000.
*M
Since ly,
\
Michael K. Powell
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
April 17,2003
VIA HAND-DELIVERY
The Honorable Edward J. Markey

Dear Congressman Markey:
12'h Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., on April 29, 2003, from 9:OO a.m. to 4:OO p.m.
attend, please respond to my confidential assistant, Ms. Judith Mann, at (202) 418-1000.
1
Michael K. Powell
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
April 17,2003
VIA HAND-DELIVERY
The Honorable Fred Upton

Dear Chairman Upton:
12'h Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., on April 29, 2003, from 9:OO a.m. to 4:OO p.m.

Sincerely,
f
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
April 17,2003
VIA HAND-DELIVERY
The Honorable John Dingell

Dear Congressman Dingell:
12'h Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., on April 29,2003, from 9:OO a.m. to 4:OO p.m.
*M
Since ly,
\
Michael K. Powell
Federal Communicafions Commission
Washington, D.C.
CHAlRMAN
April 17,2003
VIA HAND-DELIVER Y
The Honorable W.J. ("Billy") Tauzin

Dear Chairman Tauzin:
12'hStreet, S.W., Washington, D.C., on April 29, 2003, from 9:OO a.m. to 4:OO p.m.

n
Michael K. Powell
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
April 17,2003
VIA HAND-DELIVER Y
The Honorable Hillary Clinton

Michael K. Powell
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
April 17,2003
VIA HAND-DELIVERY
The Honorable Conrad Burns

Dear Chairman Bums:
12'hStreet, S.W., Washington, D.C., on April 29,2003, from 9:OO a.m. to 4:OO p-m.
*
&
Si erely,
\
Michael K. Powell
April 17,2003
VIA HAND-DELIVER Y
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings

Dear Senator Hollings:
*
&
Si erely,
Michael K. Powell
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
April 17,2003
I VIA HAND-DELIVER Y
The Honorable John McCain

Dear Chairman McCain:
12'hStreet, S.W., Washington, D.C., on April 29,2003, from 9:OO a.m. to 4:OO p.m.
for expediting wireless E91 1 deployment. Our specific objective on April 29thwill be to discuss
deploypent, and how those experiences may inform ongoing deployment efforts.
- 4
<
.
& * *
Michael K. Powell
uuz
Y

NEW YORK
SENATOR
R U S S E U SENATE OFGICE BUILDING
SUITE 476
WASHINGIOM. DC 10010-~1%01
202-214-4401
WASHINGTON. DC 20510-3204
May 7,2003
Mr. Michael K. Powell

Chairman
Federal Communciations Commission
445 Twelfth Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.20024
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing to express my deep concern over the growing trend toward market
consolidation and non-Hispanic control of Spanish language media. Specifically, as you know,
the Commission has before it proposals that could place control of nearly 70 percent of Spanish
language media revenue with a single non-Hispanic individual. Before considering these
proposals, I urge the Commission to hold p’ublichearings and to thoroughly study thc
ramifications of further consolidation of the Spanish language media market into Don-Hispanic
control.
At 14 percent of the United States population, Hispanic Americans are our nation’s
largest minority. Hispanic Americans, like all consumers, are undoubtedly best served by a
diverse and competitive media market. At a time when Hispanic ownership of Spanish language
media is already in rapid decline and as the Commission works to complete a comprehensive
review of its broadcast ownership rules, the prospect of combining control over the two largest
Spanish language radio station companies with control over Spanish language broadcast
television, cable television, internet portal access, publishing, concert promotion, television
production, record production and outdoor advertising raises serious concerns.
Mr. Chairman,you have in recent Senate testimony expressed your own concerns about
the rapid consolidation in broadcasting and media. Congressional concern about these same
topics is bipartisan and deep. In the Commission’s ongoing review of its overall ownership
rules, I trust you will not find it in the public interest for a single individual to control nearly 70
percent of English language media. The United States Department of Justice has already
recognized the Spanish language media market as a separate and distinct market. When it comes
to the comtry’s largest and fastest growing minority population which relies on Spanish
language media for news, information, culture and entertainment, T hope you will fiord
Hjspanic Americans the same process and due deliberation as &forded for English language
broadcasting, and not rush though a process “on circulation” that could put nearly 70 percent of
Spanish language media under the control of a single non-Hispanic individual.
1look fonvard to your prompt response on this important matter, and to working with the
Commission to prevent the decrease of Hispanic ownership of media, create more local and
Page 2
community oriented programming, and provide for more Hispanic voices in the Hispanic media.
To be sure, these are all objectives that matter deeply to Hispanic Americans across New York
from whom I hear regularly. In achieving these goals, I urge the FCC to hold public hearings
and to thoroughly review any potential harm the pending actions could have on the public
interest and Hispanic-owned media.
Sincerely yours,
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN June 2,2003

476 Russell Senate Office Building
Thank you for your letter of May 7,2003, concerning the proposed merger of Univision
Communications, Inc., and Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation (“HBC”), and the Commission’s
ongoing review of its broadcast ownership rules. I appreciate learning your views on this
proposed transaction and want to assure you that I am committed to ownership policies that
promote the important public interest goals of diversity, localism, and competition.
HBC and Univision filed their joint application in July 2002, requesting the transfer of
control of licenses currently held or controlled by HBC to Univision. The Commission received
a petition to deny, an informal objection, and several other comments during the pleading cycle
for the proposed Univision-HBC transaction. In your correspondence, you suggest that the
Commission recognize the distinctness between the Spanish-language and English-language
media markets. Traditionally, the Commission does not regulate or scrutinize programming
formats, nor does it consider programming formats when reviewing assignment applications. I
would note, however, that a similar proposition was raised in the informal objection opposing the
proposed merger. The Commission will consider these matters carefully in the context of its
review of this transaction.
The Commission staff has completed its review of the record in the Univision-HBC
proceeding and is preparing its recommendation addressing the issues raised by the merger
proposal. Please be assured that the Commission will consider your views, as well as all of the
comments and pleadings filed with the Commission, carefully to determine whether the proposed
merger complies with Commission rules and policies, and is consistent with the public interest.
The Commission also is considering consolidation issues carefully as part of its biennial
review of the broadcast ownership rules. Like you, I believe that a communications industry that
reflects the abundant cultural and ethnic diversity of the country enriches our nation and its
people. I believe that it is important that the Commission examine the effects of consolidation
on minority ownership and participation, as well as on the multiplicity of independent voices in
the media industry. Historically, the Commission has sought to encourage a diversity of
viewpoints by providing opportunities for various groups, entities, and individuals to participate
in all aspects of the broadcast industry. Viewpoint diversity is, and will continue to be, a central
component of the Commission’s broadcast ownership rules and policies. To that end, on
Page 2-The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton-June 2,2003
May 19,2003, I announced my intention to form a federal advisory committee on diversity to

assist the Commission in finding innovative ways to promote minority opportunity in all sectors
of the communications industry. I am enclosing a copy of the Public Notice for your
information.
I appreciate your taking the time to share your concerns with me on these important
matters. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Enclosure
NEWYORK
SENATOR
RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING

SUITE 416
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3204
202-224-4451 Wnited States Senate
May 20,2003
Mr. Michael K. Powell

Chairman
Federal Communciations Commission
445 Twelfth Street, S.W.
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Enclosed is a letter from Gene Roman regarding COMCAST and an advertisement

sponsored by the Antiwar Video Fund.

Attention: Eric LoVecchio
you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el - asm
January 3 1,2003
The Honorable Hillaiy Rodham Clinton

United Statcs Senate
Washington, DC
Via Fax : 202-228-0282/2 12-688-7444
I am writing regarding COMCAST’s last minute cancellation of an advertisement

sponsored by the Antiwar Video Fund of Princeton, New Jersey on the evening of the
State of the Union address.
This was an outrageous and cowardly act of censorship that rum counter to our
constitutional legacy of free speech and expression.
If the President and the Secretary of War feel so confidant regarding their war plans in
the Middle East, why would a private company or the administration seek to siIence any
dissent by its citizens?
I urge you to contact the Federal Communications Commission to file a formal complaint
against this act of censorship.
Thanks for your attention and consideration.
Sincerely,
Gene Roman
1710 Barnes Avenue
Broiur, NY 10462
generornan@.hotniai 1.coin
JUN 3 0 2003

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Gene Roman, regarding
his concerns about the last minute cancellation of an advertisement, which was to be broadcast
on a particular date and evening.
Federal Law (Section 326 of the Communications Act) prohibits the Federal
Communications Commission from censoring matters and from taking any action that would
interfere with free speech in broadcasting. For this reason, with limited exceptions mostly
deriving from specific statutes, the authority of the Commission to regulate broadcasting does
not include the right to direct broadcasters in their selection and scheduling of programs.
Individual radio and television station licensees are responsible for selecting all
broadcast matter and for determining how their stations can best serve their communities.
Licensees are responsible for choosing the entertainment programming and the programs
concerning the local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports events and other subjects to
be aired by the station. They also decide how their programs will be conducted and whether
or not to edit or reschedule material for broadcasting. The Commission does not substitute its
judgment for that of the broadcaster in this process, and it does not act as an advisor to
stations on artistic standards, grammar, or quality of content.
We encourage Mr. Roman to write to the station management and network officials to
submit his comments and concerns. These are the people who are responsible for selecting the
station's programs, announcements, and news reports. Consumers' letters to stations and
networks can keep them informed about audience needs and interests, as well as public opinion
on specific material. Letters from consumers such as his sent directly to the broadcast station
may help to influence their broadcast decisions.
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton Page 2
Enclosed is information to further assist Mr. Roman. Information on all

telecommunications-related issues can be accessed via the Internet from the Commission’s
Home Page located at http://www.fcc.pov and the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau’s web site link at. - Additional information on
telecommunications-related issues is also available to Mr. Roman and to the public by calling
the Commission’s Consumer Center toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC. TTY users may call
1-888-TELL-FCC.
The Commission has available an e-mail service designed to apprise consumers about
developments at the Commission, to disseminate consumer information materials prepared by
the Commission to a wide audience and to invite comments from other parties on Commission
regulatory proposals. This free service enables consumers to subscribe and receive FCC fact
sheets, consumer brochures and alerts, and public notices, among other consumer information.
To subscribe, an individual would send an e-mail to subscribe@info.fcc.gov and in either the
subject line or message put: subscribe fcc-consumer-info first name last name (substitute their
first and last name, for example, “subscribe fcc-consumer-info John Doe”).
We appreciate your inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further
questions.
Sincerely,
Chief
Enclosures
HILLARY RODHAM CLI
SENATOR
NEW YORK rT
RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUlL I
2
0
0
Wnited States Senate
SUITE 476 c>
WASHINGTON, DC 2051&32r+l1(;13 CE
202-224-4451
IZ r
.
- 1
2 WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3204
0
0
U
June 17,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Elliot Ashrey regarding his relations with RCN Cable Company.

Your cooperation and assistance are greatly appreciated. I look forward to hearing fiom
you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el - asm
I
Hon. Hillary R. Clinton

780 3rdAvenue
New York,,N.Y. 10017
RCN Cable/Tel ephone

Acct.# 6 101-00141 09-0 1
Can you please help me. I am being ripped off by RCN Cable. I’m being billed for internet, TV
cable and telephone service well after I cancelled.. I cannot discuss this with them as I’ve been
put on hold three times (between30-45 minutes without reaching anyone), sent two certified
letters wheturn receipt) asking why my bill has gone up, and finally heard fi-om someone who
gave me credit for all my troubles.
On 1/4/03 1received a notice that I had to be home because they’re upgrading their system in our
building.. I called a special number and said I could not take a day off AT MY EXPENSE
because they are upgrading THEIR system. Could they come at night or on a Saturday. They
said NO. I later found out they did offer that option.
Because of my troubles with them I notified them I was cancelling all their services My
telephone service was uninterrupted but as of 1/5/03 I had no TV cable and no computer
internet..On 1/15/03 I had cablelinternet service fi-om Time Warner and on 1/22 I had telephone
service fi-om Verizon. I returned the RCN cable box to RCN, 316 E. 23rdStreet on 1/16..
Again ....can you help me. Thank you.

w
*
They now have the gall to send me the enclosed bill which I should not have to pay.
Ellio . shrey
150 West End Ave
New York, N.Y. 10023
w/enclosures
JUL 1 8 2003

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Elliot Ashrey, regarding
the problems he is experiencing with the service and charges for cable TV and local telephone
service.
Because cable service is regulated at the local level by the local franchising authority,
Mr. Ashrey should direct his complaints regarding cable billing and service to the local
franchise authority. The name of the local franchising authority and their telephone number
may be listed on Mr. Ashrey’s monthly cable bill. If it is not, Mr. Ashrey may contact the
cable company or his local government for this information.
The local phone service is regulated by the state public utility or service commission.
He can locate that number on his phone bill or in the phone book. His complaints about his
local phone service and bill should be directed to the PUC or PSC.
Although we cannot assist Mr. Ashrey at this time, letters from consumers such as
Mr. Ashrey’s may provide valuable information that may be used to develop or support
regulated Commission initiatives for consumers. We appreciate your inquiry. Please do not
hesitate to contact us if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
K. DBnk Snowden
I
Chief
L

NEWYORK
1 SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-2244451 united St
WASHINGTON,
July 7,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituents A1 and Linda Daniels, residents of Binghamton,

New York. I understand the Daniels have recently purchased a home atop the highest point in
Broome County which is situated among thirteen cellular towers. They advise me that
construction has begun on a fourteenth tower. The Daniels oppose construction of this tower and
would like to communicate their position with the appropriate officials.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/EL
MO,21 JUL 2003
07/01/2003 12:02 FAX
I . v-, .-
176 Ingraham Hill Rd.

Binghamton, NY 13903
April 20,2003

100 So. Clinton St., Roam 1470
PO Boxf376
Syracuse, NY 13261-7378
Deaf Senator Clinton:
We are writing this letter in hopes that you may be able to help with a problem.
About two years ago we purchased a family home on the top of lngraham Hill Road, in the town of
Binghamton. We knew that we would haw to live with the various types of towers since this is the
highest point in Broom8 County, and there were et that point already 13 (3 major) towers within a
one-mile radius of our home.
The problem is that they have now started construction on Tower no. 14 which will be one of the
tallest towers in New York State. Many of the tenants on this new tower will be from existing
towers almdy on the hill. Repeated pleas to the Town af Binghamton Board have been mostly
ignored.
We are enclosing some correspondence that the residents of Ingraham Mill Road recently sent to
all town board members, as well as the board members ofWSKG. one of the major tenants of
this new tower.
As a family, we have been life long DemacraPs, supporting both you and your husband in the last
three elections;and Al was a former Bmme County Legislator. We ask for any type of help that
you Can give us to discourage the wnslructicon of this tower.
Thank you in advance.
-
AI and Linda Daniels
Enclosure
, 07/01/2003 12:02 FAX
a004/010
I
P.O. Box 151

Binghamton, New York 13903
March 24,2003
Mr. Timothy P. Whitesell

Town Supervisor
Town of Binghamton
Hance Road
Binghamton, New York 13903
Dear Mr. Whitesell:
W e write to you as seriously concerned residents of the Ingraham Hill Road area in the
Town of Binghamton. As you are well aware, a new telecommunications tower is going to be
built in the Town of Bhghamton. h December of 2000,a public hearing was held,
subsequently, the Town Board approved this approximately 1000-foot tower.
As you are also aware, there are already thirteen telecommunications towers located in
OUT neighborhood. These towers transmit or receive radio, television, wireless and microwave
communications. The towers already spoil the landscape, diminish the values o f our property,
and raise overwhelming concerns for our individual safety, the we11 being of our property, the
possible adverse effects of our drinking water and the health and safety of our livestock-
This new tower, proposed to be constructed by Gordon Ichikawa of T& K

Communications, will. be by far the largest tower in this area and potentially one o f the highest
structures in New York State. This new tower raises sign&x.nt additional concerns as to our
health and safety, the well being of our property and the health and safety of our livestock.
We have attached, for your review, correspondence fiom a licensed professional

e n e e e r , illustrating the concerns and issues that he predicts as a result of this new tower. The
report raises three concerns: 1) the adverse effects the towcr will have on human health and
safety; 2) the potential damage the tower will have on adjacent properties; and 3) the effect the
tower will have on quality of life. We hope, at a very minimum, after reviewing this report, the
town will take significant steps toward addressing the safety concerns raised by this engineer- If
Mr. Grinter’s findings are correct, it is requested that the current tower project, have a stop work
order placed against it and have the project reviewed by a state licensed professional engineer.
This licensed engineer should confirm that dl of the issues and requirements are being met under
the New York State Rules and Regulations, as they pertain to the construction of such facilities.
Within this review, the engineer needs to include answers to the concerns that have been
addressed by the local residents, which would include, but not limited to, the health, safety and
welfare ofthe residents,pets, and livestock of our area. Specifically, m engineer should address
such issues as falling ice, radiation fall out and catastrophic failure of towers within a defined fall
zone.
0 7 / 0 1 / 2 0 0 3 12:03 FAX @l005/010
-
Mr. Timothy P. Whitesell

9
Page 2
March 24,2003
Not only me we aggrieved that this tower was passed with little or no notice to the
residents of this area, wc are also concerned that the Attorney for the Town of Binghamton,
Jefkey Tait, was instrumental hthe creation and implementation of this tower project for the
property o w n a and the tower developer. It is rumored that Mr. Tait is the attorney for the
property owners. Lfin fact this is correct, this clearly appears to be a conflict of interest on the
part of Mr- Tait and the Town of Bkghamton-
We are also interested in whether the principal tenant, WSKG,is aware of these safety
concerns. WSKG is known to be a very socially and mvironmentally conscious organization;
they may be unaware of all the potential safety and environmental issues that will be brought
about by this tower.
Again, we are hopeful that the town will take safety measures to address the concerns
raised by this report, concerns that have been continuously raised by the residents at t o m
meetings. In addition, the Town of Binghamton, as many towns have done, should enact
legislation that establishes regulations and standards for the siting and installation of
teIecommunications towers. The telecommunications act for the town has been sitting on the
desks of the Town Supervisor, the Town Council Members and the Town Attorney since before
this tower was proposed. Nearly all of our concerns are addressed in this proposed law, which
has yet to be enacted. In addition to the telecommunications act being put in place, the Town of
Binghamton should enact zoning restrictions that limit height requirements to all structures that
require foundation support to be erected.
As of this date, we are also requesting that the Town Board follow up and finish the
topics that have been addressed in refaence to the elimination of the white flashing lights on the
towers. These lights are obtrusive, obnoxious and cause excessive visual pollution. In addition,
the Town of Binghamton has yet to address the physical danger o f falling ice on private property
and public roads fiam existing towers. Finally, the FCC guidelines for town oficials states
a finalized report h m a qualified communications engineer outlining what the emission levels
are within the tower cluster on Ingraham Hill, including the new structure with all of its
emissions included, shall be supplied. As ofthis date, no such report has been made available.
Out health, safety and property values have suffered enough as a result of the already
existing towers.
Regards,
The Residents of thc Ingraham Hill Road Area
cc: WSRG Board Members

Gordon Ichikawa
2
07/01/2003 12:03 FAX
I
Mr. Timothy P.Whitesell
Page 3
March 24,2003
3
1 .
07/01/2003 12:03 FAX
I * Mr. Timothy P. Whitesell

Page 4
March 24,2003
4
a008/010
07/01/2003 12:03 FAX
.-
. - _.
I * Mr. Timothy P.Whitesell

Page 5
I "
March 24,2003
n
S
Mooe/olo
07/01/2003 12:03 FAX
i. - --
Brian A. Grinter. P.E. 600 Verna Drive, Endwell, NY 13760

Construction Consulting tellfax (607) 748 - 1163
Engineering & Design
March 5, 2003
Residents of the lngraham Hill Road area

P 0 Box 151
Binghamton, NY 13903
Re: Communication Towers, T&K Communications Tower
Dear Residents,
Pursuant to our discussions regarding towers, and in particular the proposed new
tower in the Town of Binghamton, I have researched the subject and now forward my
thoughts and findings. In addition to typical design considerations, a tower project will
include specific consideration for:
1 ) Health and safety of humans, pets and livestock

2) Potential damage to adjacent properties
3) Quality of life
With regard to health and safety, several issues need to be addressed. These
include falling ice, tower failure and/or collapse, failed support cables, falling tower or
antennae components and electro-magnetic fields. Beyond proper and basic
engineering design for each component, connection and assemblies, it is critical for the
governing jurisdictional authority to require adequate property sue and setbacks. This
will be addressed more specifically.
With regard to damage to adjacent properties, the issues generally parallel those
outlined for human health and safety: falling ice, tower failure and/or collapse, failed
support cables and falling tower or antennae components. There are many
documented cases of property damage and you have pointed to several instances in
your own locale. These primarily include damage to local houses and roofs and
automobiles from falling ice. I am not aware of any personal injuries to date.
The importance of adequate property size and adequate setbacks can not be
overstated with regard to human safety and adjoining property damage. The primary
factor to consider is the horizontal distance from the center of the tower to the proper&
@, The absolute minimum for this horizontal distance i s a value equal to the height of
the tower. A more appropriate value would equal two times ( 2X ) the height of the
tower. This distance could be greater based on specific towers and site conditions. It is
imperative that your Town Board give proper consideration to this distance, particularly
considering that the proposed location may be the tallest hill in Broome County.
~ O l O / O l O
. 07/01/2003 12:03 FAX
L .
-
Residents of the lngraham Hill Road area, March 5,2003
Quality of life concerns include annoyance of flashing or bright lights, poor or

intermittent television and radio reception, unusual telephone and radio signals. The
adverse impact on properly values results from safety concerns and visual impact. The
proper distances outlined above and requirements for @antingscan lessen the impact
but it is unlikely these quality of life issues can ever really be addressed by the tower
owner or designer. It is your Town Board's responsibility to include these concerns in
evaluating any tower project.
Another item of particular concern in a tower project is the ,properdesign of the
foundation and cable anchors. This design may require specific soil analysis and the
use of soil borings. If this has been properly addressed the Town will probably have a
set of the boring records and a set of the calculations which you can review. The
specific details for the foundation and cable anchors must be shown on the stamped
drawings.
.The New York State Building Code and the Education Law require plans for
building projects to be stamped by a licensed architect or a licensed engineer; Article
147, Section 7307. This is consistent with the Town's Zoning rules, section 36-16 A. It
appears the tower structure only is stamped by an engineer but the balance of the
plans are stamped by a land surveyor which would not meet the state or local
requirements for a building permit. This fuirrther raises the question of who is
responsible for the design concerns outlined in the paragraphs above: site impact,
tower setback, foundations, cable anchors, etc.
I appreciate your concerns regarding the installation of towers and hope this
information is helpful in working with the Town to properly and completely evaluate all
considerations. If I can be offurther assistance please feel free to contact me.
' Sincerely,
Brian A. .Grinter, PE
Feder a1 Com m u n i cat ion s Co m m i s s i o n
August 11,2003
CN-0302123
Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituents, A1 and Linda Daniels of
Binghamton, New York, concerning the construction of a new communications tower
near their home. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
A1 and Linda Daniels indicate that they are opposed to the new communications
tower and have expressed their opposition to the appropriate local government officials.
Construction of the tower, however, continues to proceed.
It appears that the location of the tower is within the jurisdiction of the Town of
Binghamton. With respect to tower citing issues, it is the Commission’s general policy to
defer to local officials on land use matters.
I hope that this information is helphl. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I

may be of additional assistance.
Sincerely,
CGgf, Office of Broadcast License Policy

Media Bureau
NEW YORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
202-2244451
1 WASHINGTO4 DC 20510-3204
June 17,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Patricia Homes regarding her wireless Sprint PCS account.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el - asm
Mrs. Hilbry aim
467 RussellSenate Office Building
W a s h i DC 20510-3204
Navember25
Dew Mrs. Clinton:
I am writing bo you regarding sprint and some pactiaes thatId0 not believe should be. I have
had my wireless Sprint PCSfor more than a year now, and have no complaints about the servioes
that I Ieceive, fxept for one. My bill keeps going up quite Often, ard without warrring oc prior
notice. PleasefindamWofa~thatIemailedtothe~~Business&Ireau. ALSO,
endosed you will find a copy ofa responsefiomSprint, and ampy of my response to them. I
am ~~Uygetting tired with these exba charges in the name ofTaxes, and I do not believe that it
is neoessary. According bthe letaerhwnspint, my Local and State Government are responsible
for these exba charges. I will also like to know, why are these charges passed on to me so often
it is almost emy ather month, and if indeed the Local and State Goveinmentare passing these
charges on the wirekss cusbomeTs,and why, or are they hidden charges- Mypackage 0449.99
per month is now more than 60.00 per month; this Iiind quite unreasonabk. I have never gone
over my albtted minutes, and I havealways paid m y M bill on time, ewry month.
Thank you for y w r time, and I am looking fonrvard to hearing from you soon.
PabidaHolmes
916 EbokIynA=. X
Brwklyn,NY 11203
.I
The Commission also seeks to inform consumers about their rights regarding common
carrier practices that may violate the Communications Act or other federal or state regulations.
In determining whether to take enforcement action or other action in any particular situation,
the Commission may consider various factors, including the type of violation alleged,
economic harm to consumers, and the probability of preventing future unlawful conduct.
Letters from consumers provide valuable information that is frequently used to develop or
support Commission initiatives for consumers and for enforcement purposes. Information
compiled by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau is shared with the Enforcement
Bureau, which may choose to pursue enforcement action against violators
We invite Ms. Holmes to visit the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau’s Internet
web site at http://www .fcc.gov/cgb. Additional information on telephone-related issues is
available to the public by calling the Commission’s Consumer Center toll free at 1-888-CALL-
FCC, TTY users may call 1-888-TELL-FCC, or “Fax on Demand” at (202) 418-2830.
Information on telephone-related issues can also be accessed via the Internet from the
Commission’s Home Page located at http://www.fcc.gov.
questions.
Sincerely,
-e
$*T K. Dane Snowde

Chief
Enclosures
1’
NEWYORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-224-4451 Wnited states Senate
July 16,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Brian Colbert. Mr. Colbert informs me that he was charged for
cancelling his Cingular wireless service when he moved out of the country.

Your cooperation and assistance are greatly app

you soon.
HRC/el - asm
E-Mail Viewer Page 1 of2
#46 7232708 - Mr. Brian Colbert, In ID: 2265937, Out ID: 2386107
From: briancolbert@hotmail.com
Date: 2/7/2003 6:05:59 PM
Subject: www-email
Brian L. Colbert
160 Allen Street
Apt 12
NY NY 10002
Dear FCC Commissioners:
I was recently a Cingular wireless customer (account number on 148393073). On Saturday February 1,
2003, I called and requested to cancel my service because I was moving out of the country. I was told
that my service would terminate some time on Monday February 3,2003. I also told them that I was it
was unconscionable that I would be charged a termination fee, simply because Cingular couldn’t
provide service. This is the same company was going to force me to get a new phone when I moved
from California to New York state because their own service wasn’t compatible. Imagine my
annoyance when I discovered from a friend today, that my phone is still working and that I can no
longer correspond with Cingular via email. When Cingular approaches the committee for regulatory
relief or adjustments, please remember how hostile the company its to consumers.
Sincerely,
Brian L. Colbert
briancolbert@hotmail.com
---- Original Formatted Message Starts Here ====
Sender’sIP address = 172.16.1.199156.33.195.31

<APP>SCCMAIL
<PREFIX>mr.</PREFIX>
<FIRST>brian</FIRST>
<LAST%olbert</LASD
<ADDRl> 160 allen</ADDRl>
<ADDR2>apt 12</ADDR2>
<CITY>new york</CITY>
<STATE>NY</STATE>
<ZIP> 10002</ZIP>
<EMATL>briancolbert@hotmail.com</EMAIL>
<ISSUE>OTHER</ISSUE>
<MSG>Brian L. Colbert
160 Allen Street
m
AUG 2 6 2003
Control No. 0302322/kah

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Brian Colbert, regarding the
difficulties he is experiencing with Cingular Wireless (Cingular).
The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau has conducted a priority review of your
inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Mr. Colbert to Cingular and
directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed Cingular
to send Mr. Colbert a copy of the response that the company submits to the Commission.
Mr. Colbert may obtain information regarding his complaint by writing to the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division, 445 12th Street,
SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC (TTY users: 1-888-
TELL-FCC). He should mention his informal complaint number, 03-BOO53535, and the
congressional tracking number listed at the top of this letter to facilitate a prompt response to
his inquiry.
The Commission seeks to inform consumers about their rights regarding common
support Commission initiatives for consumers and for enforcement purposes.
We appreciate your inquiry and hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate
to contact us if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
l b t K. Dane Snowden 1
Chief
m
NOV 4 2003

New York, NY 10017-2024
This letter is a follow up to our letter dated August 26, 2003, regarding your
constituent, Mr . Brian Colbert’s concerns regarding the difficulties he was experiencing with
Cingular Wireless (Cingular).
On September 3, 2003, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed

Cingular to satisfy or answer the complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records
and other information. Enclosed is a copy of the company’s response. In their response,
Cingular states that they emailed Mr. Colbert and advised him that they would be willing to
credit the early termination fees charged and requested that he contact the Office of the
President to verify his mailing address. In order for the refund to be sent, Mr. Colbert will
need to contact them. Based on the information provided, the Commission does not plan to
take any further action with respect to Mr. Colbert’s complaint.
If you have any further questions or require additional information please do not
Sincerely,
‘t’t K. Dane Snowden ‘J

Chief
Enclosure
October 14,2003
Sharon C. Bowers
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
445 lPhStreet, sw
Re: Complaint Brian Colbert

FCC Reference Number: 03-BOO53535
Dear Ms. Bowers,
Pacific Bell Wireless, LLC d.b.a. Cingular Wireless attempted to contact Mr. Colbert via
email as he is out of the country. Mr. Colbert wrote regarding Early Termination Fees.
The email contact was sent to briancolbert@hotmail.com and advised Mr. Colbert that
Cingular Wireless is willing to credit Early Termination Fees charged and requested he
contact the Office of the President to verify mailing address for the refund. Mr. Colbert
has not contacted the Office of the President.
Should you have any questions, please contact Michele Rodriguez at, 1-800-653-4181.
Sincerely,
Michele Rodriguez
Customer Relations Specialist
Office of the President
Cingular Wireless
Cc: Brian Colbert
1'
NEWYORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-224-4451 united states Senate
July 9, 2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Nicholas Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel would like an explanation of
the taxes and surcharges on his telephone bill.

New York, New York
Your cooperation and assistance are great1 d to hearing from

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el - asm
k
k
Dear Senator Clinton.
---.-....-
‘L1
With all the fanfare and “press” given to the gala tax decrease party proposed by
President Bush for the purpose of putting cash back into the hands of the American
consumer, very little attention has been paid to some of the nuisance fees and taxes we
are saddled with every month. I’m referring specifically, to the numerous fees and
surcharges we get hit with each time we open our monthly telephone bills.( L A M 3 did .)
These “pocket pickers” are repeated every month and, if you take a close look at
your phone bill, you will see the following:
1. Federal Tax:
2. State Tax
3. Local Sales Tax
4. FCC Line Charges
5. Local Number Portability Charge.
6. 91 1 Surcharge
7. Federal USF Surcharge
8. Surcharge(Unexp1ained).
To give you an example of how these charges affect my telephone bill, this is
what these nuisance taxes and charges do to my phone bill:
My Monthly Charge for Dial Tone is $7.96 but after adding on FCC Line Charge
of $6.00, Local Number Portability of $.23, Federal Tax of $59, NY State Local Sales
Tax of $1.62,911 Surcharge of $ 3 , Federal USF Surcharge of $62 and
Surcharge(Unexp1ained) of $68, my bill(without Long distance charges added), is now
$18.05!
As you can see, the monthly telephone bill is actually more in taxes and fees than
for telephone service. What do you propose to do to rid the New York consumer of these
punitive charges? These are a constant drain, and in reality, place a premium on this very
basic necessity. We’re not talking about a luxury here. We’d like to hear you address
these seemingly minor issues which get pushed aside when the nation and our legislators
are preoccupied with the terror attacks, the possibility of war with Iraq, corporate
executive geed and financial market manipulations,etc. But, you know what? For the
average Joe on Long Island, these expenses are a financial drain and just further diminish
consumer confidence and prevent him from opening his wallet to spend us out of a
recession.
We’re depending on you to take some initiative and to “think out of the box”.
Bush has very little incite on what makes the average citizen tick. Let us hear from you
on this issue and how you might recti@ these unfair and punitive telephone expenses.
Respectfully yours, Mr. & Mrs. Nicholas Emanuel, Northport, New York
Dear Verizon Shareowner,
Congress is currently considering a proposal by President Bush to eliminate the federal income
tax on dividends paid to shareowners. Currently, your dividend income (as shown on your enclosed
statement) becomes part of your taxable income under the federal income tax. The President's proposal
would exempt this dividend income from taxation.
Verizon already pays taxes on this income through the corporate income tax.
You may wish to express your views on the taxation of dividend income to your representatives in
Congress.
John W. Dierckscn
-
Senior Vice President Investor Relations VZ-0194 NewllO3
AUG 2 2 2003

New York, NY 10017
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Nicholas Emanuel, regarding
various charges on his telephone bill.
The FCC does not set or collect the federal or states taxes for consumers' telephone
service. The federal tax applied to local and long distance telephone service is established by
the U. S. Congress and is collected by the Internal Revenue Service as part of the general
revenue of the U. S. Department of Treasury. Mr. Emanuel may wish to contact his local and
state taxing office to obtain further information regarding state taxes listed on his bill.
The Universal Service Support Mechanisms ensure that affordable access to

telecommunications services is available to telephone customers with low incomes, telephone
customers who live in areas where the costs of providing telephone service is high, schools and
libraries, and rural health care providers. Universal service is supported by all companies that
provide telephone service between states, including long distance companies, local telephone
companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies and payphone providers.
The Local Number Portability charge is a service that provides residential and business
customers with the ability to retain, at the same location, their existing local telephone numbers
when switching from one local service provider to another. The FCC allows, but does not
require, local telephone companies to pass certain costs of implementing and maintaining long-
term portability on to their customers.
The Network Access charge (also called the Federal Subscriber Line Charge) is not a
charge by the government; it's a federally-regulated charge collected by local phone companies
to recover some of the costs of the telephone line connected to your home or business. Local
telephone companies incur these costs whether or not the customer actually place or receives
long distance calls. The government receives no money from this charge. It is not a tax.
- 71
1' "
The Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) enables telephone conversations between

people with and without hearing or speech disabilities. TRS relies on communications
assistants (CA) to relay the content of calls between users of text telephones (TTYs) and users
of traditional handsets (voice users). Costs for intrastate TRS (that is, TRS calls made within a
state) are paid by the states. The states usually recover intrastate TRS costs through a very
small surcharge applied to the telephone bills of all telephone customers in a state. Costs for
interstate TRS (that is, TRS calls that cross state lines) are paid through the Interstate TRS
Fund, a shared-funding mechanism that is funded by contributions from all interstate carriers
in the United States. The Interstate TRS Fund is currently administered by the National
Exchange Carrier Association (NECA).
Enclosed is information to further assist Mr. Emanuel in understanding the charges on

his telephone bill. The Commission has available an e-mail service designed to apprise
consumers about developments at the Commission, to disseminate consumer information
materials prepared by the Commission to a wide audience and to invite comments from other
parties on Commission regulatory proposals. This free service enables consumers to
subscribe and receive FCC fact sheets, consumer brochures and alerts, and public notices,
among other consumer information. To subscribe, an individual would send an e-mail to
subscribe@info.fcc.gov and in either the subject line or body of the message put: subscribe
fcc-consumer-info first name last name (substitute their first and last name, for example,
“subscribe fcc-consumer-info John Doe”).
Additional information on telephone-related issues is also available to the public by

calling the Commission’s Consumer Center toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC (TTY users: 1-888-
TELL-FCC) or “Fax on Demand” at 202-418-2830. Information on telephone-related issues
can also be accessed via the Internet. The Commission’s Home Page is located at
htto://www.fcc.gov.
questions.
Sincerely,
3~
<XQ.
L qj
Q
K. Dane Snowden
Chief
Enclosures
1
* HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

NEW YORK
I SENATOR
I
SUITE 476
202-224-4451 united States Senate
July 8,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Bonnie Dewey. I understand that Ms. Dewey cancelled her long
distance telephone service with Qwest in January 2003. She advises me that Qwest continues to
charge her for long distance service.

New York, New York 10017
Your cooperation and assistance are greatly to hearing from

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el - asm
11RUG 2003 RCUD

February 24'h, 2003
From: Bonnie Oewey

PO Box 335
Lakewood, N Y 14750
To: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
1called your off ice about this a f e w days ago and was told to send
a letter explaining the problem.
Phone # is 716-484-9593 and is listed in the name o f Oana Pettinato,

However, I use the phone and it is my money that pays the bill,
-
Subject: Qwest Long Distance Carrier
January Bth I cancelled Qwest as my L.D. carrier and notified them and
Alltel of this fact.
(Alltel provides local service. The bill with AllteI's
letterhead lists Qwest's charges.)
January 14'h Alltel's Bill included Qwest fees and charges for long distance
calls. This bill was paid and I knew it would be the last long distance charge
I would pay, SO looked forward t o a much lower phone bill for February,
however:
February lZth Alltel's Bill included Qwest fees of $11.02 including taxes.
The time period covered according t o the bill was 02/10/03t o /3/09/03.
Qwest's excuse f o r charging for a 35 day period during which I neither

received nor had available to m e (as far as I knew) their L.O. service, is that
their billing time period is a monh o r two later than Alltel's.
I kept my end of the bargain and did not use their service after canceling it,
on January Bth, therefore, I think they are out o f line f o r charging me f o r no
service a t all!
This would have been OK had they told me I could still use their long
distance service for a period o f time, after I had notified them of the
cancellation, but I don't see why consumers should donate gifts, t o Qwest,
of a month's service fees, after they cancel that service.
$11.02 may not seem like much, but it is t o a senior citizen (73 years old),
when you multiply it by how ever many peopie cancel their L.b. service and it
graduates from p e t t y larceny t o grand larceny!
I appreciate your help on this and if they are slipping through a loophole
t o collect this unearned money, it is time t o limit them with legislution.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Oewey. v

AUG 2 2 2003
780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Bonnie Dewey, regarding the
difficulties she has been experiencing with Qwest.
inquiry, We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Ms. Dewey to Qwest and
directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed Qwest to
send Ms. Dewey a copy of the response that the company submits to the Commission.
Ms. Dewey may obtain information regarding her complaint by writing to the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division, 445 12th Street,
SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC (TTY users: 1-
888-TELL-FCC). She should mention her informal complaint number, 03-BW53539, and the
congressional tracking number listed at the top of this letter to facilitate a prompt response to
her inquiry.
Sincerely,
\
I
%k n o wden
Chief
1' '
m

780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
New York, NY 10017-2024
constituent, Ms. Bonnie Dewey’s concerns regarding the difficulties she had been experiencing
with Qwest.
On September 3, 2003, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed Qwest
information. Enclosed is a copy of the company’s response. In their response, Qwest states
that they have issued a credit in the amount of $11.02 for the disputed charges in order to
resolve Ms. Dewey’s complaint. Based on the information provided, the Commission does not
plan to take any further action with respect to Ms. Dewey’s complaint.
Sincerely,
Chief
Enclosure
1‘ -
4250 N Fairlax Drive
hrlmgton. Virginia 99903
September 30,2003

Consumer Infomiation Bureau
Room 5 A-729
445 12''' Street, sw
Re: -
Dewey, Bonnie IC#: 03-BO053539
Notice of informal Complaint tiled 9/3/2003
Dear Ms. Contee:
Please be advised that Qwest Communications Corporation (Qwest) has completed a review of
the complaint filed by Ms. Bonnie Dewey. Ln the complaint Ms. Dewey states pwest misbilled
her.
In the interest of customer satisfaction, and an effort to bring this rnarrer to a close, a credit of
$1 1.02 has been issued for the disputed charges on today's date. This credit will appear on the
consunier's invoice in two to three biliing cycles.
Should you have additional questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this
office.
Sincerely
ErTn Barden
Customer Advocacy Manager
Cc: Bonnie Dewey
1'
NEWYORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
202-2244451
\ AUG 112003 I senate
July 30,2003
The Honorable Michael Powell

Chairman
445 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Dear Mr. Powell:
I am writing to inquire about the status of a request for refund made by one of my
constituents. I have been advised that a New York company, TPS Utilicom, wired more than
one million dollars to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in December, 2000, in
order to participate in FCC Auction No. 35. TPS indicates that two years ago, in July 2001, the
FCC assessed a $414,510 penalty against TPS. (TPS Utilicom, Inc., Order, 16 FCC Rcd 14835
(CWD 2001)). This penalty was upheld by the FCC earlier this year (TPS Utilicom, Inc., Order
on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 25 16 (CWD 2003)).
TPS Utilicom has sought my help in determining the status of the $621,490 which
represents the difference between TPS's December 2000 payment to the FCC and the $4 I4,5 10
penalty noted above. TPS has informed me that there is FCC bureau precedent to refund such
excess amounts to auction participants. TPS indicates that they advised the FCC's Managing
Director of these matters in February of this year and that they have not received any official
decision.
I would appreciate any information that you can provide me concerning the status of the
February 2003 request for refund by TPS.
Sir?cere!y yours,
Hillary Robham Clinton

.-
Federal Communications Comrnission

September 4,2003

Russell Senate Office Building
Suite 476
Washington, DC 205 10-3204
Thank you for your letter inquiring about the status of the request for refund made by
TPS Utilicom (“TPS”). Given that TPS’s refund request is pending before the Commission, I
cannot comment on the merits of the request. However, I am happy to provide the following
information regarding the circumstances of TPS’s request.
TPS was the high bidder on four C block licenses in Auction No. 35, with net high bids
for those licenses totaling $13,8 17,000. Pursuant to the Commission’s rules, prior to the auction,
TPS deposited an upfront payment of $1,036,000 with the Commission. After the auction, TPS
failed to pay the down payment on its high bids as required by the Commission’s rules. Instead,
TPS requested a waiver of the Commission’s down payment rules. On July 3 1,2001, the
Commercial Wireless Division of the Wireless TelecommunicationsBureau (“Bureau”) released
an Order (copy enclosed) denying TPS’s request for a waiver.
As observed in the Order, TPS’s default subjected it to the Commission’s rules governing
defaults on post-auction down payments. In relevant part, Commission rules provide that post-
auction defaulters must make a default payment comprised of two parts: (1) an amount based
upon the difference between the defaulted bid and the subsequent winning bid for spectrum
associated with the license(s); and (2) an additional payment equal to 3 percent of the subsequent
winning bid or, if the subsequent winning bid exceeds the defaulting bidder’s bid amount, the 3
percent payment will be calculated based on the defaulting bidder’s bid amount.
In this case, because there has not been a reauction, there are not yet subsequent winning
bids for the spectrum associated with the licenses for which TPS defaulted and, consequently, the
Bureau cannot yet determine the final amount of TPS’s default payment. In the Order, however,
the Bureau assessed an interim default payment in an amount equal to three percent of the total
amount of TPS’s defaulted net bids, Le., the absolute minimum that TPS may owe the
Commission as a result of its default. As noted in the Order, the Commission has the discretion
to assess an initial default payment in an amount up to twenty percent of the defaulting bidder’s
winning bid. Order at n. 5 1 (citing Competitive Bidding Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd
374,434 8 102 (1998)).
TPS filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Order. On February 21,2003, the Bureau
released an Order on Reconsideration (copy enclosed) denying TPS ’s Petition for
Reconsideration. That same day, counsel for TPS transmitted a letter via facsimile to the Office
.. .W
of the Managing Director of the Commission requesting that the Commission refund the portion
of TPS’s upfi-ont payment in excess of the assessed three percent of its high bids. That request is
currently pending before the Commission.
Please be assured that the Commission is carefully reviewing and evaluating the merits of
TPS’s pending refund request. Thank you for letting me know of your interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
J o h B. Muleta
Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Enclosures
NEW YORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
202-224-4451
July 8,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from John Roletter. Mr. Roletter informs me that though he is
experiencing service difficulties with his cable company, Cablevision. I understand that Mr.
Roletter is paying for channels that he is not receiving. When Mr. Roletter requested his bill be
adjusted accordingly, he was denied.

780 Third Avenue, S
New York, New Yor
Attention: Eric LoV
Your cooperation and assistance ar rward to hearing from

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el - asm
Cablevision Jan 15,2003
930 Soundview Ave
Bronx,NY 10473 Att:Customer Service Dept.
Dear Sirs:
I'm writing in reference to your latest bill which had enclosed the
proposed rate increases.
In this connection,please explain why I'm being charged for 5 remotes

when I only have 4 boxes. Also I call ,and you can check your records, at least
once a week regarding these boxes that suddenly go onto the program
channel.This necessitates calling to have them reprogrammed by your techs.
Although I've mentioned it at least twice ,I've never seen a credit on the
following month's bill for all the out of service I've had in the past six months.
I've asked repeatedly about upgraded boxes,but am told by your people in the
office that my area has not been finished for upgrade .Yet I'm told by your
technicians that my area is wired because of the indication on the
screen of the symbol I10 that's in the lower left hand corner.l'm paying top
dollar for the service and yet I'm not receiving 7 new channels listed in the
TV Guide.1 can't see paying for something I'm not getting ,so I expect some sort
of adjustment to my bill until you supply me with full service.
Please answer the questions I've put into this letter and answer this
honestly ,would you stay with a Company that treats you so shabbily 3
Sincerely yours,
John Roletter
1477 East 12th St.
Brooklyn NY I1230
Cablevision Feb 24,2003
920 Soundview Ave
Bronx, NY 10473 Att:Customer Service Dept.
Dear Sir:
This is the second time I'm writing in regard to service adjustments.My letter
of January 15th.i~self explanatory in this regard.
Nothing has changed,in regard to any adjustments to this account. However,

the latest bill arrived with an INCREASE im monthly charges for services.At least
the telephone companies are answerable to the PSC in NY and if their problems
are with customers ,then they are answerable to the commission.This doesn't seem
to be the case with cable service in NY.We don't seem to have ,as consumers,any
protection.Our Mayor says "Nobody told them to watch TV,let them read a book".
The FCC seems to be in their own little infighting world and doesn't seem to care
about the consumer either.
I would imagine the only recourse for consumers is litigation in the courts.This
of course is expensive to both sides ,but class action suits seem to attract Pro Bono
attorney's.1 shall await your reply.
Sincerely yours,
John Roletter
1477 East 12th Street
Brooklyn NY 11230
CC:FCC
445 12th St.,NW
Wash. DC ATT.Cornmissionet Abernathy
CC:Sen.C.Schumer
Sen.H.Clinton
Capitol Bldg.Wash.DC
Sen.H.R.Clinton March 3.2003
Capitol Office Bldg.
Wash.DC
Dear Senator:
Perhaps you can,or one of your delegates can assist me with a problem
I seem to have with my local cable network(cab1evision).
As you can see from the attached letters,l'm trying to get some satisfaction
from the local network.The letters I have written doesn't even garner the
courtesy of a reply.1 don't think I'm being unreasonable to assume that
interruption of service should warrant some adjustment to bills.Telephone
calls to put me back in service are handled rapidly,but any adjustment to the
account seems to fall on deaf ears.1 know in NY ifIhave a problem with the
utility companies I can contact the PSC.Who do 1 turn to with the Cable Co.3
I hope you can direct me in the right direction.
w -
John F. Roletter
1477 E.12th Street
Brooklyn NY 11230
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0302342

780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. John Roletter of Brooklyn,
New York. Mr. Roletter contacted your office concerning the rates charged for cable television
service and the customer service provided by the local cable television system operator. I
appreciate the opportunity to respond.
Until April 1999, the authority to regulate the charges for cable television service was
shared between the Federal Communications Commission and local franchise authorities. The
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 authorized local franchising
authorities to oversee the rates charged for basic cable service and the equipment used to receive
basic service. (Local franchise authorities have to be certified with the Commission to exercise
this authority.) The Commission was authorized to regulate the rates for cable programming
service, which includes all programming not in the basic service tier and not charged for on a
per-channel or per-program basis. The rates charged for video programming offered on a per-
program or per-channel basis (for example, a premium movie service or a pay-per-view sports
event) have never been subject to review by the Commission or local franchise authorities.
On March 3 1, 1999, pursuant to a sunset provision contained in the Telecommunications

Act of 1996, the Commission's authority to regulate the rates charged for cable programming
services terminated. Thus, any rate increase on the cable programming services tier that takes
effect after March 3 1, 1999 will not be subject to review by the Commission. Local franchising
authorities, however, retain their authority to oversee the rates charged for basic cable service
and the equipment used to receive basic service in those areas where cable operators are not
subject to effective competition. The Commission's role in rate regulation is now generally
limited to establishing the framework and rules pursuant to which the rates for basic tier service
will be regulated.
With regard to customer service matters related to cable television service, the
Commission has adopted standards concerning the customer service practices of cable operators
which are intended to improve the quality of customer service (47 C.F.R. section 76.309
(Customer service obligations)). The guidelines address cable system office hours, installations,
telephone availability, service outages and calls, as well as general billing and refund policies.
The Commission’s standards set the minimum baseline for proper service, and it is up to local
franchising authorities to adopt and enforce the standards, which is often done through the
franchise agreement. Franchising authorities also may adopt and enforce state or local rules that
are more stringent than those established by the Commission. For your information and review,
I have enclosed a copy of a Fact Sheet discussing the customer service standards in more detail.
Although there is no Federal requirement that cable television operators provide a credit
for service outages, your local franchise authority may have such a requirement. In your area,
customer service concerns regarding cable television service should be addressed to:
New York Public Service Commission

One Penn Plaza
1-800-342-3330
I trust that this response will prove both informative and helpful.
Sincerely,
Chief, Office of Communications and

Industry Information
Media Bureau
Enclosure
t

NEW YORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-224-44s Wnited States Senate
July 9, 2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affaks
Federal Comn-wnications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Sheila Coons Gammans, who has concerns with funds which
she believes were improperly removed from her parent's checking account by America Online.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el/jc
11 QUG 2003 RCUO

6044 E. Old State Rd.
Schenectady, N Y 12303
November 30,2002
US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

750 Third Ave., Suite 2601
N Y , lrJy 10017-2024
Attn: Joanna Spilker
On August 21,2001 I faxed your Albany office 18 pages detailing unauthorized removal
of money from my parents’ checking account by AOL. This package included my
complaint to the N Y S Attorney General’s office which failed to get any positive results.
On October 9,2001, I returned the “Authorization Form” for the “Right to Privacy”
which you requested on September 24,2001. I also enclosed a letter.
On April 18,2002, I left voice mail at your Albany office looking for an update and
never got a call back. On August 20,2002, I called your Albany office again and was
told that a database showed that the FCC and Consumer Product Safety Commission had
been contacted. I would appreciate an update on any progress your office has been able
to accomplish.
I have also contacted Senator Schumer’s office in an effort to stimulate more interest in
this situation. I am enclosing my letter to him. It includes information on the N Y S
Police investigation, etc.
I do not think companies as AOL should have free access to people’s checking accounts.
Companies and banks should be verifying access to people’s accounts. If they are not
willing to do proper verification, they should stay put of people’s accounts! I have been
pursuing this issue for almost two years. I am not going to leave this situation
because it is THEFT. Our federal representatives need to address the situation.
Sincerely,
Sheila Coons Gammans

6044 E. Old State Rd.
Schenectady, N Y 12303
November 29,2002
The Honorable Charles Schumer

757 Third Ave., Suite 1702
NY,NY 10017
Re: Case 370814 Sheila Gammans
Dear Senator Schumer:
Thank you for your September 23,2002 response to my letter of August 20,2002.
Per Debra Baker’s request for information:

1. The full name of the bank is M&T Bank (as stated in my previous letter and
shown in the N Y S Attorney General’s complaint form previously provided).
2. The bank braqch location is 2080 Western Ave., Guilderland, NY 12084.
3. The routing number on the checking account (which is now closed) was
021300336. The account number was 1080902057.
4. As a detailed explanation of the complaint, I am again attaching the N Y S
Attorney General’s complaint form previously provided which shows that AOL
removedstole money from my parents’ Coons Trust checking account per an
unauthorized person. I also previously provided copies of the correspondence
between the Attorney General’s office & AOL which did no good. To
summarize, I am complaining about AOL, M&T Bank, and the federal banking
regulations that do not require verification of ownership of an account prior to
access to an account. (AOL does not verify that the online customer accessing a
checking account is the owner of the account and continues to access the account
even after being notified of the unauthorized access. AOL reimbursed no money
despite involvement of the N Y S Attorney General’s Office. AOL shares no
information with anyone unless it is subpoenaed.) (M&T Bank did not verify
authorization to access the account. It would take no action until I went to the
bank to fill out a complaint form and close the account. M&T did not investigate
the theft. M&T only provided 60 days worth of losses. M&T only did the
minimum required by law.) (Federal Bank Regulations do not require banks to do
any verification of accounts being accessed by vendors as AOL. They are
allowed to assume that the vendor did verification. AOL’s verification was just to
log the customer/thief off the system. If the customer/thief dialed back in from
the same telephone number, he was given access to the account. This verification
only showed that the person dialed in two times from the same telephone number
which proves nothing! Then the bank does no verification, since the bank
regulations do not require the banks to verify access by the vendor. I am told that
Bank Regulation E is even more relaxed. This is a huge hole in the bank
regulations which needs to be plugged. There is nothing to stop a thief from
accessing a person’s checking account, and the public is not even aware. I found
bank customer representatives who were not aware of this lack of verification.
They had to check with their superiors to find out that their bank did nothing to
verify access by vendors.)
5. I am enclosing a copy of the Coons Trust which allows me to conduct business on
behalf of the Coons Trust.
6 . My only update to what you see in the Attorney General’s complaint form is that
N Y S Police Investigator Gloria Coppola, N Y S Police,’PO Box 147, Feura Bush,
NY 12067 (5 18-768-8161) did investigate and came up with two different names
than the long distance carrier provided. She identified two men sharing an
apartment in Albany, NY as the likely thieves. One had been in federal prison in
Colorado for larceny. The other one had been caught writing badhnauthorized
checks from his grandmother’s M&T account. They had two rental computers.
One was returned to the rental company and purged. The other computer was
purchased. Ms. Coppola made a valiant effort but did not have enough evidence
to make a case against them. (Hence the thieves steal tne senior citizens’ money
from their checking account with no problem or punishment. AOL basically says,
“Tough. We’ve got somebody’s money, and we don’t care whose it is as long as
we get paid.’’ The N Y S Attorney General’s Office just forwards letters and does
nothing to investigate or to get the money back or to prevent fbture thefts of this
nature. The N Y S Police made a valiant attempt but could not get enough
evidence. This brings us fbll circle to “Why are companies allowed to access
peoples’ checking accounts without any sort of verification? Why are banks
allowed not to verify access to accounts? Why isn’t the vendor required to pass
the name of the person accessing the account to the bank for verification? Why
isn’t the public told that there’s no verification and that their accounts are wide
open to these thieves? Why can’t I get anyone to pay attention to this situation
which I have been addressing since 12/30/00?)
Sincerely,
Sheila Coons Gammans

m
AUG 2 9 2003 Control No. 03002348/aw

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Sheila Coons Gammans,
regarding the problems she is experiencing with America Online removing money from her bank
account. We apologize for any lack of responsiveness Ms. Gammans may have experienced in
her earlier attempts to communicate with the Commission.
Except as otherwise specified in the Communications Act, the Commission has

jurisdiction over interstate and foreign telecommunications service matters. Currently, the
FCC has no rules or policies that govern the Internet or Internet service providers and it does
not regulate the standards that Internet service providers might require of their subscribers.
Many issues, however, are subject to the rules of other agencies. The matters described in
Ms. Gammans’s correspondence appear to be within the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC). Therefore, we have forwarded copies of Ms. Gammons’s correspondence
to the FTC for its review and appropriate action.
The FTC has developed resource guides to help consumers find the appropriate
agencies to contact about consumer-related matters. These guides contain lists of nonprofit,
state and local agencies. Ms. Gammans may contact the FTC by writing to the Consumer
Response Center, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,
D.C. 20580 or by calling toll-free 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC web site is
www .ftc.gov and the FTC Consumer Response Center web site is www .consumer.gov. -
Although we cannot assist Ms. Gammons at this time, letters from consumers such as
Ms. Gammans’ provide valuable information that may be used to develop or support regulated
Commission initiatives for consumers. We appreciate your inquiry. If you have any further
questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
XK. Dane
7~ ! .Snowden
Qjj
Chief
cc: The Federal Trade Commission
1‘
NEWYORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-2244451 Wnited state5 senate
July 15,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Adele Milch. Ms. Milch lost her AT&T wireless phone in
January 2003, and as a result, incured charges for phone calls she has not made. I understand she
is having difficulties resolving this situation with AT&T.
United States
780 Third Avenue, S
Your cooperation and assistance are forward to hearing from

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
I
HRC/el - asm
February 7, 2003
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Three Greenway Plaza
155 Pinelawn Road, Suite 250 North
Melville N Y LL7V7
O n January 17 my son lost m y cell phone. The next morning,
as soon as we realized it was lost- I reported it t o ATLT
Wireless. During the time before I reported it someone
found t h e phone and made Slb0 of calls t o Trinidad. ATLT
insists on charging me for this. We never made these calls.
We never ever made any foreign calls or even went above our
regular minutes- ATPT is o n l y , w i l l i n g to give us $23
LLcourtesy” credit and wants me t o pay the rest. This is
very unfair since they recognize that we never made t h e
calls. Please do whatever you can to help us. Thank you for
your trouble.
Sincerely,
I
Adele Milch
ATLT acct. no. 208294512
telephone n o - 917-Bbq-8932
date of invoice 1/31/03
AUG 2 2 2003

New York. NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Adele Milch, regarding
the charges provided by AT&T Wireless (AT&T).
The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau has conducted a priority review of
Ms. Milch's complaint regarding the AT&T's charges for calls to Trinidad. Ms. Milch states
that as soon as she realized the cell phone was lost, she reported it to AT&T and she should
not be responsible for the calls placed while the phone was lost. Ms. Milch states that her past
record that she has never made any foreign calls or even went above her regular minutes
should also be considered by AT&T. We have forwarded these additional concerns and issues
raised by her to AT&T and directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days.
We also directed the company to send Ms. Milch a copy of the response that it submits to the
Commission.
Ms. Milch can obtain information about the status of her complaint by writing to the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Inquiries & Complaints Division, 445
12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free 1-888-CALL-FCC. TTY
users may call 1-888-TELL-FCC. Ms. Milch would need to include the complainant tracking
number 03-BOO53531 and the Congressional tracking number indicated at the top of this letter
to facilitate a prompt response to her inquiry.
Sincerely,
nn
-_
I
Chief
NEWYORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-224-4451
July 7,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent, Henry Femandez. Mr. Femandez is

experiencing difficulties with a mobile telephone he purchased through AT&T. I understand he
has been unsuccessful in resolving this matter directly with AT&T.

New York, New York
Attention: Eric LoVec
Your cooperation and assistance are

you soon.
HRC/el - asm
E-Mail Viewer
#71 7246280 - Mr. Henry Fernandez, In ID: 2289032, Out ID: 2415136
e:\ernailobj\200301\129215001.txt
From: latchbolt@msn.com
Date: 1/29/2003 9:49:42 PM
Subject: w - e m a i l
This is a letter of complaint I lodged against AT & T Wireless Service:

I have been having reception problems with a V60 phone that I got from you though a dealer here in
Brooklyn, New York. The outfit is called Skyline, 2802 Avenue U, Brooklyn, NY.
Since the time I got the phone, I always had a connection problem. Most of the calls I got, I only found
out through my voicemail. Skyline told me to change the antenna, as well as a pasting an internal
antenna to be placed inside the phone. To no avail. None of their recommendations worked.
Finally they told me to bring the phone to them, to be reset or other kind of nonsense. It did not work.
So they they gave me the switch around and said I have to contact you. I did. I called you a total of
about 6 times. They told me they need a certain number printed inside the phone. The problem is that
since I pasted the internal antenna inside the phone on top of the sticker, I cannot read the numbers.
Skyline provided me with the nos. ESN 08215968814. Your operators told me they need more numbers
which is impossible since the internal antenna is covering the numbers.
Your operators then told me they cannot help me further since you are too busy an outfit. They
recommend that I buy a phone from you for $399.00!1 don't know how you train these people but they
are rude, insensitive, and racist. I think just because I am a Filipino with a Spanish last name, I'mtoo
stupid and dense to know the difference and just do what their lazy way of dealing with paying
customers tell them to do. I think if I had a last name like Smith, I would be treated differently.
I want you to know that this is the last time I'll be using your company. In my capacity as a manager of
a locksmith store, safe salesmen, computer analyst, and PC system repairman, I will always advice
people not to use you especially if they belong to a minority group. I find your customer service
reprehensible, ignorant, insensitive, and untruthful. You advertise good service and don't deliver the
goods. You try to con people into buying defective materials you have no intention of fixing. It's the
oldest con game in the world. I hope your company goes bankrupt. You are worse than the Mafia.
CC: The Federal Communications Commission
Office of Sen. Hillary Clinton
Office of Rudy Giuliani
----
___- Original Formatted Message Starts Here ====
Sender's IP address = 156.33.195.32

<APP>SCCMAIL
<PREFIX>Mr.</PREFIX>
<FIRST>Henry</FIRST>
<LAST>Fernandez</LAST>
<ADDR1>1711 63rd Street Apt. l</ADDRl>
<ADDR2></ADDR2>
<CITY>Brooklyn</CITY>
<STATE>NY</STATE>
<ZIP> 11204</ZIP>
<EMAIL>latchbolt@msn.com</EMAIL>
<ISSUE>OTHER</ISSUE>
AUG 2 2 2003

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Henry Fernandez,
regarding the service and charges provided by AT&T Wireless Services (AT&T).
Mr. Fernandez' complaint. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by him to AT&T
and directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed the
company to send Mr. Fernandez a copy of the response that it submits to the Commission.
Ms. Fernandez can obtain information about the status of his complaint by writing to the
12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free 1-888-CALL-FCC. TTY users
may call 1-888-TELL-FCC. Mr. Fernandez would need to include the complainant tracking
number 03-BOO53530 and the Congressional tracking number indicated at the top of this letter to
facilitate a prompt response to his inquiry.
If you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Sincerely,
% %Q.b$
K. Dane Snowden
Chief
1'
NEWYORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-224-4451 Wnited senate
July 22,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Thomas W. Mullen. Mr. Mullen is concerned that his cable
company, Cablevision Systems Corporation, is now charging an additional fee for two television
stations that had previously been included in his basic service package.

Your cooperation and assistance are great1 to hearing from

you soon.
HRC/el - asm
THOMAS W. MULLEN
66 MILTON ROAD
RYE, NY 10580
July 8,2003
Mr. Michael Powell

Chairman of the F.C.C.
445 1P Street sw
Washington DC 20554
Dear Mr. Chairman:
My access to television is provided by Cablevision Systems Corporation of

Bethpage, New York, chaired by Charles Dolan. As a practical matter Mr. Dolan’s
company, of which I am a shareowner, is a monopoly provider and behaving as such.
Some weeks ago, I was notified that two sports channels, MSG Network and Fox
Sports Net NY, would no longer be part of my basic package. In order to retain these
channels I would have to pay an additional $1.95 per channel per month and have control
boxes installed on my two television sets at $3.25 per box per month. That is an increase
of $10.40 per month,over 23 percent, simply to retain the service I have always had.
Ridiculous! Outrageous! Call it what you will.
Personally, I am a man fully devoted to the dynamics of free markets. But this
level of corporate arrogance tells me that competitive forces are not adequately in play
with one cable company and a dish alternative unavailable to me as a resident of a
cooperative complex.
My life’s work involved regulated businesses. I know when a company behaves
as a monopoly supplier and when it is constrained by viable competition. Cablevision has
crossed the line. Please investigate and intervene.
As an aside, I happen to be a senior citizen who admits to having the resources to
pay for the services at issue. However, there are a great many seniors who are truly
penalized by this kind of corporate behavior.
cc: Senator Clinton

Senator Schumer
Congresswoman Lowey
Consum'er & Governmental Affairs Bureau

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Mullen, regarding the
problems he is experiencing with the service and charges for cable TV service.
The local franchising authority, which is the local municipal, county, or other
government organization that regulates cable service providers at the state or local level, will
assist if there are questions or complaints about customer service problems, including billing
disputes. Mr. Mullen should continue to direct complaints about his cable service directly to
the cable company and to the local franchising authority. The name of the local franchising
authority and their telephone number may be listed on Mr. Mullen's monthly cable bill. If it
is not, Mr. Mullen may contact the cable company or his local government for this
information.
Although we cannot assist Mr. Mullen at this time, letters from consumers such as
Mr. Mullen's may provide valuable information that may be used to develop or support
regulated Commission initiatives for consumers. We appreciate your inquiry. Please do not
hesitate to contact us if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Chief
1- .
NEWYORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
WASHINGTON, OC 20510-3204
July 22, 2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Washington, D C. 20024
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Kevin C. Wilcox. Mr. Wilcox informs me that he and his family
were involved in an emergency situation on a Massachusetts highway. I understand that Mr.
Wilcox attempted to dial emergency telephone numbers from his Cingular Wireless cell phone,
but received recordings that Cingular was unable to complete the calls.

Your cooperation and assistance are greatly appreciate( I look forward to ,,caring from
you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el - asm
700 Western Avenue
Albany, New York 12203
June 17,2003

Leo W. O’Brien Federal Office Building
1 Clinton Square
Room 821
Albwy, hlY 12207
, ) t
;r. 1.
Deqr-iinitor Clinton:
I am &iting to call to your attention the complete and total failure of emergency 91 1
, I
services provided by Cingular Wireless, their responsibility for this breakdown and their
lack &‘responsivenessto this critical problem. This is obviously a serious public health
and safety issue as well as a violation of the federal Wireless Communications and Public
Safety Act of 1999 (91 1 Act).
On Sunday, April 27,2003, my family and I became victims of a road rage incident while
traveling through Springfield Massachusetts. We were quite shaken and tried to call 91 1
for emergency assistance and to report the incident to the police. We tried repeatedly and
desperately to use our Cingular cellular telephone to contact emergency services, but
were informed electronically by pre-recorded message that Cingular could not complete
the 91 1 call.
In addition, we could not reach the Massachusetts State Police using the *MSP number
posted along the interstate highway. When we dialed the operator using ‘O’,we were told
we would have to call the local operator at ‘00’. We then dialed that number and again
were told via a Cingular recording that the number could not be reached. We then dialed
Cingular tejephone directory assistance at ‘411’ and were told to dial ‘00’. When we
frantically explained to the directory assistace operatx that we could not get through
using ‘OO’, the operator hung up on us. W-e ultimately called information to get the direct
line to the Massachusetts State Police, but by this time, the offending vehicle was long
gone, and needless to say, we were beside ourselves with fear and frustration.
Upon our return home to New York, we confirmed with the Springfield City Police
Department that the 91 1 service in that area was fully operational on Sunday, April 27.
We immediately contacted Cingular Wireless to inform them of the situation and the
failure of their system. They essentially renounced any responsibility for the problem and
explained that since we were not attempting to use their cellular towers while in
Massachusetts, they had no responsibility for the issue. We reminded them of their
obligation to provide emergency 91 1 service regardless if it is through direct service or
through a contractor and that failure to provide that service is a clear violation of FCC
Basic 91 1 rules, which state, “Require wireless carriers to transmit all 91 1 calls to a
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), regardless of whether the caller subscribes to the
carrier’s service or not.” It is also a violation of the tenants of our contract with Cingular,
as we pay a monthly fee for all cellular phone service regardless of who Cingular selects
as a subcontractor out of their home area. In addition, we pay monthly fees on our
wireline cellular phone bill for 91 1 service.
I informed Cingular Wireless that we no longer felt safe carrying their phones or service
and wished to terminate the contract. By the FCC’s own admission, “For many
Americans, the ability to call 9 1 1 for help in an emergency is one of the main reasons
they own a wireless phone.” However, Cingular demanded a $300 fee to terminate the
contract despite the clear violation of our contract and FFC Basic 91 1 rules, offered no
explanation why the ‘91 1’ or ‘00’calls could not be completed and have now stopped
returning my telephone calls. Needless to say, we are incensed that they failed to provide
a critical and needed service yet they are punishing us for their own failure.
I am writing out of concern for all customers of Cingular Wireless who may find
themselves in an emergency situation with no means of contacting the authorities or
medical services. We are grateful that no one was injured during this road rage incident
and that we were able to get off the highway, away from offending party, thus avoiding a
more direct confrontation, as I had no way to contact the authorities.
It is obvious that Cingular has violated multiple statutory, regulatory and contractual
obligations by their actions. More fi-ighteningis the company’s complete disregard for
the safety of their customers. Cingular should not be allowed to collect fees for services
they do not provide, nor should they be allowed to lull people into a false sense of
security that they have emergency services available to them when they in fact do not. I
am asking that you fully investigate this matter and enforce the FCC Basic 9 11 rules and
any resulting penalties. Cingular should also not be allowed to casually disregard public
safety by not being held accountable for provided federally required services. In
addition, the failure to provide these required services should be considered a violation of
customer contracts and allow the customer to terminate service, without penalty, and
subscribe with a provider who does follow the federal rules.
I look forward to your prompt response and assistance in resolving this contractual issue
and holding Cingular and other cellular phone providers accountable for existing federal
rules and regulations. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Kevin C. Wilcox
Cingular Account #680736656
AUG 2 6 2003

780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Kevin C. Wilcox, regarding
the failure of the 911 system provided by Cingular Wireless.
On July 16, 2003, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed Cingular
Wireless to respond to the Commission in writing concerning Mr. Wilcox's complaint.
Generally, a company is afforded 30 days to respond to the complaint. Mr. Wilcox should
soon receive a copy of the response that the company submits to the Commission. Mr. Wilcox
may obtain information regarding his complaint by writing to the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC (TTY users: 1-888-TELL-FCC). He
should mention his informal complaint number, 03-10047689, and the congressional tracking
number listed at the top of this letter to facilitate a prompt response to his inquiry.
questions.
Sincerely,
% K. Dane Snowden
Chief
NEWYORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-2244451 United statee senate
' , , , 1
4
2) . July 28,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Herbert A. Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner informs me that he has
repeatedly attempted to inform Dish Network of his change of address. It is my understanding
that Dish Network did not respond, and eventually cancelled Mr. Faulkner's television service.
Mr. Faulkner is still unable to resolve this matter with Dish Network.

Your cooperation and assistance are greatly appreciated. I look forward to hearing hom
you soon.
Sincerely yours,
&lly&8L,Gk
HRC/el - asm
m
AUG 2 6 2003
780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Herbert A. Faulkner,
regarding his concerns and dispute with his satellite service provider.
Mr. Faulkner's inquiry outlines issues that are outside the scope of the FCC's
regulation of satellite services. The FCC does not regulate the rates charged for satellite
programming, nor does it control how this programming is sold or packaged. The
FCC's Satellite Policy Branch is responsible for, among other things, licensing direct
broadcast satellite (DBS) space station and earth station facilities, coordinating spectrum
internationally, and administering the satellite radio program pursuant to Title I11 of the
Communications Act. Currently, the Federal Communications Commission has no
rules governing customer service standards, marketing practices or rates in the
provision of satellite services. Individuals with complaints about pricing or service
should contact their satellite service provider. Complaints may also be directed to the
Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection, 120
Broadway, 3'd Floor New York, NY 10271-0332. Mr. Faulkner may call them toll free
at 1-800-771-7755 or visit their web site www.oag.state.ny.us.
We appreciate your inquiry. Although we cannot assist at this time, the letter
from Mr. Faulkner may provide valuable information that may be used to develop or
support regulated Commission initiatives for consumers. Please do not hesitate to
contact us if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Chief
1'
NEW YORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
WASHINGTON, DC 20510~3204
202-224-4451
July 22,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Terence Donnellan. Mr. Donnellan believes that
AT&T's long distance telephone rate to Brazil exceeds the competitive market rate.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el - asm
” , /
June 2, 2003
Senator Clinton
780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
New York, NY 10017
Terence Donnellan
707 gth Ave., 1RN
NY, NY 10019
212-24 6-4631H
212-636-2587W
tpd707@aol.com
First off, I want to applaud you for being one of the few
political leaders whom I trust and whom I feel has integrity
inside and outside the political arena.
Last month my girlfriend who works for the Brazilian embassy was
visiting her hometown in Brazil. I spoke with her for 44 minute
and was charged $167.20. This is a rate of $3.80 a minute.
When I contacted AT&T the customer support person told me I was
charged incorrectly, that I should have been charged the normal
rate of 25 cents per minute. At this rate my bill would have
been approximately $11.00. Unfortunately on my next billing
statement I was not given the $11.00 rate. Again I contacted
AT&T and was told the first representative was incorrect. In
order to get the normal rate I had to sign up for an
international plan prior to my call. I believe that the average
customer does not contact the phone company before making phone
calls. I assumed the rate would be higher than standard long
distance, but certainly not $3.80 a minute. To me this is a n
obvious and outrageous example of price gouging. This is what
lawyers like to refer to as the ”fine print.” I’ve now spent a
few hours on the phone with customer support people and have not
been able to have my rate changed. I believe that the reason
AT&T and other phone companies can get away with this are two
fold: One, it is so frustrating to contact an actual person at
the customer service number because of the countless “menus” and
voice activated computer “operators” that the average consumer
gives up and just p a y s his or her bill. Second, since the phone
companies are almost monopolies it is not so simple to just say
I’m not going to pay, because sooner or later one will probably
have to deal with same phone company again.
(The case of virtual monopolies is something that is currently

happening and going to happen to even a greater degree with
media ownership due to the latest ruling by Michael Powell and
the FCC. That’s a separate issue that I won’t get into at this
time. I trust that you will try to stop this.)
The reason large corporations can get away with their outrageous
behavior is because the average person feels so crushed by the
powers of these giant companies they believe that there is
little they can do. Many of them also feel that writing or
talking with their congressional leaders is also worthless
because most politicians are little more than shills for
corporate interests. Obviously, I feel that this is not the
case here or I would not be writing. Nonetheless, it is a very
sad situation when faith in our government is almost all but
depleted .
The $167 I am being asked/forced to pay may seem like an

insignificant sum in the vast scheme of things. This is exactly
what large corporations want. They want the customer or
consumer to feel powerless. They want to silence what little
voice we have left. (This same type of thing will happen in the
future with television if the FCC ruling is not stopped by
congress. In the future you‘ll have a choice between paying
Viacom $100 a month to watch television or paying Rupert
Murdoch‘s News Corporation $99.99. I won‘t even mention what
this will do to news content.)
Finally, what I’m asking or what I would like you to do is help

me fight this outrageous bill and also to have this type of
price gouging made illegal so that the same thing does not
happen to others.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sincerely,
Terence P. Donnellan
2
2 7 2003

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Terence Donnellan,
regarding the service and charges provided by AT&T.
Mr. Donnellan's complaint. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by him to
AT&T and directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed
the company to send Mr. Donnellan a copy of the response that it submits to the Commission.
Ms. Donnellan can obtain information about the status of his complaint by writing to
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Inquiries & Complaints
Division, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free 1-888-CALL-
FCC. TTY users may call 1-888-TELL-FCC. Mr. Donnellan would need to include the
complainant tracking number 03-BOO53525 and the Congressional tracking number indicated at
the top of this letter to facilitate a prompt response to his inquiry.
Sincerely,
nP
f b y K. Dane Snowden 'd

Chief
I' - 'T
NEW YORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
WASHINGTON,DC 20510-3204
July 22,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
d
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Carmella Volpe of Clyde, New York. Ms. Volpe
informs me that the surcharges and taxes actually exceeded the phone usage charges on her
recent telephone bill. She would like a review of these charges.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el - asrn
1 Federal Communications Commission
AUG 2 9 2003
Control No. 030237l/aw

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Carmella Volpe, regarding
the taxes and charges listed on her local telephone bill(s).
The FCC does not set or collect the federal or state taxes for consumers’ phone service.
The federal tax applied to wireline, local and long distance, and wireless telephone service is
established by the U.S. Congress and is collected by the Internal Revenue Service as part of
the general revenue of the U.S. Department of Treasury. Ms. Volpe may wish to contact her
local and state taxing office to obtain further information regarding local and state taxes listed
on her bill.
Enclosed is information to further assist Ms. Volpe in understanding the charges on her
phone bill(s). Except as otherwise specified in the Communications Act, the Commission has
jurisdiction over interstate and foreign telecommunications service matters. Many telephone-
related issues, such as complaints against local service providers or disputes about charges for
calls that do not pass through state boundaries, however, are subject to the rules of the state
public utility commissions. The subject of Ms. Volpe’s inquiry indicates that it is under the
jurisdiction of the state of New York. Therefore, Ms. Volpe may wish to contact the New
York State Public Service Commission, Empire State Plaza, Agency Building 3, Albany, NY
12223-1350. She may call their toll-free number 1-800-342-3552.
Ms. Volpe may also wish to inquire with the New York Public Service Commission
about the Federal Lifeline telephone discount program, also known as Lifeline Assistance,
which gives people with low incomes a discount on the basic monthly service. In addition, the
Link-Up America program pays for a portion of the installation or activation fees. The amount
of federal support will vary depending on decisions made by each individual state commission,
such as whether to provide support. Ms. Volpe may also wish to contact the New York Public
Service Commission to inquire further regarding other financial assistance programs offered
within her state.
1- .
f
I
Information on telecommunications-related issues can also be accessed via the Internet

from the Commission’s Home Page located at http://www.fcc.gov and the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau’s web site link at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb or by calling 1-888-
CALL-FCC. TTY users may call 1-888-TELL-FCC.
questions.
Sincerely,
XT%Q.LJ$)
K. Dane Snowden
Chief
Enclosures
1‘
NEW YORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
202 224-4451 Wnitcd States Senate
July 22,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Sandra Fields. Ms. Fields informs me that she is been
experiencing technical difficulties with her Verizon telephone service for quite some time, and
that the matter remains unresolved with Verizon.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRCIel - asm
-
--. .-. . .-.--
104 West 75th Street, Apt. 28, New York, N.Y. 10023
212-877-1528, 646- 251- 9186 (cell) sandvsnews@aol.com
June 24,2003
Senator Hillary Clinton's Office

Attn: Eric Lovecchio
Dear Eric,
I called your office today about a telephone problem that I have been having, and got a call back from
a representative, who said I should put my problem in writing before you can take any action.
Thank you for your call back. I really appreciate it.
I have been having a problem with my phone for over 2 % years. My telephone company is
Verizon. For the 2 X year time period, 1 have had prc;biems with n;y phone in that thse wero rnsny
loud clicks and a lot of static on the phone, which made it hard to hear and talk. I use the phone for
business (mostly business and now for trying to get a job).The last few months the problem has
escaled. This April my phone was out of order for 2 %weeks. I had no dial tone, or too much static to
use the phone, for that length of time. There was no one else in my building or in my neighborhood,
who had the same outage. Verizon kept changing what the problem was, and finally said the problem
was in their Central Office, where my phone card was just pulled out of a sleeve. During the time of
this phone outage, Ihad to stay home, most of the time.( I live in a Brownstone Building, with no
doorman). I had filed a report with the Public Service Commission, ## 223436, (See enclosed letter).
The amount of time needed for me to stay home and deal with the problem and the added expense
for having to use my cell phone was an economic burden to me.
This Sunday, June 22, my phone went out again. Icalled to report the problem to Verizon, but
They agaiin have changed their story about the source of the problem. I need my phone, because I
need to look for jobs online and submit resumes. The added burden of this problem again, is a
tremendous burden on me financially and emotionally. I had to use my cell phone,
(an added expense), and have to stay home again, when I need to get a job. Ifiled another
report with the Public Service Commission# 321538 on 6/23/03 with a Mrs. Voss. (Telephone 212-
290-4171). Iam afraid the same problem with my phone will reoccur, where I won't have access to
my phone and will delay my finding a job even more, and my financial situation is very fragile.
The last straw was when my cell phone went out of order last night at exactly 8pm when the rates go
down to free. (Free nights and weekends). The cell phone indicated that there was "no service"
available. I have had the phone service with Wireless AT&T since 1999. There has never been a
problem with my cell phone until last night. My cell phone number with AT & T wireless is:
917-319-8163.
Today, I had to buy another cell phone, which I cannot afford and had to rush around to be back to
my apartment, in case a Verizon Repairman came back to my apartment. They have reported to me (df R ,%q]
late today the problem is a cable failure HA050...and said others in the area also don't have service$
have spoken to many people in the area, and no one has a problem with their phone.
With my fragile financial situation, along with my phone problem, I cannot reconcile all this as a
coincidence. I am unsure how to proceedto reconcile all these "coincidences".
I hope you might be able to assist in some way.
Sinceply, . ,-7
'
STATE OF NEW Y O M DEPARTMENT OF PUBLiC SERVICE
10119
PC'BLIC SERVICE C'OhlMISSIOY
.MAUREEN 0. BELlllER LAWRENCE C . MALONE

'ituirniun Generill C'ormsel
THOM.&SJ. DL'WLEAVY
JAMES D. BENHE%I'
LEONARD A. WEIS?,
NEAL h'. GAL\ih
Case 223436 1-8CO-342-3377 April 14 * 2 3
M s . Sandra F i e l d s
104 West 7Sth Street APt.-2B
New York, N e w York 2 0 0 2 3
D e a r Ms. Fields:
--_.
As p a r t of t h e Department of Public S s - .:ice compfaint-kanallng
program, we dirctcted Verizon to address L i z e ccjncerns, whlch yet!
brought: to our a r t e n t i o n . O u r purpose i ? doing YO was to make t h e
company more responsible to t h e n e e d s of its cust,omers.
V e r i z o n has a d v i s e d us t h a t it h a s responded to your concerns.
Thank you f o r b r i n g i n g this matter to our attention.
Sincerely,
Ken Slusher
0 f f i . c e of Consumer S e r v i c e s
KS:lk
AUG 2 8 2003

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Sandra Fields, regarding the
problems she is experiencing with the repairs provided by her local telephone company.

calls that do not pass through state boundaries, however, are subject to the rules of the state
public utility commissions. The subject of Ms. Fields’ inquiry indicates that it is under the
jurisdiction of the state of New York. Therefore, we have forwarded copies of Ms. Fields’
correspondence to the New York State Public Service Commission. Ms. Fields can check on
the status of her complaint by writing to the New York Public Service Commission, Empire
State Plaza, Agency Building 3, Albany, NY 12223-1350 or by calling their toll-free number
1-800-342-3377. Their web site is www.dps.state.ny.us
Ms. Fields may also wish to inquire with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
about the federal Lifeline telephone discount program, also known as Lifeline Assistance,
which gives people with low incomes a discount on the basic monthly service. In addition, the
Link-Up America program pays for a portion of the installation or activation fees. The
amount of federal support will vary depending on decisions made by each individual state
commission, such as whether to provide support. Ms. Fields may also wish to contact the
New York Public Service Commission to inquire further regarding other financial assistance
programs offered within her state.
Ms. Fields’ complaint regarding AT&T Wireless services. We have forwarded the concerns
and issues raised by her to AT&T Wireless and directed the company to respond to the
complaint within 30 days. We also directed the company to send Ms. Fields a copy of the
response that it submits to the Commission.
Ms. Fields can obtain information about the status of her complaint by writing to the
12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free 1-888-CALL-FCC. TTY
users may call 1-888-TELL-FCC. Ms. Fields would need to include the complainant tracking
number 03-BOO54435 and the Congressional tracking number indicated at the top of this letter
to facilitate a prompt response to her inquiry.
questions.
Sincerely,
LL9-bb$
K. Dane Snowden
Chief
Enclosures
cc: The New York Public Utility Commission
T
NEW YORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-224-4451 2Bnited states Senate
August 1,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Gerald Bernstein. Mr. Bemstein informs me that he is

experiencing problems with his cable television reception. I understand that he is having
difficulty settling this matter directly with Cablevision.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el - asm
Gerald Bemstein
666 Jefferson Street
West Hempstead, NY 11552
April 29, 2003

Washington, DC
I am a resident of Nassau County and my TV has been connected to

Cablevision for over ten years. It always was that whether I paid additional
for extra channels, I was able to receive the basic broadcast channels.
Now Cablevision has to raise a lot of money for all their other endeavors and
suddenly all rules were changed. My main TV has an IO box, and with
Cablevision’s knowledge I was able to receive all the broadcast channels on
the other two sets without a box. Now, channel 2 and 4 come in with lines
over the entire picture. I called Cablevision to have the pictures adjusted
and they informed me I would have to pay approximately $3.42 additional
per set per month. Otherwise that is the best picture I will get on channels 2
and 4.
I thought there were federal guidelines regarding basic broadcast channels

and how much Cablevision could charge.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
./
* SC--
d
AUG 2 1 2003

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Gerald Bernstein, regarding
cable service and the rates charged for cable service and how the service is packaged and sold
to consumers.

jurisdiction over interstate and foreign telecommunications service matters. Many issues,
however, are subject to the rules of other agencies. The matters described in Mr. Bernstein’s
correspondence appear to be within the jurisdiction of the Local Franchise Authority. The
name of the Local Franchise Authority may be listed on Mr. Bernstein’s cable bill. If not, he
may contact his local government for this information.
The Commission has available an e-mail service designed to apprise consumers about
developments at the Commission, to disseminate consumer information materials prepared by
the Commission to a wide audience and to invite comments from other parties on Commission
regulatory proposals. This free service enables consumers to subscribe and receive FCC fact
sheets, consumer brochures and alerts, and public notices, among other consumer information.
To subscribe, an individual would send an e-mail to subscribe@info.fcc.gov and in either the
subject line or body of the message put: subscribe fcc-consumer-info first name last name
(substitute their first and last name, for example, “subscribe fcc-consumer-info John Doe”).
The Commission also seeks to inform consumers about their rights regarding practices
that may violate the Communications Act or other federal or state regulations. Although we
cannot assist Mr. Bernstein at this time, the letter from him may provide valuable information
that may be used to develop or support Commission initiatives for consumer or enforcement
actions.
We appreciate your inquiry. Enclosed is information pertaining to cable television

service that Mr. Bernstein may find helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have
further questions.
Sincerely,
Chief
Enclosures
HILLARY ROOHAM CLINTON
NEW YORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
WASHINGTON, OC 20510-3204
T e
202-2244451
WASHI TON, DC 20510-3204
Aum x 1 2 , 2 0 0 3
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent, Mr. Gargano of Islip Terrace, New York. Mr.
Gargano contacted my office with concerns regarding the phone lines utilized at correctional
facilities.

Attention: Eric LoVecchio ‘
you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el- j c
26 SEP 2003 R(XID

Islip Terrace, NY
11752
rn
Todd Gargano TEL: 1-800-840-2228
NYS Chairman
(77)
FAX: (516) 234-2229
Senate Chambers
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12247
3/6/2003
Senator Hitary Clinton:
Everytime we write you continue to say, "it's not our jurisdiction". Evidently you don't
belong in New York because everything in New York is your jurisdiction.
Enclosed find document stating that the FCC welcomes other phone lines, however, the
Department of Corrections and MCI WorldCom take it upon themselves to block the
lines unless we use MCI with their astronomical prices. The FCC findings mean
absolutely nothing to this monopoly.
We are speaking federal, not state, which makes it your jurisdiction. You are United
States senators. It seems to me that something drastic has to-happen before people
wake up. We have so many letters from people crying out but no one wants to hear it.
Maybe you could find a little time to take care of this matter.
We sponser a t.v. show entitled, "The Hidden Truth" in all parts of the United States.
We are trying desperately not to put this on the air because New York would acquire a
terrible name in all the states. We leave this in your hands now, where these people
should and must be stopped and the Department of Corrections that think they are a
country and a state of their own should be put in their place.
----
Po&- a! I
I
I
We await your immediate response and thank you in advance for your attention in this
crucial matter.
Sincere1y,
%+
NYS Chairman
UTofA
cc: NYS Senator Charles Schumer

OUTSIDE CONNECTION
.-
Rodney L Joyce, Erq.
(202) 639-5602
joyce@:shb,com
December 1 I , 2002 RECEIVED,

BY H . U D
DEC 1 1 2002
Ms. Marlene H.Ilortch
s
445 I 2Ih Street, W, ~ \ ~ - ~ 3 2 j
Waslungton, DC 20554
Dear Ms. Dortch;
w ' v
''o**p ;
,
;
ss.ex,purte-laeris d x m i idmehalf
Qutsi&@-, - ~ - ( & O C ,in , )
ne way in w h c h competition can occur
consistent with both existing conlmunicativns replatory p r . . q as well as the policy of
state prison authorities to protect prison security, and (ii) to request the C O i ~ Z i ~ 0 ~ ' S
help. As discuss:d in more dztail below, in providiq md-to-endlong distance ccdlect
call service to fi-imds and family members of prison inmates, OC relies on the carrier that
owns ICS infirasstructure inside prisons to trm~portthe l x z l ponion of each call, and it
relies OR PaeTec t o transport each such ca!l k o a the local rate center where the subject
prison is located to the OC cuscomcr in a distant city. By providing end-to-end senice
in thjs manner (n!,relying on the TCS infiastrucrure piojlider for local transport and
PaeTec. for long distance transport), OC is able to nuke available end-to-cud long
-distmcc co.lkctc d l seniee to-ggnds and_famil;*nicEbsg o c @ m t
--.- ~asubstantially
lolyer price than the end-to-end prices charged by the carrier owning ICs infiashucture.
.., I
Another guilty plka in
f
WorldCom fraud case
By Andrew Backover
USA TODAY
A second former WorldCom ex-
ecutive pleaded @ty Monday to
Fraud charges, givmg prosecutors
more ammunition to link top exec-
utives to one of the biggest corpo-
rate fraud cases ever,
Former accounting director Bu-
ford Yates, 46, leaded guilty ta
R
conspiracy and aud charges. re-
vers an earlierinnocent plea &+
%
low m e r WorlMom controller
who also pleaded Plea deal: Buford Yates, e t . and
.-
lawyer David Schertlerexlt court

with in- ' b
other executives,legal experts say.
btes atso ~ p 'present
s an air- S
tight prosecuhon" of Sullivan. says'L
Robert Mintz,a former prosecutor p.
wrongdoing but is one of many now with McCarter & English.
CEOs m the s otlight as regulators Yates. like Myers, had no direct
8
try to rebuil investor confidence
shattered by corporate scandals.
contact with Ebbers. But bothhave $t
skid in documents released by in-,I.
Yates is a minor player in a veshgaton that they questioned
scheme that prosecutors say the accounting Ued.
he1 ed WorldCom hide more than Meanwhile,Worldfom directors
$5 Eili on in expenses from late
2000 into 2002. The goal: meet x
toda could further consider
whe er to rescind $408 million in
rrVall Sheet earnings expectations loans and 51.5 million in severance
when its rowth stalled. to Ebbers. Also. director Stiles Kei-
f
The U A's No. 2 long-distance
hone company has revealed
lett plans to deknd his lease of a
company jet for $1 a month PIUS
E 72 billion in improper account- ex enses. A court monitor has said
E
1 .. ing. In July,it filed for the largest
bankruptcy reorganization ever.
E-
Ke ett should resign. but he is not '
expected to. The monitor que-
Former CFO Scott Sullivan, who tioned whether Ebbers' loans and
prosecutors say masterminded the the lane lpe+ Kellett w w
scme;-has -sa m e . Kene s a orney has sa
d -
.
Yaks reported t c m thate! lease was m er and tha?
efs is key to the c a s e r Sui-
van. Sullivan,then,c d unplicate
88
WorldCom's outsi e irectors a p
proved Ebbers' perks. 5
-
I
OCT 2 0 2003

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Todd Gargano, regarding
his concerns about the choices of carrier providing telephone service for inmates in
correctional facilities.
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) has rules that ensure
consumers are able to reach their preferred long distance carriers from public telephones, such
as hotel phones, etc., served by operator service providers (OSPs). These rules also apply to
telephones at correctional institutions that are located in visitation areas. The rules do not
apply to “inmate only” telephones. In most cases, an inmate is only allowed to make collect
calls and does not have a right to access his or her preferred carrier from an “inmate-only”
telephone. Correctional facilities are exempt to the OSP rules due to the exceptional set of
circumstances under which such service is provided, including restrictions on the number of
calls that can be placed by individual inmates, call duration or calling hours. These restrictions
may influence rates.
When a collect call is made, each OSP of inmate operator services must identify itself
to the person receiving the inmate’s call before connecting any interstate (between different
states), domestic interexchange telephone call. Each of the prison OSPs must disclose
immediately thereafter how the receiving party may obtain rate quotations (before connecting).
The OSP must permit that party to terminate the telephone call at no charge before the call is
connected.
The state public utilities commissions may be contacted to complain about rates for
intrastate (within a state) collect calls from public phones in prisons (where the call originated
and terminated). Within New York, complaints may be submitted in writing to New York
State Public Service Commission, Empire State Plaza, Agency Building 3, Albany, NY 12223-
1350 or by calling 1-800-342-3377. Their web site is www.dps.state.ny.us. To complain
about the rates for interstate (outside a state) collect calls, a complaint may be submitted to the
FCC. Enclosed is information on how to file a complaint with the Commission.
1-
Information on all telecommunications-related issues can also be accessed via the Internet from
the Commission’s Home Page located at http://www.fcc.nov and the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau’s web site link at http://www.fcc.nov/cgb or by calling 1-888-
CALL-FCC. TTY users may call 1-888-TELL-FCC.
questions.
Sincerely,
Chief
Enclosures
..-. . ">" *-sa t,
e- '
1
i
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON . /
NEWYORK
SEN A T 0 R

SUITE 476
202-224-4451 Senate
- ' W k H I N G T O N , DC 20510-3204
October 3,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from The Honorable Frank P. Proto, a member of the Tompkins
County Legislature. Legislator Proto contacted my office for assistance with the Federal
Universal Service Fund fee - specifically as it relates to small rural libraries in Tompkins
County, New York. I understand that a significant amount of paperwork is involved in accessing
these funds, and that small libraries do not always have the staffing resources to process the
necessary paperwork.

Attention: Karen Persichilli Keogh, State Director
you soon.
Sincerely yours,
dllary Rodham Clinton
I $
14 OCT 2003RCUD
-9-2003 01 : 2 5 m From-SENCLINTON SYR NY
31 54480676 T-580 P. 006/006 F-415
. -__
May 27,2003
. . . -
Ms.Cathy Calhoun
Office of Senator Clinton
100 South Clinton Street, Room 111
1 y$^"
-%$*e
PO Box 7378
Syracuse, New York 13261-7378
Dear Ms, Calhoun:
Just a word of thanks for meeting with the group %om Tornpkins County on May 22,
2003, it was a pleasure to discuss all those various items with you.
The one of particular concern to me, you mighr recall, was, and is, the Federal Universal
Service Fund fee. Accessing these funds is an extremely difficult and involved process,
particularly for small rural libraries as they cannot dedicate an individual to the time connuning
task due to the amounr of paperwork concerned. Any help and/or advice you might give to me
that I might pass along would be appreciated. It is my hope that Smaror Clinron may be in a
position to initiate a process to reducc rhe number of forms needed in order to access there funds.
Also, identifymg what becomes of the unused, or inaccessible dollars would be a greet help. Are
the telephone companies entitled to earn and accumulate interest on these funds until they are
tapped?
Thanking you again for your time spent with us, I would like to offermy help with regard
to any of the other items that surfaced Thursday afiemoon. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Cordially, ,
Frank P.Proto
Lepslator, District No. 7
Towns of Caroline, Danby, and Ithaca
rn
t~ Recycled paper
NOV 4 2003

A T ” : Karen Persichilli Keogh, State Director
RE: Tompkins County Legislature

E-rate Funding for Libraries
Thank you for your letter of October 3,2003, regarding an inquiry about the
schools and libraries universal service support mechanism @-rate) raised by your
constituent, the Honorable Frank P. Proto. I realize how important such E-rate support is
to schools and libraries that want to provide access to telecommunications and
information technologies, and I appreciate your concerns regarding program
administration and operation.
Recognizing the importance of the program, the Commission has worked closely
with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) and schools and libraries to
streamline and ease the E-rate application process. For example, earlier this year the
Schools and Libraries Division of USAC added to its website a simpler online
“interview” format for the key application form, the FCC Form 471. In the new format,
applicants answer a series of prompted questions, after which the completed form is
produced. This change should make applying for the E-rate considerably easier. In
addition, on April 23,2003, the Commission adopted the Second Report and Order and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Proceeding No. FCC 03- 1Ol), which took major steps to
simplify the E-rate program. Specifically, the Order revised eligibility rules to streamline
program administration, and simplified the application and billing process to ease
administrative burdens. The Order also sought comment on additional proposals to
further improve program operations.
h4r.Proto also asked about the distribution of unused funds from the E-rate
program. The Commission established an annual fimding cap of $2.25 billion for the E-
rate program. Over the past few years, overall demand for the E-rate program has far
exceeded the annual cap. Given the high rate of demand, and in order to maximize use of
funds, the Commission and USAC have taken several steps. In June 2002, the
Commission adopted a framework for the treatment of unused funds, and determined that
any unused funds should be carried forward for disbursement in subsequent funding years.
In addition, beginning in 2001, USAC began issuing funding commitments slightly in
excess of the $2.25 billion funding cap, in order to maximize the use of funds in a given
funding year. Further, in response to Mr. Proto’s question, once universal service
contributions are collected from participating carriers, the carriers exercise no iiuther
control over the funds, and do not collect interest on them.
We greatly appreciate your interest in the E-rate program, and we are sensitive to
the concerns raised by you and your constituent, Mr. Proto. If you have any additional
questions about the program, please feel free to contact me at 202/418-7400.
Sincerely,
Mark Seifert v
Deputy Chief
Telecommunications Access Policy Division
Wireline Competition Bureau
NEWYORK
SEN ATOR

SUITE 476
202-224-4451 United States Senate
September 30,2003
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Alan R. h m e y . Mr. Harvey is concerned about

a request from his satellite television company to provide his Social Security number for account
purposes. Mr. Harvey would like to be apprised of his rights under federal regulations.
780 Third Ave
Your cooperation and assistance ok forward to hearing from

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
& 11 Rak- ca;;hn/

HRC/el - mj
Alan R. Harvey
1808 West High Terrace
Syracuse, New York
(315) 488-1531
May 8,2003
100 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, New York 13261
Dear Senator Clinton,
I recently thought of switching fiom cable TV to satellite TV. The two main satellite systems are
“Direct TV (DSS)” and “Dish Network (Echostar)”. Both products require my social security
number in order to get their service. I am quite concerned about providing this information because
of the possibility of misuse. I can understand banks, employers, and medical institutions (all required
by law and I hope bonded) requiring this but why a satellite TV company? I did talk to one of your
aids who recommended that I call the State Attorney General’s Oflice.
.< .
My Social Security number was issued by a federally regulated administrated and the satellite
companies are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission both of which are regulated by
Congress, so I am asking you for your help. My social security number should be protected tiom
misuse by federal laws and I don’t think I should provide it to a sales person for any reason.
I am sure this is not the most important issue you have on your agenda but I would greatly appreciate
a response at your convenience.
Alan R. Harvey
d
NOV 6 2003
IN REPLY REFER TO:
CN-0303118

780 Third Avenue
Suite 2
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Alan R. Harvey of Syracuse,
New York. Mr. Harvey contacted your office concerning the information requested by satellite
television providers in order to initiate service. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
As an initial matter, according to a representative at the Social Security Administration

(SSA), there is no federal prohibition on the use of a social security number for the purpose of
initiating satellite television service. At the same time, however, a consumer is not compelled to
provide this information.
In an effort to be of assistance in this matter, a member of the Federal Communications

Commission’s staff recently contacted Dish Network on behalf of Mr. Harvey. Dish Network
personnel informed the Commission that prospective subscribers who do not wish to provide a
social security number, may initiate service by other means. For example, according to Dish
Network, prospective customers have the option of providing a prepayment of $50.00 if they
choose not to provide their social security number. If Mr. Harvey has any additional questions
concerning Dish Network’s policy in this area, he may contact Dish Network directly.
A member of the Commission’s staff also contacted DirecTV concerning this matter.
According to DirecTV personnel, the company does not require potential subscribers to provide
a social security number to establish satellite service. The company representative informed the
Commission that, although DirectTV may request that potential subscribers provide a social
security number to establish service, it is not a prerequisite to initiate service.
Finally, Mr. Harvey should be advised that the Commission does not regulate the
marketing or the customer service practices of the satellite television industry. Although the
Commission has adopted customer service standards for cable television system operators that
address such matters as cable system office hours, installations, telephone availability, service
outages and calls as well as general billing and refund policies, these requirements do not apply
to other multichannel video programming distributors such as direct-to-home satellite television
providers. Satellite television carriers, however, may be subject to local or state consumer
protection laws that address customer service and related matters. Mr. Harvey may wish to
contact the local or state consumer protection agency to discuss his concerns.
I trust that this response will prove both informative and helpful.
Chief, Office of Communications and

Industry Information
Media Bureauureau
. NEWYORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
October 15,2003

Chairman
Dear Mr. Powell:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Sean McDevitt, Managing Director of Alterity

Partners, located in New York, New York. Mr. McDevitt informs me that he has is experiencing
difficulties with Verizon Wireless' telephone service for his small business.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el-cb
Alterity Partners, LLC
99 Park Avenue
ALTER iTY PAR f N E WS 1 P Floor
NewYork, NY 10016
Telephone: 212-953-1 999

Ea%: 2 12-953-5222
www.alteritypartners.com
August 21,2003

Our small business has been without phone service for a week, despite repeated calls to
various technicians at Verizon and a personal letter to Mr. [van Seidenberg, CEO of
Verizon (see attached). We are experiencing significant business losses due to our
customers' inability to contact us.
Any help you could provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
Sean McDevitt
Managing Director
cell: 917.710.8200
NOV 3 2003

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter to on behalf of your constituent, Sean McDevitt, Managing
Director of Alterity Partners, regarding certain concerns about his basic telephone service
provided by Verizon.

calls that do not pass through state boundaries, however, are subject to the rules of state public
utility commissions. The subject of Mr. McDevitt’s correspondence indicates that it is under
the jurisdiction of the state of New York. Therefore, we have forwarded copies of his
correspondence to the New York State Public Service Commission, Empire State Plaza,
Agency Building 3, Albany, NY 12223-1350 for its review and appropriate action.
Mr. McDevitt may call them toll free at 1-800-342-3377 or visit their web site
www.dps.state.ny.us.
Although we cannot assist Mr. McDevitt at this time, letters from consumers such as
Mr. McDevitt’s provide valuable information that may be used to develop or support
Commission initiatives for consumers. We appreciate your inquiry. Please do not hesitate to
Sincerely,
qbr K. Dane Snowden ‘J

Chief
cc: New York State Public Service Commission

NEW YORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 3204
202 224-4451 9Bnitod states senate
October 15,2003

Chairman
Dear Mr. Powell:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Barbara Steimel of Inwood, New York. Ms.
Steimel has concerns over the Verizon Wireless' billing methods.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/el-cb
T0:12126887444 P: 1’4
veriTon
88-OR 1644th Strcci
Jamaica, N'I 11432
January 3,2003
Barbarcl A. Stciniel
IS2 Mott Ave Apt 1G
Far Rockrtway NY 11096
RE:$16 371-3504
Dear Ms. Steimel:
This letter is in response to your refmal to the Public Service Commission.
Your referral indicates some questions you hod regarding c;ex-taincharges on your
account. 1 was pleased to address your concam whcn we spoke. Pw OUT conversation, J
have also provided that information in this letter.
U V c r i z o n residential tclcphone bills are d i v i d d into swlions, each of

-e
to certain taxes and surcharges.
-
The first catcgory is Verizon Basic Local Servic~~Thjs wte * cursaStatdMTA
-- _- a StatdLocal
s h a r g a of 3.8%, "-
'fax of 8.5% anLa F
---e d e m l ~ OO%-
The second c3ttegory is Verizon Calls. 'Ilkiscategory iricurs n StutdLocal Tnx ofR.5Yi
and a Fcderd T u of 3.00%.
-tcgory
0 is Vcrizon Optional
- Services. This category
- incurs a
S u r c h a r g c w State/&- 8.5 Yimd 8 Fed- ax0 3.00%.
-
-. c
The fburth and fml category is All Other Chagcs. This ciitegury incurs a Fedwd Tax of
fi4
.-
3.00%,a Federal UnWrs31 Savicc Fund charge of 8.5%, u Now York ShteKocal Sales )%z
MTA Surch&JY!4.
,-
-- _- _-- -
Tax ofS.S%, a New York G r o s s Rcceipts tax Surdlarge of'3.W89% and II New York % hq-*
The above surcharges, which are subject to statc and local taxes, are imposed by various
government agcnciesr Vmiaon t have thc authority-to lavy&xes o r h o s e .
swcharges,howcver wgrnut coIlact4hese fees as rqnired by law.
veriTon
88-08 164th Stloct
Jarntrica. NY 11432
Thank you for your lime and cooperation. Please call the Verizon Consumer Sales and
Service Center at 890-1350 if you havc any krther yucstions.
P. Francisque
Quality Specialist
CC: Public Servicc Commission

m

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Barbara Steimel, regarding
various charges on her telephone bill.

charge by the government; it’s a federally-regulated charge collected by local phone companies

1- 1
Enclosed is information to further assist Ms. Steimel in understanding the charges on

her telephone bill. The Commission has available an e-mail service designed to apprise
parties on Commission regulatory proposals. This free service enables consumers to subscribe
and receive FCC fact sheets, consumer brochures and alerts, and public notices, among other
consumer information. To subscribe, an individual would send an e-mail to
subscribe@info.fcc.gov and in either the subject line or body of the message put: subscribe
fcc-consumer-info first name last name (substitute their first and last name, for example,
“subscribe fcc-consumer-info John Doe”).

TELL-FCC) or “Fax on Demand” at 202-418-2830. Information on telephone-related issues
can also be accessed via the Internet. The Commission’s Home Page is located at
http://www.fcc.aov.
questions.
Sincerely,
-j!%.$w-ol.,g
3~K. Dane Snowden
Chief
Enclosures
‘ i I’ T
NEW YORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
October 15,2003

Chairman
Dear Mr. Powell:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Sudhir Deodhar of Chestnut Ridge, New York.
' telephone
Mr. Deodhar advises me that he is experiencing difficulty with Verizon Wwles++
services.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/EL-CB
August 22,2003
From: Sudhir Deodhar

16 Demarest Rd
Chestniut Ridge, NY 10977
Dear Senator Hillary Clinton,
Subject: Non workina telephone ## 845-627-1333 since Auaust 8, 2003
My home telephone has not been working since August 08,2003. I informed ATT, my local and
long distance carrier, on the same day and was told that a Verizon technician would take care of
the problem on or before 7:OO pm on August 12,2003.
The Verizon technician reported on August 14115, 2003, that there was no problem with the line
on the outside and that the problem was in the internal wiring from the NID box into my house.
1 called ATT on August 16,2003, and scheduled a visit by an ATT technician to check the
internal wiring on August 20, 2003 between 8:OO am and 12 noon. The technician came on the
appointed day at about 8:30 am and found that there was no dial tone at the NID box and
consequently the question of checking the internal wiring was moot.
I have rescheduled a repeat visit by a Verizon technician on the August 25, 2003 and I dont
expect the problem to be resolved.
I am literally at my wits end, hence this letter to you. I have a 87 year old handicapped
mother who lives with me and who relies on a landline phone to connect to Companion
Emergency Response Systems Inc., 172 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 in case a
medical emergency. I would kindly request you to look into this matter and do the needful.
I switched from Verizon to A I T in April 2003 and I understandthat Verizon employees are
negotiating a contract with their management. I dont know if those could be contributingfactors
to the non resolution of my problem. I also understandthat either the Federal and/or State laws
have mandated that the local network repair will be handled by Verizon in New York.
Th$nking you,
, L 4
L/L .(L',fILv t ;$on,
Sudhir Deodhar
NOV 3 2003
Control No. 0303 137/kah

780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Sudhir Deodhar, regarding
certain concerns about his basic telephone service provided by AT&T.

calls that do not pass through state boundaries, however, are subject to the rules of state public
utility commissions. The subject of Mr. Deodhar’s correspondence indicates that it is under
the jurisdiction of the state of New York. Therefore, we have forwarded copies of his
correspondence to the New York State Public Service Commission, Empire State Plaza,
Agency Building 3, Albany, NY 12223-1350 for its review and appropriate action.
Mr. Deodhar may contact them toll free at 1-800-342-3377or visit their web site
www .dps.state.ny .us.
Although we cannot assist Mr. Deodhar at this time, letters from consumers such as
Mr. Deodhar’s provide valuable information that may be used to develop or support
Commission initiatives for consumers. We appreciate your inquiry. Please do not hesitate to
Sincerely,
Chief
cc: New York State Public Service Commission
T
NEW YORK
SENATOR
A SUITE 476
October 17,2003

Chairman
Dear Mr. Powell:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Jeremy Feldman of New York, New York. Mr.
Feldman would like to be updated on the progress of his case with the FCC.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/EL-CB
Y
]eremy C. Feldman
8/5/03
Senator Hilary Clinton

Re: AT&T Consumer Billing Complaint
As one of your constituents, I am hoping you can help with the following matter. I
imagine that it affects every AT&T customer in New York State.
Attached please find a letter I have sent to the Consumer Services Division of the NYS
Department of Public Servi;ce a well as the Informal Complaints Branch of the Federal
Communications Commissiion regarding a new 99 cent per month "Regulatory
Assessment Fee" that appea,.ed cn my current AT&T bill.
I would appreciate it if you cc Ublso look into this matter. I find the whole thing an
outrageous affront to consumei 'S ad a back ended attempt to put pressure on state
governments to lower their r e i ,ulatey fees. If AT&T has a dispute with state
governments and localities, th;, v;h< 'Id fight that battle with them, not consumers.
Surely there are laws and regulation'; against this sort of thing!
Sincerely,
: ,; . .. . ... .
Jeremy C. Feldman
8/5/03
Consumer Services Division

NYS Department of Public Service
3 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12223
Re: AT&T Consumer Billing Complaint
Dear Sir or Madame:
I am an AT&T dial-up long distance customer (I receive my local service from Verizon).
My current bill came with the following notice:
Beginning on or after July 1,2003, your bill will include a 99 cent

per month Regulctory Assessment Fee. This fee will help AT&T recover
the following costs: interstate access charges; regulatory compliance
and proceedings costs and property taxes. This fee applies for each
month in which you have any AT&T charges on your bill. This fee is not
a tax or charge required by the government. For more information,
please call 1-800-854-9940 or visit us at www.att.com/reg.
I called the number and an AT&T representative told me that property taxes on AT&T
land lines assessed by local governments had increased to such an extent that they
were forced to pass these costs,e;i to consumers. I don't buy this explanation at all.
In my opinion, instead of raising rates, which they feel would be competitive suicide,
AT&T is simply assessing this charge as a way of increasing profits and hoping
consumers won't notice.
However, I have noticed. My current long distance bills with AT&T average $10
per month. An additional 99 cent fee'represents a 20% increase on my bill. This is
outrageous and should not be permitted. Furthermore, I do not believe that AT&T,
or any of its competitors, should be allowed to assess a charge aimed at recouping
regulatory fees charged by local governments. This is simply the cost of doing
business and should be factored into their per minute rate charges. After all, it makes it
extremely difficult for consumers to compare rates among long distance telephone
companies if a company is allowed to assess an additional fee after the fact.
- . As the regulatory body overseeing consumer telecommunications services, I expect-
no demand-that you stop this immediately.
Sincerely
Jeremy C. Feldman
cc: Senator Hilary Clinton

Senator Charles Schumer
Representative Jerrold Nadler
Governor George Pa ta ki
Speaker Sheldon Silver
New York State Attorney General
Elliot Spitzer
NOV 3 2003
New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Jeremy Feldman, regarding the
Regulatory Assessment Fee on his telephone bill.
On September 17, 2003, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed AT&T
information. Enclosed is a copy of the company’s response. In their response, AT&T
explains their position to Mr. Feldman.
A Regulatory Fee is collected by the Commission annually from wireline service

providers to recover the annual costs of our enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user
information, and international activities. This action is taken in accordance with Public Law
103-66, “The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.’’ The FCC Regulatory Fee is not a
tax; it is collected from individual service providers, many of which elect to pass the charges
along to their customers in the form of a charge on their phone bills. The FCC’s rules permit,
but do not require service providers to pass the charge to their customers. It appears that AT&T
has made the business decision to recover its 2002 regulatory fee assessments from its
customers.
Enclosed is a copy of the Public Notice concerning regulatory fees. We hope that
Mr. Feldman finds the information helpful in further understanding the charges. We also
invite Mr. Feldman to visit the Commission’s web site to find additional information
on commercial wireless issues and regulatory fees at http://www.fcc.gov and
http://www.fcc.,qov/fees/rep;fees.html#notices.
Sincerely,
K. Dane Snowden -‘J

Chief
Enclosure
T- .
OCT.29.2003 9:32RM N0.395 P.2/3
Margaret R. Berm 4’12 I\nt. KO- Aven~e

Distrlct Manegsr P.O. Box I895
MopktOW, NJ 07962
(908) 221-6400
October 13,2003

Consumer and G~vemmentAffairs Bureau
445 IZ*Street, sw
CYB.523
Re: JeremyFeldman
IC-03-1005 5043
Type: (NOIC)
Notice of Informal Complaint dated September 17,2003
Dear Analyst:
This is in response to the referaced Notice of Momd Complaint.. Mr. Feldman is upset
about the reegulatory assessment fee and does not accept AT&T’s explanation of it,
Kay Dresel, an AT&T representatve, investigated Mr, Feldman’s FCC complaint. On

September 23,2003,Mrs. Dresel sent Mr. Feldman a letter after unsuccesshl attempts of
reaching him by telephone. The letter explained AT&T’s position, The letter also provided
contact information should Mr. F e l b have additional concerns.
We trust this provides your office with the information required in this matter.
Sincerely,
cc: Jeremy Feldman

/sb 573066
- ,
OCT.29.2083 9:32FIM N0.395 P.313
Septer I 3 ZT 23,2003
Jet.em!i Feldman
AFit 7-::
170Pa kRow
New 1':tik, NY 10038-1102
Dear h. :. Feldman:
This lei c r is in response K,your concems filed with the Federal Communicationcomnussl ' 'on regarding the
AT&T L )ng Distance account, Please accept my pessonal apologies for any inconveniencesyou may havc
e-xperir!;I( ed in your effbrts to resolve this issue. I appreciate the opptwity to be of assistanCe.
Bcginr i 3 on July 1,2003, your bill included a $0.99 per month -latory Assessment Pee. This fee helps .
AT&T e :over the costs assooiatcd with mtustate BECCSS chesgea, regulatory oompliance, proceedingscosts and
pmpen axes. This fee applies for each month in which you have any AT&T charges on your bill. This fee is
not a tz . IT charge required by the government. In the competitive CnViroMnenf we are in, we cannot continue to
absorb Y :Be costs.
The Re L latory Assessment Fee appears as 8 separater line item m the "Other charges and Credits" section of the
long di L ncc portion of your bill. If you do not have any AT&T ahzages in any given month, you will not be
ass,sssei I he fee for that month,
If you 'e more than one phone line and each phone line i s maintainedaa a separate account, each bill you
1117
sea:ive 'c r those accounts will be subjectto the fee. However, ifthey are consolidatedonto one bill, the charges
will be c mbined, and the fee will apply only to that bill. Plcasc call 1-800-782-2177 and we d
I lcombine your
calling i*b arges onto one long distanuc bill. For additional information, you can aocess our website at
w w . a v J .am/reg.
AT&T i;F prcciates the time you have t&m to ahare YOU ~omments,wbicb will be fully documented and
fonvartl,:rI to the appropriate AT&T office. Although it is understood that you may disagree with ATgtT's
positioii: i t is my hope tbis letter provides an explanationof the fee. Should you have additional questions or
concent ,please feel free to contact me at (800) 8484158, extension 3240 or by e-mil, kdreseI@ems.atoom.
Kay Drr. it 1
ATikT. ' B xutive Appeals Manager
NEWYORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-224-4451
October 24,2003

Chairman
Dear Mr. Powell:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Ben Blumenberg of Brooklyn, New York. Mr.
Blumenberg advises me that he is starting a non-profit medical organization and needs assistance
in securing an FCC license in order to set up his agency.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
&llty (;bceru,ca;ihn,
HRC/EL-CB
F R O M THE DESK O F
BEN BLUMENEERG
5204 1 gTHAVENUE
BROOKLYN. NY 1 1 2 0 4
PHONE 718.8547933
\
August 29,2003
The Honorable Senator Clinton,
The proposed organization will be strictly non-profit and volunteer run.
I would like to start off by congratulating you on the fine work you have done
since reaching the Senate. I am pleased that we now have a strong voice who isn't scared
of speaking the truth for the people of New York. I would like to present you with a
background of myself before I pronounce my proposal.
I am a certified EM" who has served New York City, voluntarily, for the past 8
years. I currently volunteer at Lutheran Medical Center as a member of their Trauma
Team.
When I began volunteering, I joined Shorefiont Community Volunteer
Ambulance Service, of Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, donating my services to the
community. I was shortly thereafter elected treasurer. During the 28 years that
Shorefiont has valuably served its community, its dedicated volunteers worked together
with the NYPD, FDNY and EMS services. Shorefront has not only served its community
in Sheepshead Bay, but has served its surrounding communities, such as Manhattan
Beach, Gravesend, Marine Park, Midwood, and Coney Island. Unfortunately, in 1997,
Shorefront had to close its doors due to inefficient leadership.
Currently, a few of the l& elected board members of Shorefiont, including
myself, (who at the time of Shoreeont's demise, had attempted to keep it alive, but
unfortunately were overruled by the other persons in position of leadership) and
numerous former members, are interested in establishing a volunteer ambulance
servicehescue squad to provide assistance in time of need to our community and to the
people of the city of New York. At the present time, we have over 60 people who have
expressed serious interest in joining. All of them are highly trained and experienced and
hold one or more of the following certifications that include, but are not limited to: EMT,
paramedics, doctor, rescue diver, and search and rescue.
We propose to set up an organization to, first, replace what the communities lack
by the demise of numerous volunteer ambulance organizations in the recent years. We
further believe, to the unfortunate circumstances that has let the city be on a high level of
alert, there is a lack and a great need €or an organization that is able to provide assistance
above the level of a traditional volunteer ambulance service, that has been limited to
emergency medical assistance and krther limited to a specific area of operation. Our
proposal is to set up a citywide rescue squad that, with cooperation of existing emergency
services, will respond and assist the people of the city with a broad range of emergency
services, which would include but not be limited to emergency medical aid, search and
rescue, water incidents, WMD.
BEN BLUMENBERG
5204 1 gTHAVENUE
BROOKLYN, N Y 1 1 2 0 4
P H O N E 715.8547933 CELL 917-776.1 1 1 9
August 29,2003
The Honorable Senator Clinton,
The proposed organization will be strictly non-profit and volunteer run.
I would like to start off by congratulating you on the fine work you have done
since reaching the Senate. I am pleased that we now have a strong voice who isn’t scared
of speaking the truth for the people of New York. I would like to present you with a
background of myself before I pronounce my proposal.
I am a certified EMT who has served New York City, voluntarily, for the past 8
years. I currently volunteer at Lutheran Medical Center as a member of their Trauma
Team.
When I began volunteering, I joined Shorefront Community Volunteer
community. I was shortly thereafter elected treasurer. During the 28 years that
Shorefront has valuably served its community, its dedicated volunteers worked together
with the NYPD, FDNY and EMS services. Shorefront has not only served its community
Beach, Gravesend, Marine Park, Midwood, and Coney Island. Unfortunately, in 1997,
Shorefront had to close its doors due to inefficient leadership.
Currently, a few of the last elected board members of Shorefront, including
myself, (who at the time of Shorefiont’s demise, had attempted to keep it alive, but
unfortunately were overruled by the other persons in position of leadership) and
serviceh-escuesquad to provide assistance in time of need to our community and to the
people of the city of New York At the present time, we have over 60 people who have
expressed serious interest in joining. All of them are highly trained and experienced and
hold one or more of the following certifications that include, but are not limited to: EMT,
paramedics, doctor, rescue diver, and search and rescue.
by the demise of numerous volunteer ambulance organizations in the recent years. We
hrther believe, to the unfortunate circumstances that has let the city be on a high level of
alert, there is a lack and a great need for an organization that is able to provide assistance
emergency medical assistance and fbrther limited to a specific area of operation. Our
services, will respond and assist the people of the city with a broad range of emergency
services, which would include but not be limited to emergency medica1 aid, search and
b9/29/2003 17:10 1-888-766-5315 WATER ESTATES MANAG
FROM THE
B E N BLUM
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To! FROM
The Honorable €€dayClinton Ben Blumenberg
COMPANY RATE,
9@'f/03
FAX NUMBER. T'OTAb NO.O F PAGES WCLUDXNG COVBR
9g'-YJi-OlX - 03
PHONE WlJMBE;R SENDER'S RSPQRBNCE NUMBEE
5 2 0 4 l(jTH A V E N U E
BROOKLYN, N,Y. 11204
PwnhiTp. f 7 1 Q~ ~~ A - ~ O CX P~T T . 1 9 1 7 ) 7 7 6 - 1 1 1 4
09/29/2aa3 17: io 1-888-766-5315 WATER ESTATES MANkG PAGE a2
BEN BLUMENBERG
5204 1 6THAVENUE
BROOKLYN, NY 1 1204
PHONE 7IemBS47933 CELL 917.776.1 1 19
September IO, 2003
The Honorable Senator ClintoR
The proposd organizationwill be stridy non-profit and voluntm m.
1 w d d &e to start off by conptuhting you on the fine work you have done
since reaching the Senate. I am pleased that we now have B strong voice who isn’t s m d
of speaking the truth for the people of New York 1wodd W e to present you wjth a
background ofmyself before I pmnomw my proposal.
I a certifiedEMT who has served New Yo& City, voluntarily, fbr the past 8
years. I cumntiy vohrxteer at L3tthesan Medica1 Center as a member oftheir Trauma
Team.
When 1began volunteering, I joined Shorefioat Cornunity Voluntm
community. I was shortly there-after elected treasurer. During the 23 years that
Shorefkont has valuably saved its comunity, its dedicated voIunteers worked together
with the Nypp, FDNY and EMS serv;ices. Shoreeont has not only served its community
Beacb, Gravesend, Marine Park, Midwood, and Coney Island. Unfortunately, in 1997,
Shorefiont had to dose its doors due to inefficient I&ership.
Currently, a few ofthe last elected board members of Shorefkont, including
myselc (who at the time of Shoref?ont’s demise, had attempted to keep it alive, but
unfortunately were ovemled by the other persons in position of leadership) and
service/rescue squad to provide assistance in time ofneed to our community and to the
people of the chy ofNew York At the present time, we have over 60 people who have
expressed serious interest in joining. N1 of them are highly trained and experienced and
hold one or more of the following certifications that include, but are not tirnited toaEMT,
paramedics, doctor, rescxe diver, and search and rescue,
by the demise o f numerous volunteer ambulance organizatiow in the recent years. We
fitrther believe, to the unfortunate circumstances that has let the city be on a high level of
alert, there is a lack and a great need for an organization that is able to provide assistance
emergency medica! assistance and fimher limited to a specific area of operation Our
services,will respond and assist the people ofthe city with a broad range of emergency
services, which would include but not be limited to emergency medical aid, search and
PAGE a3
WATER ESTATES MANAG
The obstacles in o w path that we are requesting assistance for are the following;
I) A volunteer smbulmce charter, which is issued by the state, to operate

ambulances and emergency medical personnel, which would be required as a beginning
to our proposed organization.
2) There me numerous grants, fixnding, and assistanceh m federal, state and
local orgwhtions, to set up and opaate an organization as we proposed. In ow
~ n v ~ ~ with o nnumerows
s community leaders, we have received good feedback
regarding their assistance in raising funds for the operation OFsuch a praposed
organization. However, the issue at hand i s the a-I setting up of this organization
which wd1 require facilities for a base to provide dispatchin& parking and storage.
Further, we would need &stance in FCC licensing to operate ow communications. The
set-up ibr our clcrmmunicatiom would require a base ststtion, repesters md hand held
radios for our members. Further, we would need 2 ambulances and 1 rescue truck, aad as
mentioned, them me agencies that provide such.
1 therefore put my f a in you to assist us with this matter. I know that your
supporters, c o l l ~fiends,
, votem, and the communities we Will. serve, wfil look upon
this act as a shadow of your kindness to the people you serve.
Finally7we request the honor that you accept our CYBX

to sit on OUT board of
directors.
1would greatly appceciate it if you, or the person you haad this over to, would
contact me at the above phone numbers.
Thank you.
Sincerelv.
Congressional 0303427
Closed by telephone 12/01/03
To: OLA
From: IHMlTB
Assigned to: PS/PWD

Received From: Dana Davis-Howell
Ivy, Per Constituent, Ben Blumenberg, he does not need the assistance of the FCC at this
time. The Congressional office should be helping him obtain a charter first. Talked to
Christina Bialek, aid at Congressional office who is handling case, who said there was a
misunderstanding about the inquiry. Per our telephone conversation, the case is closed. Eva
NLW Y QRK
SENATOR
RUSSELLsewn UFFICE nuIiniNc
sum 476
WASiINGTON. OC lMlIWZD1
201 2244.157
WASHINGTON. DC 2051 0-3204
February 11,2004
The Ronorable Michael Powcll

Chainman
Federal Communications Conimission
445 Twelfih Street, N.W.
414
Dear Mr. Powell:
I am wn'ting to request that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) carefully
considcr the potcntial results of alterations in competitive local exchangc carrier access rates. T
understand that the FCC is reviewing a petition pursuing access rate clianges related to the 2001
'Benchmark Order.
PAETEC Communications, Inc. (PAETEC) has contacted my offce regarding the

petition. PAETEC is a competitive local cxchangc carrier that is headquartered in Fairport,
New York and employs more than 500 people in New York. PAETEC estimates that i t serves
more than 10,000 business, cducational and governmental organizations.
PAETEC has informed my office that precipitous or retroactive rate changes may upset
PAETEC's reliance on the Benchmark Order, negatively affect PAETEC's forecasted 2004
revenue, causejob loss, and affect cwtomexs of wireless providers who utilize PAETEC's
smites to pennit these customers to make long-distance calls.
I would appreciate your review of these issues and look forward to your prompt response.
'Ifyou have any questions, please contact Ani1 Kakani in my office at 202-224-8697.
Sincerely yours,
Hill4~Rodham Clinton
/11/4UU4 1Z:Ul FAA Z U Z 224 156U SENATOR CLINTON
SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

OF N E W Y O R K
HAC S I M I LE TRAN S MIT '1' A L S I-IE ET

3
'1'0: FLOM
chairmanPowcll Senator Clinton
COW ANY: UATR
2/11/04
FAX NUMBER: 'I'O'l'hL NO. OF PACES INCLUDING COVER:
2024182601 2
PHONE NUML(Uk SENDER'S REfi&.WN(:II NUWERI
4 7 6 RUSSELL S E N A T E O P F I C R H U I L D I N C , W A S I I I N O ' I ' O ND C . 205111

(11' '1'HERE A R E A N Y P R O D L E M S W I ' I ' I I 'THE T R A N S M I S S I O N O F THIS F A X , PLEASE
CONTACT hI.ICli PUSHKAR A'I' 2 0 2 - 2 2 4 - 2 9 3 1 )
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN March 15,2004

Thank you for your letter of February 11,2004, expressing concern that changes to
competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC") access rates could cause detrimental financial
effects for some CLECs, such as PAETEC Communications, Inc., that relied on the benchmark
rates set by the Commission in April 2001.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. The Commission has a pending proceeding in
which we are considering possible changes to, or clarification of, our rules governing CLEC
access charges. Through numerous meetings and written submissions, the Commission has
developed a substantial record that reflects many of the concerns expressed in your letter. I
assure you that the Commission will take these concerns into consideration in any decision
affecting CLEC access rates. Your letter will be placed in the record in CC Docket No. 96-262.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Michael K. Powell
B
3/29/04 18:42 FAX 212 692 0148 Sen. Clinton-NY Main
!
U N I T E DSTATES
HILLARYRODHAM CLINTCIN
780 THIRD AVENUE, S U I T E 2601
NEW Y O R K , NEW YORK 1 0 0 1 7
P H O N E : 2 1 2-688-6262 FAX: 2 1 2-223-8496
1 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET :5

TO: FROM
DianaAtkinson Eric LoVecchro
COMPANY DATE
FCC -Congressional Affairs 29 MARCH 2004
FAX NUMBER: T v r u NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER. 9
202-418-2806
RE
URGENT a FOR REVIEW PLEASE COMMENT ' PLEASE REPLY
PLEASE SEE A'ITACHED. EL.
This facsimile is intended only for use of the addressee(s) named herein and may contain privileged and/'
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this facsimile, you are hereby notified that any disser
distribution or copying of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error,
immediately notify us by telephone and return the original facsimile to us at the address above via the lor
service.
P R I N T TIME MAR. 29, 6:26PM

03/29/04 18:42 FAX 212 692 0148 Sen. Clinton-NY Main

NLWYORK
SENATOR
RUSSELL SENATE OFFICC BUILDING
Unitcii StateB Senatt

SUITE 476
WASIINGTON, DC 20510-3204
202-224-4451
March 29,2004
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms.Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter fiom my constituent, Gail Morgan of Sherburne, New 1;' xk. She is
having difficulties reinstating an account with T-Mobile.
I would appreciate your reviewing the idormation that h& been presented ii nd providing

New York,New York 10017-2024
Your cooperation and assistance are greatly appreciated. I look forward to I iearing from
you soon.
Sincerely yours,
Phone: (212) 688-6262

Fax: (212) 688-7444
HRCEL-ah
PRINT TIME MAR, 29. 6:26PM

UUUJ
TO: 1212688741114 PAGE: 0 1
.._. ..... -.... . . ._ .__--.. ._----. .--.-. ................... -. ........
t
.......... ._-,
.... _.._. . . . ,..-. .... ............. ....... ._.-.. -.-, ,. . ,..-_-.. . ,_... . . . . . . . .
i
--,. , .. &- ,< ,"
......
-
...... ,_." .......
..-,... ........ -
....
. ...
...........
. _:
...-.
.....
.... ....... I._ .. ... . .. .- ....
.---.-... . . i
I .^_ . 0.d____
_._. % only m a t h - klho ,
--.- -- . !h--,-.-.- -... _. cw=RL-d

..... . - . _ . . f34-F%.me&iw,cJ
R E C E I V E D T I M E MAR. 29, 6 : 2 3 P M P R I N T TIME MAR, 29. 6:26PM
....
03/29/04
.
...
.v.
...
.v.
...
.
18:43 FAX 212 692 0148
v.
...
-8,- v.
..-- - . .
..v. . . . . .
.
- - I -
Sen. Clinton-NY Main
-, t7 .
.
005
..
.
. .
.. ---- ___._--.- . ........ .
- .._... . . ..........
........
..... I. .. ......
. .
I . -. . , ..&ail L - m~rgclr,4
...
I
I . . '. PO&^
P.bBox 46
..A. II
. .
II
.. .'LA' ..._....... .
...... . _._.... . , .
. -..
RECEIVED TIME MAR, 29. 6:23PM P R I N T T I M E MAR. 29. 6:26PM
I
I
I
6-m
0 '
3
iL
I _- ...
R E C E I V E D TIME MAR. 29. 6:23PM PRINT TIME MAR. 29. 6:26PM

03/29/04 18.43 F A X 212 692 0148 Sen. Clinton-NY Main @0I0 8
24-05-04 l! :01
RECEIVED T I M E MAR. 29, 6 : 2 3 P M P R I N T T I M E MAR. 29. 6:26PM

18:44 FAX 212 692 0148 Sen. Clinton-NY Main la 009
S : S l FR0M:MORTS M:36 HOUSES 6076742717
;WWT OT i ~ m wia:
Thank \
Please COM
l272,68
1272.59
1300,OO
27.41
Thenk You
Please come again!
RECEIVED T I M E MAR. 29. 6:23PM P R I N T T I M E MAR. 29. 6:26PM

APR 1 9 2004
Control No. 0400978MA

New York, NY 10017-2024
Dear Congresswoman Clinton:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Gail Morgan, regarding
the problem she is experiencing with her son's cellular phone service provider, T-Mobile.
inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Ms. Morgan to T-Mobile and
directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed the
company to send Ms. Morgan a copy of the response that the company submits to the
Commission. Ms. Morgan may obtain information regarding her complaint by writing to the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division, 445
12'h Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC (TTY
users: 1-888-TELL-FCC). Ms. Morgan should mention her informal complaint number IC
04-10091424 and the congressional tracking number indicated at the top of this letter to
facilitate a prompt response to her inquiry.
questions.
Sincerely,
-
K. Dane Snowden
Chief
. . - .
T
NEW YORK
SEN A T 0 R

SUITE 476
202-224-4451
March 12,2004
Mr. K. Dane Snowden

Chief
Dear Mr. Snowden:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Ms. Lauren McAllister of Blauvelt, New York.
Ms. McAllister advises me that she has concerns with a wireless phone that she purchased from
Sprint PCS.

780 Thud Avenue, Suite 2601
you soon.
Sincerely yours,
Phone: (212) 688-6262

Fax: (212) 688-7444
3 ,
HRC/el-sr
i if ' ' t "
4. ' '. , .
4 -
54 Lauren A. McAllister
188 Burrows Lane
Blauvelt, New York 10913
845-398-0077
October 6,2003

Senate Office Building

Thought you might be interested in helping with a problem concerning Sprint
PCS and their current treatment of a soldier currently serving in Iraq:
.
9 Mobile #: (315) 489-4423 Account #: 0141756585
Purchased on 8/24/03, First Invoice 8/27/03, Attempts to resolve problem
911 9103-9/24/03, Second Invoice 9/26/03
The cellular phone was purchased from the Sprint PCS store in
Watertown, N.Y. (outside Fort Drum). My fiance, Brian Domitrovits, approached
the Sprint store twice to seek information regarding a cellular phone with service
in Iraq because he was being shipped to Iraq on September 1,2003. A Sprint
representative, Angel Perry, verified twice that Sprint PCS provided cellular
service on the analog setting in Iraq. There were four people present to hear this
statement; Pvt. Brian Domitrovits, Monique Mendez, John Domitrovits, and I
(witness statements attached). Therefore, a Samsung A620 phone was purchased,
in my name, for my fiance.
The phone was used in Fort Drum, N.Y. prior to Pvt. Domitrovits leaving
for Iraq for about 250-300 minutes.
I received a letter from Pvt. Domitrovits stating that the phone was not
working and asking if I could contact Sprint to ask what the problem was. The
mail coming from and going to Iraq takes about 3 weeks.
Upon speaking with numerous Sprint Customer Service Representatives, a
Sprint Executive-Barbara McKay, and Jane a manager at the Sprint Store in
Watertown, N.Y., I have found out that there is no service in Iraq and in fact,
there never was. However, Sprint is adamantly denying that the verification of
service in Iraq ever happened and that Pvt.Domitrovits “insisted that there was
service in Iraq.” I cancelled the account with Sprint on Sunday, September 2 1,
2003 with a Customer Service Representative, Joe, who stated that the
cancellation fee would be waived due to the false circumstances which the
contract was signed. On October 4,2003, I received another bill from Sprint for
$146.60. This recent bill states that I am being charged a $150.00 cancellation
fee. They did however include a $25.00 account credit. (See attached bill.)
Due to my busy schedule consisting of college and work, I was unable to
spend the hours necessary on the phone with Sprint. Therefore, my mother,
Margaret McAllister, was gracious enough to speak to them while I was in school.
After I gave permission to Sprint that allowed them to speak to my mother
regarding this matter, they briefly obliged and then suddenly refused to discuss
any further matters with her.
Briefly, the blame is being put on Pvt. Domitrovits and myself for a
mistake made by the Sprint representative/compmy. In total, $238.92 was lost
and $1 18.87 pending, to Sprint for a cellular phone that will never serve its
purpose to provide a soldier with the comforts of calling home. (See attached
bills.)
I will pay for the minutes used by Pvt. Domitrovits prior to his leave for
Iraq, other than that I want a refund for the activation fees, additional fees and the
phone. I understand that a refund cannot be given for a phone that is not in the
country. Packages are not allowed to be sent from the soldiers to their families
due to the laws of war at this time.
When Pvt. Domitrovits returns fkom Iraq, tentatively March 2004, I would
like him to exchange the Samsung A620 for a complete refund to his credit card
account for $175.41. If the shipping rules change and he is allowed to send the
phone back to me, I will gladly return it to the closest Sprint PCS store in
exchange for a full refund. I have the original receipt, all included materials such
as the instruction manuals, paper work, the bag that it was sold in, and the credit
card that purchased it.
The Sprint PCS 14-Day Return Policy should not pertain to this dilemma
and the contract should be considered void, simply because the phone was sold to
us under false pretences and the mail from Iraq takes about 3 weeks to receive.
Had I known the phone would not work I would never have purchased it.
Sprint PCS has decided that the case is closed and the awarded refund of
$25.00, which I have still not received because it was credited to a bill that I
should not be paying, is sufficient to cover this awful mess. This company has
shown no remorse for this horrible mistake and in fact, has treated me with a huge
amount of disrespect, offensiveness (see attached statements made by the Sprint
Store Manager), lies, and nonsense.
I am pleading for your help with this highly unfortunate situation. I am
appalled that a company would treat its customers and a United States Soldier in
this fashion.
Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.
Lauren A. McAllister
cc: President George W. Bush
Sen. Charles Schumer
Rep. Eliot Engel
i
Gov. George Pat& I
State Sen. Thomas Morahan

Assemblyman Alexander J. Gromack
Assemblyman Ryan Karben
Federal Communications Comission I
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer #
I
I
c
10/05/03
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
MY NAME IS JOHN DOMITROVITS AND I WAS PRESENT WHEN BRIAN PURCHASED THE
PHONE WTH SPRINT; WITH THE PLAN. WHEN WE ENTERED THE STORE WE WERE
APPROACHED BY THE SALESWOMAN AND SHE ASKED EF WE “NEEDED HELP”. BRIAN
SAID “HE WAS LEAVING FOR IRAQ AND HE NEEDED A PHONE THAT WILL WORK WHILE
HE WAS THERE”. SHE SAID l?dAT “SPRINT HAS TOWERS IN IRA0 BUT NOT IN KUWAIT’
SHE ALSO SAID THAT “SHE KNEW SOMEONE WHO WAS IN IRAQ THAT WAS ABLE TO USE
HIS PHONE” AND “THAT WAS THE PHONE THAT THEY (SPRINT) WAS SELLING TO ALL THE
SOLDIERS THAT CAME IN”. SHE RAN A CREDIT CHECK AND SAID THE CREDIT WAS
“EXCELLENT”. SHE THEN S A I D SHE HAD “A PHONE THAT JUST CAME IN AND WAS AN
UPGRADE OF ANOTHER PHONE THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT”. HE ASKED IF IT “WILL STILL
WORK IN IRAO” AND SHE SAID “YES”.
D AT: 1-9 14-3 10-4209

“Your mother said that the whole No, she did not.
platoon came in here.”
“The phone is in your name so Brian Angel Perry should have informed me of
shouldn’t have taken it out of the this “rule” when I purchased the phone.
country.”
“The note from a customer The phone is in Iraq, there is no way that
representative says you tried to exchange I can exchange it.
the phone in a store near you. This leads
me to believe that you have the phone.”
“Angel Perry has two witnesses that she We did not discuss this with any other
told Brian the phone would not work in representatives; the one other
Iraq.” representative was helping another
customer.
“He’s supposed to be fighting a war
wouldn’t you rather he does that than be This is none of her concern and is
on the phone?” absolutely out of line.
“He’s not supposed to have cell phone

equipment over there anyway.’’ This is untrue.
“The cell phone would work on roaming -As per Customer Service, the phone
in Kuwait.” will never work outside of the U.S. He
was in Kuwait for 2 days; it did not
“Someone called here claiming to be the work.
FBI saying something about a criminal -I do not know what the FBI sounds like
offense. It didn‘t sound like the FBI.” and do not know who and if anyone
called them.
“Your account whs credited for $25.00
that is all that we can do.” Out of $238.92
“I will not give a refund for a phone that When the phone returns with the soldier,
is not here.” I want a refund.
“Did you pay for the phone? Then this How I paid for the phone is not her
doesn’t affect you.” concern. The phone is in my name.
“I can’t return the money to you.” I want his credit card refunded, not
giving me the money.
“As far as I’m concerned we’ve done all
we can for you.” Under false pretences, if we had the
proper information we would not have
“You signed a contract that says you purchased the phone.
won’t get activation fees back.”
“Brianinsisted the phone would work in No, he did not. Why would he
Iraq.” purposely waste his money?
“Why didn’t he take his other cellular Nextel answered us honestly and stated
phone with him?’ that they did not have service in Iraq.
“There are enough opportunities for This is not her judgment to make.
them to call home.”
Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. If you are able andor willing to help us,
please contact me and I will gladly send the necessary billing information and contract.
APR 8 2004

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Lauren McAllister, regarding
her fiance, Pq. Brian Domitrovits’ concerns about a billing dispute and the return of cellular
phone handset equipment provided by Sprint PCS.
On December 3, 2003, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau conducted a

priority review of your complaint, which was previously submitted directly to the Commission.
We forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Ms. McAllister to Sprint PCS and directed the
company to responds to the complaint within 30 days. Enclosed is a copy of the response we
received. Sprint PCS states it had previously addressed and resolved Ms. McAllister’s
complaint on December 1, 2003. According to Sprint PCS, it had extended the return date for
Pvt. Brian Domitrovitis’ Samsung A620 handset equipment from December 2003 until January
30, 2004, and that a refund in the amount of $238.92 would be processed if the equipment is
returned in good working condition.
The goal of the FCC’s informal complaint process is to make it easier for consumers to
file complaints regarding telecommunications services and for the service providers to act to
satisfy complaints. The informal complaint process also helps to ensure that the actions of the
companies are not violating any applicable Commission rules and lets the telecommunications
companies know how customers feel about practices and policies that may be detrimental to the
consumer.
We had hoped that our involvement would have assisted in the dialogue between
Ms. McAllister and Sprint PCS to resolve her concerns. However, because the actions of the
company do not appear to violate any applicable rule or order of the Commission, we will
consider this matter to be closed, 47 CFR 9 1.717.
T
If Ms. McAllister is not satisfied with the service provider's response to the informal
complaint, or with the staff's disposition of her complaint the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR
51.720, provide that a formal complaint may be filed as prescribed. We have enclosed
information on how to proceed in filing a Formal Complaint with the Commission.
Ms. McAllister may also choose to continue to work directly with Sprint PCS to
resolve her complaint or, as in a contractual dispute, take civil action. We appreciate your
concern in this matter and regret any frustration this has caused. If you have any questions or
require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
K. Dane Snowden u
Chief
Enclosures
I T
Sprint PCS
Executive Services
P.O. Box 8077
London, KY 40712
December 9,2003

Consumer Information Bureau
Consumer Information Network Division
445 1 2 ‘ ~Street, sw
Re: Sprint PCS Account, Lauren A. McAllister

FCC Referral Name-Lauren Mcallister
IC 03-10069830
To Whom It May Concern:
The inquiry referenced above has been forwarded for my review. We appreciate your
assistance in bringing our customers’ concerns to our attention, I am pleased to inform
you that Ms. McAllister’s issue has been addressed and was resolved on December 1,
2003.
1 have enclosed a copy of the letter sent to Ms. McAllister outlining the actions we have
taken. If you have any hrther questions, you can reach me by calling the Executive
Services Department toll-free at 1-866-519-5698. I am available Monday through Friday
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Central Time.
Sincerely,
Barbara McKay
Executive Analyst
.- .
T
Sprint,
7 Sprint PCS
Executive Services
P.O. Box 8077
London, KY 40712
December 1,2003
Lauren A. McAllister
188 Burrows Lane
Blauvelt, NY 10913-1303
Re: Sprint PCS Account 0141756585

PSC File 20031021-103250-CD
AGO File WSR03AOlS82
Dear Ms. McAllister:
Thank you for your follow-up inquiry, responding to my November 18,2003,

correspondence. It is again my pleasure to address your handset rehnd concerns. I
apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced that has caused you to contact our
office once more.
You indicated Private Brian Domitrovitis can send his Sanisung A620 handset back to us
from Iraq in December 2003, and you want the forty day period extended. We are happy
to extend the return date until January 30, 2004. Therefore as we discussed previously, if
the equipment is in good working condition, I will process a refimd for $238.92.
I have mailed an Airborne Express package to you for the facilitation of the return of
your handset. Please allow up to 30 days for the refund to be processed from the time
that we receive the handset.
If you should have any questions in the interim, please contact me by calling the
Executive Services Department toll-free at 1-866-519-5698. 1 am available Monday
through Friday between 8 a.m. and 5p.m., Central Time.
Sincerely,
Barbara McKay
Executive Analyst
c: Ms. Mildred Rodriguez, Office of the Attorney General, White Plains, N Y

Ms. Christine Dunn, New York State Consumer Board, Albany, NY 003
T
NEW YORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 -3204
202~2244451 United Statu Senate
April 23,2004
Mr. K. Dane Snowden

Chief
Dear Ah-.Snowden:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Mrs. Vera Bynum of New York City regarding
her difficulty with AT&T wireless services.

you soon.
._ . .
] ; ; l ~ ~
Sincerely yours,

>'I - 2
Phone: (212) 688-6262
N
co
- -7 ’
”
MAY 19 2004

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Vera Bynum, regarding
the difficulties she is experiencing with charges billed to her by AT&T Wireless.
inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Mrs. Bynum to AT&T Wireless
company to send Mrs. Bynum a copy of the response that the company submits to the
Commission.
Mrs. Bynum can obtain information regarding her complaint by writing to the
12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free 1-888-225-5322. TTY
users may call 1-888-835-5322. Mrs. Bynum should mention the informal complaint tracking
number 04-BOO96507 and the Congressional tracking number listed at the top of this letter to
We appreciate your inquiry. If you have any further questions or require additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
"ry K. Dane Snowden W

Chief
NEWYORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
WASHINGTON DC 20510-3204
202-224-4451
FCC - MAILROOM
APfll a04
Mr. K. Dane Snowden

Chief
Dear Mr. Snowden:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Mrs. Florine Polner of Jericho, New York. I
understand that Mrs. Polner switched her wireless service from Verizon to AT&T on November
17,2003. She advises me that AT&T continues to charge her for services.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,

c
312 Nimitz Street
Jericho, New York 11753
February 16,2004
780 Third Avenue, #2600
New York, NY 10017
As you can see from the enclosed copy sent to AT& TI I am having a problem
getting them to acknowledge that I no Ion e an account with the company. Since
December 4thI have been receiving bills for services I no longer use. I hope you may be
able to helpresoke this problem, since!-know AT&T has been under _ scrutiny
_ ~_with
_ the
~
~ ~
FCC for this and/or similar problems with the public.
I would appreciate any help you can give me.
Yours truly,
Fforine Polner
r .
312 Nimitz Street
Jericho, New York 11753
February 16,2004
John D. Zeglis, CEO

AT&T Wireless
7277 lath Avenue NE #I
Redmond, WA 98052-7823
Re: Account # 52892395 Phone # 516-526-8956
Dear Mr. Zeglis,

- - ~~~
______ ~ ~~~
I am writing to you in the hope that you will be able to resolve my problem. On or about
November 17, I asked Verizon to switch my cellphone number from AT&T. I then had to
fight with AT&T for two weeks, until December 4, to be exact, to release the number to
Verizon. When that was finally done, I received a bill from AT&T and have continued to
receive bills despite numerous phone calls and assurances that the problem has been
resolved.
In my latest phone call, I spoke to someone named Patrick in Customer Care (1-800-
241-0335) who seemingly, or so he said, took care of the problem while Iwas on the
phone Iwas, by the way, on hold for over 20 minutes). He assured me that the account
had been closed. Nevertheless, two days ago I received yet another bill!
I am forced to assume that I am being harassed into paying for services I am not
receiving. I understand that AT&T has had this sort of problem before and that the FCC
is involved in trying to resolve it. Iwill be forced to add my complaint to the others if this
cannot be resolved immediately and Iwill be consulting my lawyer if the harassment
continues.
I would appreciate your immediate attention to this problem. If the computer will not
allow the account to be closed, surely someone can do it by hand!
Yours truly,
Florine Polner
Cc: Chris Corrado, Data Processing Executive

G. Michael Sievert, Marketing Executive
Gregory P. Landis, General Counsel
Senator Charles E. Schumer
MAY 1 9 2004
Control No. 040 1398/aw

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Florine Polner, regarding
the difficulties she is experiencing with bills from AT&T Wireless for services that she no
longer uses.
inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Ms. Polner. AT&T Wireless
company to send Ms. Polner a copy of the response that the company submits to the
Commission.
Ms. Polner can obtain information regarding her complaint by writing to the
12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free 1-888-225-5322. TTY
users may call 1-888-835-5322. Ms. Polner should mention the informal complaint tracking
number 04-BOO96508 and the Congressional tracking number listed at the top of this letter to
Sincerely,
i-r
Chief
NEWYORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
202-224-4451
Mr. K. Dane Snowden

Chief
445 12th Street SW
Dear Mr. Snowden:
Enclosed is a letter from Donald P. Rosendale with regards to his concern over a Nextel
Communications cell tower in his community.

Attention: Eric Lovecchio
you soon.
Sincerely yours,
Phone: (212) 688-6262

Fax: (212) 688-7444
HRC/EL-sm
From: Don Rosendale To: sen. clinton Date: 4/27/2004 Time: 4:58:08 PM Page 1 of 2
DONALD P. ROSENDALE
4848 ROUTE 44
Amenia, N.Y. 12501
845.373.9017 917.591.6357 (fax and voice)
Cell: 914.466.7689 E-Mail: DonPRl@,AOL.COhl
April 27, 2004
Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton

Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. Bv Fax
Dear Sen. Clinton:
I wonder if your office and help me obtain information from

the FCC, which has been giving me a little bit of a rundown.
Nextel Communications, with town approval, has recently

installed a 120-foot cell tower about 100 feet from my
property line here in Amenia.
The location is unique, in that while the base of the cell

tower is on a flat field, my property slopes up sharply
directly behind it. I only recently obtained from town
records the Nextel site plan, which indicates that the spot
where the cell tower is located is 928 feet above sea level.
A U . S . geodesic map shows that the high point of my property
directly behind the town is 1,050 feet above sea level. The
difference in altitude is 122 feet.
This means that a 120-foot cell tower is 2 feet shorter than

the adjacent land and transmitting directly into it. I can
stand on my land and l o o k down on the cell tower, and would
estimate that the point where on my land one l o o k s “eyeball to
eyeball” at the tower is about 250 to 300 feet from the
transmitting antennas.
From what reading I have done, it appears that cell tower

operators must under the CFR certify that their transmitters
are 10 meters, or about 30 feet, above ground and therefore
safe from radiation. However, this appears to be a u n i q u e
situation which, because of the placement, the tower is
actually at “ground level.” I have read articles which discuss
04/27/2004 05:OlPM
1 J
From: Don Rosendale To: sen Clinton Date: 4/27/2004 Time: 4:58:08 PM Page 2 of 2
P
r
the hazards of being on a roof where as cell tower is

transmitting, but do not know if this applies to my situation.
I have tried to discuss this with the FCC, but gotten a bit of
a runaround with requests that I provide photographs/surveys
etc. The information for the FCC to analyze this question is
presumably in its files - the Nextel plans and the government
survey.
Before going to any great lengths and paying for photographers

and surveyors, I need to know more detail about unique
situations such as this in which, as I said before, the
transmitter antennas are actually at “ground level.”
I appreciate the needs for cell towers and the roles they
fill, but at the same time, wish to ensure that all safety
precautions have been taken, and this appears to be to be a
dangerous situation.
Your help is appreciated. You already got my vote and based

on the j o b you are doing, I’d vote for you again in a
heartbeat.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Rosendale
04/27/2004 05:OlPM
.. .... - ....... . . .., .^ . . . . . . I .
Federal Coininunicatioiis Commission
July 8,2004

780 Third Avenue, Suite 260 1
New York. New York 10017-2024
Attention: Eric Loveccliio
Dear Senat or C1int on :
Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Donald P. Rosendale, regarding
the Nextel Coiiiinuiiications iiistalled cell tower near your property line in Ainenia, NY.
Today, sent to Mr. Eric Lovecchio of your office, was an e-mail with specific materials
that address this issue. Mr. Lovecckio’s assistant David stated it was ok to close out this case,
and just send this follow up letter on FCC letterhead; which in turn can be forwarded to the
constituent. Specifically attached to the e-mail was a guidebook (titled A Local Government
Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedues, and Practical
Guidance) that will be helpful.
In addition, as mentioned in the e-mail, that the FCC website,

http://wirctcss.fcc.~ovisitiugicontains inany useful information pieces on towers and antennas.
Of course, the section on RF State and Local Government issues may be the most pertinent for
this research. It can be found at web site: http://wireless.f~c.~ov/sitina/local-siate-~!ov.hiinl.
If you have any further questions, please contact Jim Swar-tz of m y staff at (202) 4 18-
1060.
Assistant Chief, NEPA Ujddication

Spectrum and Coinpetition Policy Division
Wireless Teleconiiiiuiiicatioiis Bureau
NEW YORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
WASHINGTON, DC 2@510-32@4
202 224-4451 e% Senate
TON, DC 20510-3204
June 9,2004
Mr. K. Dane Snowden

Chief
Dear Mr. Snowden:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Jeanie Seaman of Bronx, New York in regard to
a consumer dispute with AT&T Wireless.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
Phone: (212) 688-6262

Fax: (212) 688-7444
HRC/el-dc
4
c
MARCH, 16,2004
7
SENATOR HILARY RODHAM CLINTON
WASHINGTON, DC 205 10
My name Is Jeanie Seaman. I am in desperate need of your help. My 20 year

old daughter is a student at NYU studying in London for one semester,
at the beginning of January we went to an AT&T service center to cancel her cell
phone because we were not sure she could use it to call home to NY. We were
convinced by the service person that for $5.99 per month she could get an international
plan. We agreed and took the plan.
In London she could not call NY,so she decided to use phone cards. While in London
she stayed at an Aunt’s house for 2 days until her dorm was ready. She left the phone
at her Aunt’s house since she could not use it.
On Feb 14,2004 she needed to retrieve some numbers from the phone ,but when she
turned on the phone it was dead so she thought maybe the battery had died but that
was not the case, she then decided to open the phone and found that the Sim cud was
was gone, she immediately contacted AT&T in the U.S to cancel the phone ,she also
filed a Police report in London.
On Feb 25,2204 I received a bill from AT&T in the amount of $1 183 1.18 . I called
AT&T to discuss the matter and was told it’s my responsibility. I asked about a credit
to my account since the Sim card was stolen but they refused. I questioned why didn’t’
they try to contact us when they realized all these calls were being made overseas, with
quite an unusual amount of activity, I was told they had IIO legal responsibility, so I
asked how about a moral responsibility to your customers,. I was told they would turn the
matter over to a collection agency to ruin my daughter’s credit,
I can’t see how a 20 year old with a tremendous student loan, no job and a single
parent can afford this. Please help me with this since AT&T refused to be reasonable
about this, after all the talk about Identity Theft.
I would appreciate any help you can give us. I can be reached at 917-291-6647 or
In the evening at 71 8- 994-4504.
Thank you for any assistance you can give us.
JUN 23 2004

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Jeanie Seaman, regarding
her daughter’s difficulties with the service and charges provided by AT&T Wireless.
inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Ms. Seaman to AT&T Wireless
company to send Ms. Seaman a copy of the response that the company submits to the
Commission.
Ms. Seaman may obtain information regarding her complaint by writing to the
12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free 1-888-225-5322. TTY users
may call 1-888-835-5322. Ms. Seaman should mention her informal complaint tracking
number, 04-B0101110, and the Congressional tracking number listed at the top of this letter to
Sincerely,
T’t K. Dane Snowden ‘4

Chief
NEW YORK
SENA T 0 R

SUITE 476
202-224 4451
r=T
j, WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3204 8
N
June 9,2004
m
N
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Billie Golden regarding a consumer dispute with
AT&T Wireless.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
Phone: (212) 688-6262

Fax: (212) 688-7444
HRC/el-dc
. -’
BILLIE GOLDIN
165 WEST END AVE APT 23 E CELL P H O N E Corn%%
NEW Y O K , NEW Y O K 10023
mrAw-- I
ic
RE; MISINFORMATION
OVERCHARGE
COMPLAINT
February 17,2004
- HELP AND CUSTOMER SERVICE

Recently I went to Florida to visit Grandchildren. I phoned your companydfor
information and was told I could have a temporary national plan at the same price, 29.95 9 6 s5
and at the end of my visit could go back to my northeast regional plan as I did 2 years fifla
ago. This was a month to month plan.
&m
I maintain a residence in Lee Mass and New York, both covered areas and my evening
rate began at 8 pm. I was assured both would not change. Your bill came as a shock.
04qg/f-
B05d5
Your customer service a sincere disappointment.
On Sunday I spoke to Linda R who said she was authorized to remove the roaming
charge and retroactively lower the bill to 59.99 . When I asked for my old plan back, she
said a supervisor would phone me on my landline withing 48 hours. 212 724 9788
This has not happened.
Please help me.
I was totally misinformed.
I would have left my phone home for the visit if I knew what was going to happen.
P-
I do not understand how my plan could be changed retroactively to something that was
not completely disclosed to me.
Please help me restore my phone service to what it was before jonathan # 30053 changed
it to help me. He also said to call back to change the service back. * E 5 /Sh O f 4 f l U d 1
Thank you,
Billie Goldin
917 226 1007 P.S. I am prepared to pay a reasonable amount to restore my old service.
JUL 8 2004

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Billie Goldin, regarding the
difficulties she is experiencing with AT&T Wireless.
inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Ms. Goldin to AT&T Wireless
and directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed AT&T
Wireless to send Ms. Goldin a copy of the response that the company submits to the
Commission. Ms. Goldin may obtain information regarding her complaint by writing to the
12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC (TTY
users: 1-888-TELL-FCC). Ms. Goldin should mention her informal complaint number, 04-
B0102445, and the congressional tracking number listed at the top of this letter to facilitate a
prompt response to her inquiry.
Sincerely,
<<
1- \, \
- *&\lLJ &,
Ylk
-7
K. Dane Snowden i"l

Chief
. . *.
AUG 31 2004

New York, NY 10017-2024
This letter is a follow up to our letter dated July 8, 2004, regarding your constituent,
Ms. Billie Goldin's concerns regarding the difficulties she was experiencing with AT&T
Wireless.
On July 21, 2004, the Consurlier & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed AT&T
Wireless to satisfy or answer the complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records
and other information. Enclosed is a copy of the company's response. In their response
AT&T Wireless states that they advised Ms. Goldin that her former wireless calling plan is no
longer available. Ms. Goldin elected to maintain the plan she had and AT&T agreed to issue a
courtesy credit for the disputed roaming charges. Based on the information provided, the
Commission does not plan to take any further action with respect to Ms. Goldin's complaint.
Sincerely,
t.( K. Dane Snowden')

Chief
Enclosure
. .
c 1' -
AGENCY’S Federal Communications COMPANY’S AT&T Wireless

NAME: Commission NAME:

Consumer Information Network PO Box 9706 1
Division Redmond. WA 98073
445 12th St. SW, Rm. CY-B514
AGENCY NIA COMPLAINANT’S Billie Goldin

REP: NAME:
AGENCY’S 04-BO 102445 COMPANY’S 18059379
FILE NO.: FILE NO.:
affiliate licensed to provide wireless service in the area associated with the subscriber’s assigned wireless
telephone number(s) and operating under the “AT&T Wireless” brand name.
An AT&T Wireless executive specialist contacted Ms. Hanna on May 10,2004 in response to her complaint. The
specialist reviewed Ms. Hanna*s wireless account and confirmed that Ms. Hanna contacted AT&T Wireless after
the expiration of the offer to cancel her account without an early cancellation fee. Nonetheless, the specialist
agreed to waive the early cancellation fee if Ms. Hanna decided to cancel her account.
Ms. Goldin’s complaint was resolved on April 2: 2004 when an AT&T Wireless executive specialist contacted
her. The specialist advised that Ms. Goldin’s former wireless calling plan is no longer available and the specialist
reviewed other options with her. Ms. Goldin elected to maintain the plan she had and the specialist agreed to
issue a courtesy credit for the disputed roaming charges.
AT&T Wireless apologizes for any inconvenience this matter may have caused.
NAME: Cynthia A. Johnson, Litigation Paralegal DATE: August 2,2004
. .
1 1 7’ -
NEWYGRK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-224~4461
Wnited States Senate s
%s
OL
WASHINGTON,C!DC20cl$3204
T
Q
Q
N
June 9,2004 z
23
9
03
N
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Mr. Rayner Colton regarding his concerns about
television reception.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
1
Phone: (212) 688-6262

Fax: (212) 688-7444
HRC/el-nk
Rayner Colton
111 Montague St.
7D
Brooklyn NY 11201
624-3439
[718]
Answering machine.
780 3rdAve
Suite 2601
New York NY 10017
September 29, 2003
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint letter I am sending to the FCC. I hope your
office will help me get this corrected ASAP.
A s a nationally recognized politician you are spoken of as a possible candidate

for president. While I believe you are presidential material, this is not the
time. You would do your party as well as the country good Zyou would
announce that you will support the Democratic candidate who wins this year.
Too that you will think seriously of running in 2012 as you fully expect the
Democratic candidate this year to beat Bush and be reelected in 2008.
Your constituent.
Rayner Colton
Rayner Colton
111 Montague St.
7D
Brooklyn NY 11201
[718]624-3439
Answering machine.
600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington DC 20580
September 29, 2003
This is the second time I am sending the commission a letter regarding
the complaint below.
Since the TV antenna was returned to the Empire State Building after the
disaster of September 11, 2001 the reception for Channel 4 has been
strange. It varies from decent color and good sound, to very bad black
and white and sound which is pure hiss. Like a n old 78 recording with no
music on it. Even at its best the color is never as good as it was before the
move. ActuaXy the reception quality was better before the move to the
World Trade Center. The problem is random. I am particularly upset at
loosing access to the Wall St. Journal Report early Sunday morning.
Channel 2 on most days disappears about 12:30-12:40 am and returns
sometime between 5:30 arn and 6:OO a m .
A s I have spoken to a few of my neighbors in nearby buildings, and they
have the same problems. This has to be a technical matter in the
broadcast, or the transmission from the antenna.
On a number of mornings I have checked the other channels and found 4
it usual unreliable self, 5 is never available with quality reception, 7 good,
9 its usual wavy self, 11 good, 13 (if on the air) good and 25 either good or
off.
Before I wrote to the commission the last time I sent a letter to NBC at 30
Rockefeller Plaza. They never bothered to reply.
Please contact the responsible engineers to see that the above gets
corrected.
I thank you very much in advance.
Rayner Colton United States Citizen and Taxpayer.

cc:
July 2 1,2004
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0402076

780 Third Avenue
Suite 260 1
Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Rayner Colton of
Brooklyn, New York, concerning the reception of WNBC-TV, channel 4, which broadcasts from
the Empire State Building. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
As you know, the television stations licensed to New York City, including WNBC, were
substantially affected by the tragic events of September 11,2001. The loss of the World Trade
Center compelled the broadcast television stations to find alternative transmission sites. The
stations did a remarkable job in restoring service. Many of the stations, including WNBC,
located their facilities on the Empire State Building. The Empire State Building, however, is not
configured to accommodate all of the broadcast antennas that were displaced and the stations
needed to modify their facilities. WNBC’s relocation to the Empire State Building, for example,
required the station to operate at reduced power and with restricted facilities.
The modifications to WNBC’s facilities may affect the availability of the station’s signal.
WNBC, however, has been experimenting with various powedantenna combinations in an effort
to provide a signal that replicates its pre-September 11 coverage. In addition, transmission
problems have made it necessary for WNBC to operate occasionally from an auxiliary
transmission site in Alpine, New Jersey. Thus, the availability of the station’s signal may not be
consistent.
Mr. Colton should be advised that WNBC recently filed a request with the Commission
to increase power at its Empire State Building site. If the request is granted, some of Mr.
Colton’s reception problems may be alleviated. Until a new replacement tower is completed for
the World Trade Center site, however, it is likely that some viewers throughout the New York
City area may experience inconsistent reception of the WNBC signal. Pleased be assured that
the Commission staff will continue to work closely with the television stations licensed to New
York City to assist them in restoring full television service.
Page 2-The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
I hope that this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of
further assistance.
Sincerely,
h
4SkkqLLhQb
Roy J.
Chief, Office of roadcast License Policy
Media Bureau
NEWYORK
SENATOR
% SEnOtE
SUITE 476
202-224-4451
051 0-3204
July 14,2004
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Laverne Meade of New York, New York
regarding her dispute with AT&T Wireless.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
Phone: (212) 688-6262

Fax: (212) 688-7444
HRC/el-dc CITI
P
tr:
&3
April 16, 2004

780 Third Avenue - Suite 2601
New York, NY 10017
DEAR SENATOR CLINTON,

..
MY TWO YEAR CONTRACT WITH AT&T WIRELESS EXPIRED FEB. 29TH'04
SINCE I HAD DECIDED TO GO WITH A NEW CARRIER VERIZON. I CALLED AT&T
WIRELESS ON FEB.26TH'04 AND I TOLD THEM I WAS NOT GOING TO RE-NEW MY
CONTRACT, BUT I WISHED TO KEEP MY EXISTING # AT&T HAD FROM FEB. 26TH'04
THROUGH MIDNIGHT FEB.29TH'04 TO PORT OUT MY # BUT THEY DID NOT DO IT
BECAUSE THE LADY I SPOKE WITH WHOSE NAME IS SELENA INPUTTED THE WORD
CANCELLED ON MY ACCOUNT STATUS I HAD NO SERVICE AND I WONDERED WHY.SO 1
CALLED THEM ON TUESDAY MARCH 2ND'04 AND ASKED WHAT THE DELAY WAS. "OH
WE COULD NOTDO ITBECAUSE YOUR SERVICE WAS CUT OFF." I SAID TO THEM
"YOU HAD 3 DAYS TO TAKE CARE OF THIS. '' WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SMOOTH
TRANSITION RESULTED IN A NIGHTMARE FULL OF STRESS, WORRY, ANXIETY AND
PHYSICAL ILLNESS. THEY HAD THE GALL TO CHARGE M E ANOTHER MONTH SERVICE
$25.06 THEY PURPOSLY DRAGGED ME INTO ANOTHER BILL CYCLEJT'S EXTORTION
PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
I SPOKE WITH TWO DIFFERENT CUSTOMER CARE DISPUTE SPECIALSISTS TO GET

THIS RESOLVED BUT TO NO AVAIL. I CANNOTAFFORD TO PAY THIS SCAM MONEY
THIS IS WHY I AM WRITING TO YOU
I KNOW YOU CAN HELP ME
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.
LA VERNE ANN CRONIN MEADE
.c c :
SENATOR CHARLES E.SHUMER
SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
THE HONORABLE JERROLD NADLER
THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU
Check her3 for change
of address (sea reverse) L
Account Name: LAVERNE MEADE Account ## 02543789452
Vdire\ess# 917-767-4345
Amount Due
UPON RECEIPT
#BWNGFYV
w
#0002500437894527~
Amount Fsid i
1 0 0 0 5 7 3 0 l A V 0 ? 7 3 "AUTO T; lD373110!901 7: -UY123
APT 4B
260 W 52ND ST
NEW YQRK N Y IGCiI2-58T
Questions?
o athwireless.com
6 1-8U%383-7600
Q 611 from y i j wire\-
~ phone
-
o TTY users 1 866M W S - T N
LAVERNE MEADE
APT 45
260 W 52ND ST
NRN YORK NY 10019-5850
SUMMARY OF MONTHLY CHARGES FOR ACCOUNT' 497894.52 Date of Invoice: 03131/84

Wweless Number 913-76443G
Current Monthiy Chargas

Monthly Seiitice Chaqes . 'i 7
rJG
i 25.03
Home Airtime Charges

Home Long Distanw Charges 00
Messaging, ConteTat, Applicatio? d VVi Fi .00
Roaming Charges .ci3
Other Charges and Credits .oo
Taxes, Surcharges & Regulatory Fees 1.57
1.94
Tatal Cusent Monthly Charges DUE UfON RECEIPT
25.06
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
Your Wireless Account is

Currently in Canceled status
You can now p y your irivoice online @ www.attvdrelsss.com!ocs

AT&T WIRELESS APPRECIATES YOOR BUSINESS
Account Name Date of it~voice
LAVERNE MEADE 03/31IO4
Account Number
43789452 Page 3of4
Text your way to American Idol fun right on your phone!
kT&T Wireless brings you the ultimate American Idol experience through your
wireloss phone. To find out more about all the exciting Amwican idol
activities text the word "MENU"to the &digit number "123"* or visit
attwireless.comlido1and don't forget to watch the show Tuesdays 8pm17c and
Wednesdays 8'30prni7'30c.
"Sfatidard text nlsssaying rates apply. Details' attwireless.coin/lext
Important Aw-aunt Information

If you cancel sefvice Ixfare youi contract end date (tiicludirty if you switch
your wireless number to another carrter), you will be c:haigeci i i i ~Early
Terrriination Fee of up tu $200
PAYMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS

DETAIL OF PAYMENTS
-
-
3/320/04PAYMENT T"\ECEIVEU 7'1iHtW YOU1 42.WGR
TOTAL QP PAYMENTS RECEIVED THROCIGH 3/31/04 42.G1C' :
THIS s r A w INTENTIONALLYLEFTBLANK
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
-
FOR 917-767-4345 LAVERNE MEADE
3m1101/04 'I'llmuull YOIIW
CALL WAlTlNO .DO
CALLER ID .oo
500 NIGHT & WEEKEND .1 7
Tt3TA.L MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGES .w
TAXES, SURCHARGES 81REGUUTORY FEES

.04
.02
1.20
.30
a1
TOTAL TAXES, SURCHARGES0, REGULATORY FEES 4.57
TOT& CURRENT RRONTHLY CHARGES 1.T4

m
AUG 1 1 2004
Control No. 040252l/kah

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Laverne Meade, regarding the
difficulties she is experiencing with AT&T Wireless.
inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Ms. Meade to AT&T Wireless
and directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed AT&T
Wireless to send Ms. Meade a copy of the response that the company submits to the
Commission. Ms. Meade may obtain information regarding her complaint by writing to the
12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC (TTY
users: 1-888-TELL-FCC). Ms. Meade should mention her informal complaint number, 04-
B0110683, and the congressional tracking number listed at the top of this letter to facilitate a
prompt response to her inquiry.
Sincerely,
K. Dane Snowdenv
Chief
1' -.
m
NOV 2 9 2004
Control No. 040252 1/kah

New York, NY 10017-2024
constituent, Ms. Laverne Meade’s concerns regarding the difficulties she was experiencing
with AT&T Wireless.
On August 25, 2004, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed AT&T
Wireless to satisfy or answer the complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records
and other information. Enclosed is a copy of the company’s response. In their response
AT&T Wireless states that they agreed to adjust the final charges to reflect only the amount of
time the service was active, up until the date of cancellation. A $25.06 courtesy credit was
issued to Ms. Meade’s wireless account, resulting in a zero balance on the account. Based on
the information provided, the Commission does not plan to take any further action with respect
to Ms. Meade’s complaint.
Sincerely,
I\
I’r K. Dane Snowdeni
Chief
Enclosure
1 1
..-
AGENCY'S Federal Communications COMPANY'S AT&T Wireless

NAME: Commission NAME:
Consumer Information Network PO Box 97061
Division Redmond, WA 98073
445 12th St. SW, Rm.CY-B5 14
AGENCY N/A COMPLAINANT'S Laverne Meade
REP: NAME:
AGENCY'S 04-BO110683 COMPANY'S 18619301
FILE NO.: FILE NO.:
affiliate licensed to provide wireless service in the area associated with the subscriber's assigned wireless
telephone number(s) and operating under the "AT&T Wireless'' brand name.
On June 17, 2004 An AT&T Wireless executive specialist contacted Ms. Meade regarding this complaint. As a
courtesy, the specialist agreed to adjust the final charges to reflect only the amount of time the service was active,
up until the date of cancellation. A $25.06 courtesy credit was issued to Ms. Meade's wireless account, resulting
in a zero balance on the account.
AT&T Wireless apologizes for any inconvenience this matter may have caused.
BY: Linda Porter, Litigation Paralegal DATE: September 28,2004
" 1 1' -
NEWYORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
WASHINGTON, DC 2051%3204
202-224-4451 Wnited
WASHI
c
July 13,2004
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Alkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Matthew Solomon of Constantia, New York

regarding his company’s telecommunication tower.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
Phone: (2 12) 688-6262

F a : (212) 688-7444
HRC/el-nk
07-13-2004 11 :42am From-SENCLINTON SYR NY . 3154480676 T-845 P.001/005 F-020
. I 51
.
P
. .
07-13-2004 1 1 :42am From-SENCLINTON SYR NY 3154480676 T-845 P. 002/005 F-020
MAITHEW T. SOLOMON
'
T N T TOWERS WIRELESSCOMMUNICATIONS
43 HII.LSIDE DR. EXT.
CONSTANTIA. NY
13044
3 15)623-7268
July 12,2004
To whom it may concern,

F G L
l spoke with ME. Hillary Clinton by phone JulyO7,2004 concerning such
matters listed below.
I hove a telecommunications tower company in upstate New York. I have
one fowef that is full functional. I have a new tower site in Cleveland New
York on Martin rd. The tower is sold and Iam only waiting a permit from t h e
town of Consiantia to erect this tower.
I have m y Federal Communication Commission license ond permit required.
I have also followed the guidelines, rules, and regulations of the town of
Constantia to begin construction of the tower.
However, the town is refwsmg to give me a permit for this tower. They have
aspirations of pwtfingall telecommunications on the town municipal Water
tower. This will take away money and eliminatedjobs for our community.
If given the permit. I plan and will aeate approximately 30 jobs during
construction. There will be KXL000 up to 150,000 dollm put back mto the
community. t will be using local suppliers and businessesfor all of my
building materials and laborers. There also will be jobs created for
telecommunication insfallem, and testers maintaining this tower for 2 5 years
per contract,
All documents containing the town of Constantia's telecbmmunicdion
tower laws, my FCC license and permit are enclosed. When reviewing t h e
laws you will be able to see that Iam in complete compliance with tb
regulotions. [please review all highlighted portions and article .# 3)
l realize that your time is valuable, but I have followed all of t h e correct
guidelines and channels to obtain this permit with no result. I would
appreciate you faking,the time to review this material and help me in
anyway possible.
This community and the surrounding small towns in upstate New York
#*
desperately need this opportunity for employment.
Sincerely,
ul-13-2004 1 1 :42arn From-SENCLINTON SYR NY 31 54480676 T-845 P. 003/005 F-020
9/23/03
Subject: Solomon Appkation, T e I m d o n T o w , Martin Road.
Dear Ben;
I
I . .
.. ..
Cc: A1I Planning Board h&adxs

L.stlxling ,. :. ,
uf-icl-zuu4 1 1 :43am From-SENCLINTON SYR NY
3154480676 T-845 P. 004/005 F-020
_.
.I
TOWN OF C0NSTA"J;A
LAW GOVERNING TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS
ARTICLE 1
LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
The Town of Constantia recognizes the incteased demand for wireless communications
transmitting facilities and the need for the services they provide. Often these fkcilities require the
construction ofa communications tower._The intent ofthis Local Law is to protect the Town's
interest in siting towers in manner consistent with sound land use planning by:
A. Minimizing visual effectsof towers through careful desigq siting and vegetative
screening;
B. Avoiding potential damage to adjacent properties fromtower f&lure or falling

debris through engineering and caretid siting of tower structures; and
C, Maximizing use of any new or existingtower and encouragiug the use of existing
buildings and/or structuresto reduce the number of towers needed;
while also allowing wireless service providers to meet their technulogical and service objectives
for the benefit of the public.
ARTICLE 2
,..
ENABLING AUTHORITY
The Planning Board i s hereby authorized to review and recommend, recommend with
-modifications,or disapprove site plans fer Te~ecommunkationsTowers and facilities consistent
with the Town of Constantia's Site Plan Review Local Law as amended in accordance with
Section 10.020 of said Law. Fhal approval/disappro~of my such site plan shall be made by
the Town Board after review and recommendationby the Planning Board.
ARTICLE 3
DEFlNlTl ONS:
A. TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER - A structure on which transmitting andor

receiving antenna(e) are located.
B. '
ANTENNA - A system of electrical conductors that transmit or receive radio
frequency waves, inchding but not limited to radio navigation, radio, television,
and microwave communications, including cellular telephone, personnel
communication and paging with a fiqumcy g e n d l y between 10 hertz and
3Ob,OOO megahertz-
P. 1
07-1 3-2004 I 1 :43am From-SENCLINTON SYR NY 31 54480676 T-845 P. 005/005 F-020
kD+.*W,0138\
August 23,2004

780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
Thank you for the correspondence on behalf of your constituent, Matthew Solomon. In
his letter, Mr. Solomon expresses concern about the refusal of city officials in Constantia, New
York to issue him a permit to construct a cellular tower.
In general, the Communications Act encourages state and local governments to afford
wireless service providers the opportunity to locate their facilities within their jurisdictions,
consistent with local zoning and other state laws. Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended by Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, governs the
powers of local governments with respect to the placement, construction, and modification of
facilities used to provide cellular, broadband PCS, and other personal wireless services. Section
332(c)(7) preserves the authority of state and local governments in this area, provided they
comply with some basic limitations set forth in the statute. Specifically, a state or local
government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
personal wireless services, and it may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. A state or local government also may not
regulate the placement, construction, or modification of these facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency (RF)emissions, to the extent the facilities comply with
the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions. In addition, a state or local
government must act on a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service
facilities within a reasonable time, and any denial of a request must be made in writing and
supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
In enacting Section 332(c)(7), Congress recognized that the local zoning and site
approval process plays a critical role in ensuring that the development of personal wireless
systems occurs in a manner that is consistent with local land use priorities. As discussed above,
Federal law permits state and local governments to enforce their zoning ordinances, which may
include consideration of aesthetics, preservation of property value, consistency with neighboring
land uses, structural safety, and similar concerns, provided a community acts in a manner
consistent with the conditions set out in Section 332(c)(7).
In this case, it appears Mr. Solomon’s request for a permit was declined based upon the
city’s interpretation of a local Constantia ordinance. Because resolution of this matter would
August 23,2004
Page 2
likely involve an analysis of whether the City’s decision is consistent with the Communication’s
Act, Mr. Solomon may wish to seek the assistance of an attorney.
I hope the forgoing information is responsive to your inquiry. /
Dan Abeyta
Assistant Chief
Spectrum and Competition Policy Division
NEWYORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-22&4451 Wnited states Senate
July 13,2004
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental AfFirs
445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Norman Kleinberg of New York, New York,
regarding his issue with Sprint PCS and Nextel Communications.

Attention: Eric Lovecchio
you soon.
Sincerely yours,
Phone: (212) 688-6262

Fax: (212) 688-7444 _.r
- 1
r
r- . .
I-
/ICKLIN
17 Lexington Avenue
New York, N e w York 10010
BOXB10-225
February 3,2004
Hon. Hillary Rodham Ciinton

780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
Re: Complaint to FCC regarding Sprint PCS and Nextel Communications
qqpying you,pn a cpmplaint letter I filed with the FCC because, basikaily, I am'at a
loss as to where to turn. After eight (8) weeks of trying to get my cellular number ported
from Sprint PCS tq.Nextel aml hying, ea& company has essentially "thumbed its nose"
at me, at the BBB ~ d by, impl@ition, at #e FCC and Federal Government. To quote a
"supervisor'l in the Numbar:Psrtability s ion at Nextel "We'll get to it when we get to
it". I , I 3 3
I filed a complaint on the FCC's website (#FORM475: 7539693) on January 9th but have
yet to receive any communication from that agency regarding my submission. I put the
complaint in the form of a letter in the hope that the FCC might take it more seriously,
but really don't know what else a citizen is supposed to do.
I was hoping that an individual had at least some recourse when a Federal Agency that is
supposed to be enforcing a regulation is ignored by Corporations and seems not to care (I
guess the Janet Jackson incident is a sexier issue to pursue) . All I am asking of your
Office is to get the FCC to at least acknowzedge to me that either they have no real power
over such large corporations as Sprint PCS and Nextel or that they have no interest in
enforcing their Number Portability regulation, at least when it involves a citizen with no
real economic or political leverage.
I'll tell you what: don 't help me. Just investigate what the FCC is doing in the myriad
cases in which citizens' requests to port their numbers have been ignored (you can log
onto www.numberportability.com ~f www.wirelessadvisor.com to read the horror
stories). At least I'll get some comfort out of the fact that in this age of monolithic
government agencies the individual has some recourse.
BarxhCollege
The City Universityof NewYork
, .>
/"
To: Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton

February 3,2004
Page 2
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, you and your staff are hereby authorized to
freely discuss any and all aspects of my situation.
Thank You.
Respectfully,
Norman L. Kleinberg
Associate Professor of Economics
Baruch College-CUNY
17 Lexington Ave.
BOXB 10-225
646-3 12-3470 (V)
norman Meinberg@baruch.cuny.edu
ID:
,
P
-
CERTIFIED MAIL R R R 7003 1010 0004 7423 9227
17 Lexington Avenue
BOXB10-225
January 27,2004

Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau
Consumer Complaints
445 12th Street, SW
Complaint: Nextel Communications and Sprint PCS
Telephonds involved: 516.423.9191,516.204.2995
This letter is to file with your Office a complaint against Nextel Communications and
Sprint PCS regarding wireless number portability and related issues. This expands on a
complaint filed on-line, on January 9,2004, through your web site (#FORM475:
7539693).
On December 9,2003 I initiated service with Nextel Communications at their Nextel

Retail Store 075 located in the Roosevelt Field Shopping Center in Garden City,NY. I
dealt with a salesperson named 'tNelsont'and requested that Nextel port my wireless
number (5 16.423.9191) fi-om Sprint PCS. Attached please find a photocopy of the top
page of the agreement (Exhibit A) showing clearly that I wished to have this number
ported. It is missing the Sprint Account##because I did not have that number with me and
Sprint Customer Service refused to supply it to me over thephone, even though Igave
them all other identiJjing information. However, Nelson said that I could fax a copy of
my Sprint bill with the Account# to him that evening and he would fill it in.He supplied
me with a temporary Nextel telephone##(5 16.204.2995) to be used until my Sprint # had
been ported. Attached is Exhibit B, a copy of the page that I faxed to the Nextel Retail
Store, to Nelson's attention, late that afternoon when I returned home and after
confirming that they were indeed open.
TO this date (approaching EIGHT weeks) the following issues exist despite my best
efforts to resolve them:
BamchColIege
The Ciiy Univanityof NewYork
- -- -
_.I
Federal Commun-icationsCommission
January 27,2004
I .
1. My wireless number has not been ported from Sprint PCS. When that number is
dialed it connects to my Sprint phone;
2. When I attempt to dial my Nextel temporary number fiom a landline phone in my

residence I hear three tones and what is apparently a Verizon message saying that "the
number could not be completed as dialed".
Both Nextel and Sprint have been informed of these problems numerous times (I have
attached Exhibit C which is a log of all contacts made in the interim with either of these
companies). As a sample of its contents, I have been told at various times by Sprint that
they had sent Nextel a confirmation and then that there was a system error that prevented
the confirmation from being sent, then that they could not create an "old SP record"
because "the number belonged to NYNEX", then that "NYNEX knows nothing about the
number" then that "they (Sprint) don't create old SP records anymore". From Nextel I've
gotten "still in progress", then that they "have received the response fiom Sprint", then
that there "is an error with the request", then that "they have the number but there is a
problem with (Nextel's) system and they can't see it", then "did you request that this port
be cancelled?" and beyond. The last information I was given was by a representative
of Sprint on January 23rd who said that the problem was that my Sprint wireless
number (516.423.9191) was purchased by them from ""EX" and that the
number failed activation in the "National Database'' because it still showed as being
owned by ""EX".
I've been disconnected and hung up on, apparently because neither of these companies
thinks that there will be any consequences of their actions. And note that, as far as I am
aware, my only obligation in all this has been to provide the proper information to
Nextel and Sprint for the port. THEY are supposed to figure this out between
themselves. Nevertheless, I have spent countless hours speaking to representatives of
Nextel, Sprint and NYNEX and waiting on hold to get this resolved.
At this point I would accept only one of the following two alternative resolutions:
1. Have my number ported to Nextel withii a reasonable time frame (one week, say)
and receive credit fiom Sprint for all charges after December 15th, when they were
originally supposed to have sent the number to Nextel (see Exhibit D);
2. Have Nextel cancel my Agreement, waive the Early Termination Fee and give me
a fill refund on my Nextel phone plus Activation Fee. I will pay (and indeed have paid to
this date) all Nextel service charges.
I don't thinkI'm being unreasonable, and am rather surprised that both companies seem
unconcerned about the ramifications of their actions. It's as if each of them is "thumbing
their nose" at me (which is understandable) and a Federal Agency (the FCC, not
understandable).
To: Federal Communications Commission
January 27,2004
Page 3
a
I would appreciate whatever assistance you can offer in resolving this issue and look
forward to a response fiom your Office.
Thank You.
Sincerely,
Norman L. Kleinberg
Associate Professor of Economics
Baruch College-CUNY
17 Lexington Ave.
BOXB 10-225
646-3 12-3470 (V)
646-3 12-345 1 (F)
normm-kleinberg@bach.cuny .edu
xc: Hon. Charles Schumer

Hon. Hillary Clinton
SEP 1 0 2004

New York, NY 10017-2024
Re: Informal Complaint 04-W7539693
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Norman Kleinberg,
regarding his difficulties with porting his wireless number from Sprint to Nextel.
On January 28, 2004, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed Nextel to
satisfy or answer the complaint, which was submitted directly to the Commission by
Mr. Kleinberg based on a thorough review of all relevant records and other information.
Enclosed is a copy of the company's response. In their response, dated March 11, 2004,
Nextel states that they reviewed their records and determined that Mr. Kleinberg's port request
was completed on February 17, 2004. Nextel states that there are some factors beyond
Nextel's (or any one carrier's) control that have impacted the porting process. Nextel states
that since the launch of wireless local number portability (WLNP) on November 24, 2003,
Nextel and the wireless industry have worked extensively together to address a number of
issues that have arisen during the initial implementation of WLNP and have modified their
processes to make the porting process smoother for all customers. Through these efforts and
work by all parties, they have jointly identified and resolved a number of the porting delay
issues that have affected all carriers. Nextel further states that they recognize and regret that
despite their individual efforts and joint industry measures and actions, some customers faced
longer than expected delays when attempting to port their phone numbers.
" 1 1' -
Based on the information provided, the Commission does not plan to take any further
action with respect to Mr. Kleinberg’s complaint. If you have any further questions or require
additional information please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Tk 19.9
K. Dane Snowden
Chief
Enclosures
1. -
F&l’*J
,.
.: ..
{ “.
C. I
-1-r
- I :.J
March 11,2004
IJAR I 2 2004
Sharon C. Bowers, Deputy Chief
Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau sz-‘ -. - rr q 8%
tn c
.
.
- .d w*

1270 Fairfield Road
Gettysburg, PA 17325-7245
Re: Norman Kleinberg, 04-W7539693
Dear Ms. Bowers:
Pursuant to your January 28,2004 letter and Section 1.717 of the Rules of
the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”), Nextel
Communications (“Nextel”) respectfully submits this response to the informal
complaint of Norman Kleinberg (“Mr. Kleinberg“). Nextel is also providing Mr.
Kleinberg with a copy of this letter.
Mr, Kleinberg’s January 9, 2004 filing expressed his dissatisfaction with

delays in the porting of his number to Nextel from Sprint. Mr. Kleinberg’s filing
was fowarded to Nextel on January 28,2004.
Nextel has reviewed its records and has determined that Mr. Kleinberg’s
port request was completed on February 17,2004.
In advance of the November 24, 2003 launch date for wireless local
number portability (“WLNP”),Nextel made significant preparations including:
Nextel invested considerable resources, both financial and human,

to prepare and test business processes and technical systems.
Nextel conducted extensive wireless number portability training for
its sales and customer care staffs, and authorized representatives.
0 Nextel diligently pursued and signed Service Level Agreements that
define how the porting process would work with all major wireless
carriers.
0 Nextel performed extensive system testing both internally and with
other carriers.
- 1 1’ ‘
Because number portability requires simultaneous efforts of multiple
companies, however, there are some factors beyond Nextel's (or any one
carrier's) control that have impacted the porting process. Since the launch of
WLNP on November 24, 2003, Nextel and the entire wireless industry have
worked extensively together to address a number of issues that have arisen
during the initial implementation of WLNP and have modified our processes to
make the porting process smoother for all customers. Through these
unprecedented efforts and hard work by all parties, we have jointly identified and
resolved a number of the porting delays issues that have affected all carriers.
Nextel recognizes and regrets that despite our individual efforts and joint industry
measures and actions, some customers faced longer than expected delays when
attempting to port their phone numbers.
if you have any questions concerning the issues discussed herein, please
do not hesitate contact me at the address above.
Sincerely, /I
Legal Department
cc: Norman Kleinberg
' 1 1. -
RECEIVED
' MAR 0 5 2004 Nextel Communications
2001 Edmund Halley Drive, Reston, VA 20191
Distribubion Center
February 27,2004
Sharon C. Bowers, Deputy Chief

Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau
1270 Fairfield Road
Gettysburg, PA 17325-7245
Re: Norman Kleinberg, 04-W7539693
Pursuant to your Jarluary 28, 2004 letter and Section 1.717 of the Rules of the
Federal Communications Commission ("Commission"), Nextel Communications
("Nextel") respectfully submits this interim response to the informal complaint of Norman
Kleinberg (Mr. Kleinberg"). Nextel is also providing Mr. Kleinberg with a copy of this
letter.
Although Nextel makes every effort to promptly respond to all informal

complaints, Nextel respectfully requests an additional thirty days to respond to this
matter, Mr. Kleinberg's informal complaint requires Nextel to conduct further research of
its records prior to submitting its response to your letter.
If you have any questions concerning the issues discussed herein, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (703)433-3951.
' Robert Cosgrove

Coordinator, Regulatory
Legal Department
cc:Mr. Norman Kleinberg
1 ' ' 1 1' - I

WASHINGTON, DC a
951
0
c 3
r-4
October 12,2004
Docket 04-261
SCCi-&XjZ
Office of the Secretary
445 12th Street, SW
Room TW-204B
Dear Commissioners:
We write to encourage you to curb the amount of violence on television and limit
children's exposure to violent content on television. Violence on television is a part of a larger
media violence problem, which includes violent video games and movies. Unfortunately, some
of the long-term implications of exposing young people to violence on television have yet to be
studied extensively. For this reason, we have cosponsored the Children and Media Research
Advancement Act in the Senate, which aims to synthesize existing research and study the impact
of media violence on early childhood development.
What we know today about the amount of violence on television and its harmful impact
on children is staggering. The National Television Violence Study found that nearly two out of
every three television programs contained some violence. Fewer than five percent of these
programs featured an anti-violence theme. Alarmingly, violence was found to be more prevalent
in children's programming than in other types of programming. The study estimated that the
average child who watches two hours of cartoons a day sees nearly 10,000 violent incidents each
year. It also appears that the amount of violence on television is rising.
When children are exposed to violence through the media, it hurts their development and
negatively affects their behavior. The National Institute of Mental Health and the American
Psychological Association both concluded that violence on television leads to increased
acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behavior by children and teenagers.
The Surgeon General found that media violence increases children's physically and verbally
aggressive behavior in the short term. Violence on television may also have serious implications
in the long-term, leading to violent behavior among teens and young adults who have been
exposed to a lifetime of violent content through the media. Once more research is completed, we
Page 2 - Secretary, FCC
will likely find that exposing infants and toddlers to violence on television stunts their early
childhood development.
We recognize that some of the responsibility for these problems lies with media
organizations, producers of violent programs, and parents who do not restrict their children’s
access to violent programs. But we believe this is an area where the government can step in and
shoulder some of the responsibility. This is why we are writing today. We encourage you to
consider promulgating regulations to limit the amount of violence on television and prevent
young people from viewing violent content. We thank you for your consideration of this
important issue, and look forward to working with you on this issue in the future.
Sincerely,
\
Richard J. Durbin Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States Senator United States Senator
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN November 18,2004
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

332 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Dear Senator Durbin:
Thank you for your October 12,2004 letter concerning violent programming on
television and its impact on children. I appreciate learning your views on this important matter
and share many of your concerns about the potential effects that violent programming may have
on children.
As you might be aware, on July 15,2004, the Commission adopted a Notice ofhquiry
seeking specific information on a number of issues related to violent television programming and
its effect on children and other young viewers. For example, the Commission requested
information regarding the amount and frequency of televised violence; the correlation between
exposure to violence and aggressive behavior; and the adequacy of existing mechanisms, such as
the TV ratings system, that are available to assist parents in identifying programming content
that may not be appropriate for children and to view. In response to requests from several
entities, the Commission recently extended the time for the submission of comments in this
proceeding and the comment period closed on November 15,2004.
We will make your letter part of the record in this proceeding. Please be assured that
your views, along with the complete record as it develops, will be evaluated carefully as the
Commission deliberates this matter.
I look forward to continuing to work with you and other Members of Congress on this
important matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance with this
or any other matter.
Sincerely, I)
/
Michael K. Powell
__^- __ __ ".__
....
" I-._ . . . .
. " ........ ..".
. . " ~ -..
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN November 18,2004

Thank you for your October 12,2004 letter concerning violent programming on
television and its impact on children. I appreciate learning your views on this important matter
and share many of your concerns about the potential effects that violent programming may have
on children.
As you might be aware, on July 15,2004, the Commission adopted a Notice oflnquiry
seeking specific information on a number of issues related to violent television programming and
its effect on children and other young viewers. For example, the Commission requested
information regarding the amount and frequency of televised violence; the correlation between
exposure to violence and aggressive behavior; and the adequacy of existing mechanisms, such as
the TV ratings system, that are available to assist parents in identifying programming content
that may not be appropriate for children and to view. In response to requests from several
entities, the Commission recently extended the time for the submission of comments in this
proceeding and the comment period closed on November 15,2004.
We will make your letter part of the record in this proceeding. Please be assured that
your views, along with the complete record as it develops, will be evaluated carefully as the
Commission deliberates this matter.
I look forward to continuing to work with you and other Members of Congress on this
important matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance with this
or any other matter.
Sincerely,
fl
Michael K. Powell
Sen. Clinton-.W Main @I001
b
.C. , Un ted States Senator
-
780 Third Avenue
Phone: 21 2-688-6262Fax: 21 2-688-7444
F .u FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
This facsiiiilc is intcndcd only for usc of thc addressee@)n a m d hercin and may contain privilepzd and/or cootidenrial
infoimation. If you are not die interided recipient of this facsinlile, you are limby notifirrd that any disscnlinstion,
dism'hiJlion or copyins o f this fscsimile is stricrly prohibited. I f you have received this facsimile in error, please
iiiundiarcly notify us by relcphonc and rmrn thc origmal facsimile TO 11s at thc addrcss abovc via thc local postal
service. --- .,.--
JAN-03-20DS 13: 22 212 692 014R 96% P. a i

I-
01/03/(15 13:2(1 FAX 212 692 0148 Sen. Clinton-NY Main
HlLLARY RODHAM CLINTON

NWJVORK
SENATOR
RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILOING
S1JlTEa7ln
\hAlHINGTON. OcXIElc420d
1w4-51
January 3,2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Office of Le*slative and Intergovernmental Affairs
445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Maria Gonzalez and Angela Zaharakis-Tsopanidis,who have

expressed concerns about the proximity of Nextel cell-phone towers to P.S.122 in Astona,
Queens.
I would appreciate your reviewing the infomation that has been presented and providins

Attention: Dan Burton
'Your cooperation and assistance are greatly appreciated. I look forward to hearing from
you soon.
Sincerely yoitrs,

HRC/db
.JAN-03-2805 13 :22 212 692 8148 35% P.02

I -- 0 1 . ’ 0 3 ~ 0 5...,13:20 FAX 212 692 0148 Sen. Clinton-NL’ Main
+++
--
A g e l a Z h a r e k i s - %upanidis _-----
21-24 24 street Astorla, NY 11105 718-721-5736
December 13,2004
The Honorable Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

LJnitcd Stares Senate
T-IonorableSenator Clinton,
1 an1 811 outraged and concerned parent as well as a resident of Astoria, Queens, MY
children attend Public School 122 in Asroria. The school is home to 1300 h h h l
ranging In ages from 4 to 12. We havc a gifted program in our school also - it is a
phenomenal school. And whilc all this is great, we havc (i b-i-g problem now.
Nextel has placed recently 12 cell phone base towers on top of a building directly across
the street from our elementary school. these towcrs are on the roof of a three story
building, which is two stories shorter than our five story school and it is no more than 200
feet away horn the school. These towcrs are aimcd directly at our classrooms, filled with
our children. These children must spend S hours a day, five days a week, for many years,
being cxposed to the RF radiation baing omitted by these towers, Additionally ihc school
teachers and staff arc bcing cxposed to this potentially harrnfd radiation.
1 am horrified at the pdssiblc consequencas this constant exposure to RF radiation will
h a w on my two children’s five, ten or twenty years from now. Nextel insists that ihc
levels of radiation omitted are safc. They compare it to P microwtlva. As our Now York
City Councilman Peter Vallone has stated - that may bc Iruc but no one stands in Iiont of
a microwave with h e door open for hours at a time. Ncxtel points to studios lhey hace
done regarding the RF radiation emitted. They base their conclusions on studies fundcd
by thc telecommunications industry which are not only not rcliable but also outdated.
Recent studies, both here and abroad, raisc alariiiing and lcgitimate concerns that inust be
addresscd. Nextel never consulred with the comniunity about the placemen1 of thcsc
towers. In addition, the owner of the property that they are mounted on liae stated that he
wants to be released from thc contract but they will not release him. These cell phonc
towers are sprouting up with alarming frequency all over New York, very ofcon right in
the middle ofconcentrated residential populations.
We are particularly angered and appalled at the irresponsible placement of thesc towcrs
rncrc: feet away from a school full of young children. Children whosc bodica arc still
developing and least able to defend against potential environmentall hazards. How can
they do this? As a parent I am sure you understand our concerns.
Under FCC regulations there are certain procedures rhat must be followed in order of
these towers to be installed. Thcse regulations were LOO stringent for the ccll phonc
cornpanics so in 1998, Dcputy Buildings Commissioner, Richard A Visconti issued a
zoninE Exemption which allows these companies to bypass the Board of Standards and
Appcals, community board hearing proccss and the public’s right to duc proccss. Oncc
JAN-03-2005 13 22 212 692 0148 95% P. 03

.- (Jl,’1!3-,’05 1 3 : 2 0 FAX 2 1 2 6 9 2 0148 Sen. Cllnton-NY Maln @I0 0 4
nEC-i5-2@md 83:44 em -9 31.1~1.1.1!1-1~1.1.1~ +++ F - 03
Page 2, continued
they reach an ugreement with a landlord they can basically pur the towers up anywhere.
More frightening, and as you woll know, the FCC regultttcs the communications industry.
The 19% ’Telecommunications Act precludes local and state governments fiorn zoning
thcsc antennas bascd on health concerns. This has takcn away thc right of the state to
protccf iL9 ow11 citizcw, detexminc its own land use policies and sot its own safety
stonclnrds. Furthermore, the FCC set the health and safety standards basccl on research
funded by the wircless industly. Kcminds me of the wolf watching thc sheq. Therc IS
no indepcndmt rcscarch being conducted in the US rcgarding the effects ofthis radiution,
The FCC and FDA have set limits for radiation exposurc to the ganertll public, but do not
monitor, inspect or visit the sitc to insure compliance, 1 have bccn told that there arc two,
that’s right, only two inspectors for the entire East Coast. In conversations wo haw had
with Ncxtel they have tried to calm us by saying they would comc by to take level tests
and conduct studies. This is m l y frightoiling and complercly unacccptablc hccnunc lhcy
are telling us that yes in fact our children will be tcst subjects. Any levels they fakc are
for a specific point in time. What about my child and all the others sitting in front o f
these towers hours on end, day after day for many years. With all the ulicertainty
surrounding RF Radiation no onc should force children or anyone else for that mattcr to
be to be exposed to il in this fashion. If evcn only onc child should get cancer or sornc
nthcr disease as a result of this irrcsponsiblc act that is one too many.
Years ago asbcstos was routed as thc next great thing. Wc all know now ihat Lhis IS not
rruc. Look at: lead, The s m a thing happened there. We thought it was safe but now rve
know i t is not. What will it take? Will RF radiation follow the same path? I sincucly
hope no\ but 1 fear that it will.
As a parent I feel that by placing these cell phonc towers across thc strcet from our
school, Ncx~elhas possibly placed our children in harms way, Wc will not allow it.
You have consistontly spoken your mind throughout your tenurc as a public figure :und
you have never been afraid of going against Rpccial inrercsls. You are a great sentitor
Necdlcss to nay I voted for you as my senalor in 2000. I am hoping [hut you will
continue one day and I will get to vote for you as my President.
1 am appealing to you as a parent, I am asking for your help. Please help us get thcsc
towers removed immediately. Nextel has plans to tuin them on in the ncxi couplc of
weeks, We cannot allow this to happen; I cannot arford to take a cbancc with my
children’s health in the fiiture or now.
Thank you for your time and prompt attcntion to this matter; tt is of utmost urgcncy.
Plcasc support us.
P.S, 12
01.'03:(15 13:20 FAX 212 6 9 2 0148 S e n . Clinron-NI' Naln El 0 0 5
._
L
ir
View f:\ernailobj\200412\30\1213215928.txt Page I of 3
View f:\ernailobjU00412UO\l213215928.txt
From: rgonzalez2S@nyc.rr.com
Dare: 12/13/2004 9:58:17 PM
To: webmail@clinton-iq.senate.gov
Subject: www-email
Dear Senalor Clinton,
This is a story that is happening in our communiry. It is a story of corporate arrogance and mdiKmence to concerned and reasonable
requests. They have goiren nway with it many times but thistime we are not going to take it because this timc it involves 1300 of
OUR children!!!
We are a committed and concerned group of pxents whose clddren attend elementary school P.S. 122 in Astoria, Queens. A little
over a month ago Nexrel installed 12 bast cell rowers on top of a building directly across the strcet fiom the school at 21-60 2lst
Street. The building is three stories high. Thc school is five stones ha.Unbelievable as it is, once thesc towers are turned on they
will beam potentially harmful I7.F radiation directly inro OW children's' classrooms and they will expose our children LO his radiarion
CONTINUOUSLY for at lcast S hours a day, 5 days a wcek for many years. These towers are less than 200 feet away from our
children!! !! Nexzel placed these towers 011 the building without consulting or notifying the community. Had they done so thcy would
have gotten the veIy clear mcssage thar these towers are nor wanred. All we want thein to do is remove the towers and have rhm
placed responsibly away fiom our children and the surrounding residen!
tial housing. The cell phone industry is a fGrly new one and in the last few years there has bccn an explosion in rhe placement of
these towers all over the world. The industry insists that the towers are safe and no cause for alarm. Wcll w arc exuemely
concerned, alarmed and angry. The industty b a c r their clnims on snidies which they have funded for the niost part and many of rhem
are clearly old and outdatcd. Recently, both here and in Europe, there have been a number of alarming studies which raise many
questions concerning the long term effects of RF radiation exposure on human hcalth. Ncxtcl tells us the towers x e safe yet they
cmiot guarantec the safety of ow children. The fact that there are very serious questions now being raised clcarly cries out for the
initiation of exhaustive and dciailed studies of the effect of RF radiation on human health. Ln li&t of this, with so many questions and
no defmitive answers, how can anyone willjliqly put small ch!
ildren in such close proxirnity to a potcntially life threateni'
ng sourc
e? It is abhorrcn!, unbelievable and it i s happmning KO us. Nestel in its corporate arrogance has, to date, shown a total disregard for our
children and though we have been generating a great deal of pressure on them they appear to be going ahcad with h e i r plms to
eventually Lun the rowers on.
We will settle For nalhing short of the cornpletc rmoval of these rowers away fiom out chlldren and we will not stop until this is
done. To date we have had a rally which was organized by CoLmcilman Peter Vallone and well attended by parents, community
rcsidents and media, both print and TV. We have gone out and obtained over 1000 rignarurcs on petitions demanding the removal of
the towers. The United Federation of Tcachers, on behalf ofthe faculty ofthe school, which will also be exposed to rhis continuous
radiation, has lobbied Nextel to reinove thc towers. On December 1st we staged a mail-in where we believc thowand of e-mai'1s were
sent to the corporate offices of Nestel and its cxecdves. We continue to e-mail tlmn regularly and will do so until our goal is
achieved. We are vigorously spcaking TO 'as many elective oficials as possible on both the federal, state and local level in an effort to
bring these towers down. Wc also hope to see the introduction ofmca!
ningful legislation, where thcre h none now, to protect all citizcns fTom the random, irresponsible plwemeiit of cell phone base
towers. The landlord of the building in question is ;illelderly gentleman with a heart condition and limited English. We have spoken
with him and he has [old us that at no timc were he aware of or told that there would be radiation of any kind cmhed from his
rooftop. He no longer wishes to have these towcrs on his roof with the potential consequeiices they may have to the childrcn directly
across h e street. The landlord hiinself wants to abrogate the contracr yet Nextel is unwilling to do so.
Thc thing that scares us most about this i s h o t n huge company such as Nextel can be so indifferent to the rcquesu ofjust about every
person in thc community, a coinmunity which hey x e supposedly q h g to help with the placement of these towers. Ironically, we
are all committed to a boycon of Nexrel and if these Lowers are turned on there will be very few if any Nextel phones in the area
which these towers will scrvice. We can %sure them h a t . This is clearly B case of corporate greed and indifference and this all
tramlalcs down ro the smallest, youngest and most precious inembers or our cainmunity, OUR CHTLDREN.How can they not
believe that we w i l l fi@t thcm with every lasr bir of sb-en@ and resohe. We h a w to, OLU childrm are involved. We are dso looking
for a law firm or lcgal counsel to fighhr for us and takc our causc on a pro bono basis. NexTel states thar they have done everything
legally and by &e book. T n conversations wc have had with Ncxtel rh!
http://clinton-iq :800/tc asphiew webmail .asp?object id=f?h3A%5Cemailob i%5 C2004 12%5 C3 0 ... 113 12005
J A N - O ~ - ~ O ~ S 13:23 212 692 0149 36% P. 05
- ‘ .-.
View f:\emailo bjD00412\30\121~2159~8.txt Page 2 of 3
ey have tried to calm us by saying they would come by to take level tests and conduct studies. What kind of study can they possibly
do? A n efl‘ective and honest study will take many years to complete. W h a t are we supposed to do in the meantime, allow our children
to be continuously exposed to RF radiation? Absolutely not, this is complerely unacceptable. Any levels they take are for a specific
point in rime. Is anyone going to sit with our children and take level expowe for thc lcngth of time they are exposed not just a single
point in time measurement. Again, his is totally unacceprable. If even only one child should get cancer or some other disease as a
result of this irresponsible act that is on& to many.And J fear that we will eventually see clusters of disease fiom RF exposure. Fifty
ycars ago asbestos was touted as the next great thing. Well, niy father died ten years ago as a result of asbestos poisoning. He died 35
year5 after his exposure. Will this !
be the asbestos for the 21st century? T sincerely hope not but!
1fear
that it will. As B parenr 1 am frightened that Nexrel has so irresponsibly and arrogantly placed our children in hams way. I cannor
allow ir. I will never allow it tlnd neither will any of the other parents.
As the spokesperson for over 1500 parents, teachers and concerned commumty residents J necd to schedule an appomtment with you
to discuss his grave issue and the impact on our children and commuiry. I am reaching out as onc mother to another. As an
individual who has shown great conccrn Cor all our children I am hoping you will allow me a very few minutcs of your time so that I
can convey the seriousness of this issue. We desperately need a strong voicc and there a n be no strower voice than yours. Please
Senator Clinton allow me thc few minutes I need. Our entire community k counting on this. 1 can be reached at 713-932-5964 or
rgonzalez2S@yc.rr.com. I wi1l conlacx your office in h e hope that someone there will pass this along to you.
Maria Gonzalez
=Original Formatted Message S w u Here -

Sender’s TP address = 24.193.4.67
UPP>SCCMAlL
<PREFLX>Mrs..(/PREFIX>
GJRSPMaria-QFTRSP
.-2ASPGonzalez<LAS?,
UDDRP22-20 23rd Street</ADDRl>
<ADDRZ>qA.DDW
<ClWAstoria</CIW
CSTA T D N Y d S T A T P
~IP>11105-344692P~
U3MAIPrgonzalcz28 @nyc.rr.com</EMATL>
USSLICHTLDRENS lSSUES4ISSuF,
-%>Dear Senalor Clinton.
This h a story that i s happening in oiu communicy. It is a story of corporate arrogance and indifference to colicelxed and reasonable
requests. They have gotten away wirh it many times bur this rime we are not going, to take it becaust thh rime K i involves 1300 of
OUR children!!!
We are a conmitted and concerned group of parents whose children attend elementary school P.S.122 in Astoria, Queens. A little
over B month ago Nextel installed 12 base cell towers on top of a building directly across thc m e e t from the school at 2 1-80 21 st
Street. Thc building is three stones high. The school is five stories high. Unbelievable as it is, once these towers are w e d on they
will beam potcnrially harmful RF radiation directly into our children’s’classrooms and they will expose our childrcn to this radiation
C 0 N ” U O U S L Y for at least 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for many years. These rowers are less than 200 fcct away from our
children!!! ! Nextel placed these towers on the building without consulting or notifying the community. Had they done so they would
have gotten the vtry clear message that thesc towers are not wanted. All we want hem to do is remove the towers and have them
placed responsibly away From our children and the s~uroundingresiden!
rial liou<mg.The cell phew indusrry i s a fairly new one and in the last h w ycan thcrc lns been an explosion in the placcrnent of
rhese towers all ovw the world. The industry insists that the towers are safe and no cause for alann. Well we are extremely
concerned, alarmcd and ‘wgry. The industry bases their claims on studies which thcy have funded for the most part and many of them
me clearly old and outdated. Recently, both here m d in Europe, there have been a number of alarming studies which raisc many
questions concerning the long term effects of RF radiation exposure on hunian health. Nextcl tells us the towers are safe yet they
cannot guarantee the safety of our children. The fact that bere are very serious questions now being raised clearly cries cut for the
iniliation o f exhaustive and detailed studies of thc effect of W radiation on hunian health. In light of this, with so many questions ,and
no defiiitive answers, how can anyone willingly put snidl ch!
ildren in such close prosiniity to a potcnlinlly life threateni!
ng SOLUC
January 12,2005

780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
Thank you for your inquiry to the Federal Communications Commission (the “Commission”) on
behalf of your constituents Maria Gonzalez and Angela Zaharakis-Tsopanidis. Ms. Gonzalez and Ms.
Zaharakis-Tsopanidis express concern about the lack of notice they received regarding the installation of
cellular antennas on a building some 200 feet from their children’s neighborhood school. Second, they
express concern regarding the possible health risks associated with the operation of these cellular
antennas.
Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications

Act of 1996, governs the powers of local governments with respect to the placement, construction, and
modification of facilities used to provide cellular, broadband PCS, and other personal wireless services.
Section 332(c)(7) preserves the authority of State and local governments in this area, provided they
comply with some basic limitations set forth in the statute. Specifically, a State or local government may
not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services, and
it may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services. A State or local government also may not regulate the placement, construction, or
modification of these facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF)
emissions, to the extent the facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such
emissions. In addition, a State or local government must act on a request to place, construct, or modify
personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable time, and any denial of a request must be made in
writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
In enacting Section 332(c)(7), Congress recognized that the local zoning and site approval
process plays a critical role in ensuring that the development of personal wireless systems occurs in a
manner that is consistent with local land use priorities. As discussed above, Federal law permits State and
local governments to enforce their zoning ordinances, which may include consideration of aesthetics,
preservation of property value, consistency with neighboring land uses, structural safety, and similar
concerns, provided a community acts in a manner consistent with the conditions set out in Section
332(c)(7). In some instances, however, it may not be feasible for carriers to offer service without placing
facilities in residential areas.
In order to determine whether or not they received adequate notice of the tower construction, Ms.
Gonzalez and Ms. Zaharakis-Tsopanidis may wish to contact local zoning officials. Because resolution of
this issue may involve the interpretation of New York zoning law; they may also wish to seek the
assistance of an attorney.
January 12,2005
Page 2
With respect to their concern about the potential health effects of RF emissions from the facility
at issue, the Commission’s rules are designed to protect public health by limiting the maximum amount of
RF emissions to which a licensee’s facilities, in combination with other sources of RF emissions, may
cause workers and the general public to be exposed. These rules are based on standards developed by the
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. and adopted by the American National Standards
Institute, as well as guidelines recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements. The rules were coordinated with and are supported by federal agencies with health and
safety responsibilities, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug
Administration, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration. In February 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the Commission’s RF guidelines in Cellular Phone Tusvorce v. FCC. The Commission
continues to maintain a vigilant eye on the issue of RF emissions. As discussed above, Federal law
prohibits State and local governments from regulating the placement, construction, or modification of
personal wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of FW emissions, including health
effects, to the extent the facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
To further assist you regarding facilities siting questions, I am enclosing two Fact Sheets on
national wireless facilities siting policies, a Bulletin that focuses specifically on the biological effects and
potential hazards of RF electromagnetic fields, and a “Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting
Antenna RF Emission Safety.” The Fact Sheets were developed by the Commission’s Facilities Siting
Task Force and are available on the Commission’s web site at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/siting.The
Bulletin was developed by the Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) and is
available on the Commission’s web site at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety. The “Local Official’s Guide,”
which was jointly issued on June 2,2000 by the Commission and the Local and State Government
Advisory Committee, is designed to aid local government officials and citizens in understanding safety
issues related to RF emissions from telecommunicationstowers. The guide is available at either web site
listed above. Should you have any additional questions concerning the health effects of RF emissions,
please feel free to contact the Commission’s RF Safety Program at (202) 418-2464.
Dan Abeyta
Assistant Chief
Spectrum and Competition Policy Division
Enclosures
NEW VORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-22W51
w - 0 4
January 6,2005
Mr. K. Dane Snowden

Chief
445 12th Street SW
Dear Mr. Snowden:
Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Elaine Berman of Port Washington, New York,
regarding her concerns over a Verizon phone bill.
rl

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRCDB-sm
12 Marlin Lane
Port Washington
New York 11050
April 2,2004
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton

780 Third Avenue
What’s wrong with this picture?
I do not use a telephone to excess; I have a home line (Verizon) and a cellphone
(Verizon Wireless), both without added accoutrements such as call-waiting or
caller I.D.
I was away for an entire month. My Verizon bill on my return reflected the usual
monthly charge for dial tone ($8.61) and local calls ($1.89) for a total of $10.50.
Surcharges and taxes, including FCC line charge, local number portability, Federal
Tax and NY StateAocal sales tax, totaled $10.45.
I find it highly questionable and objectionable that the surcharge and the use totals
are identical! What do you think?
Respectfully,
JAN 1 8 2005

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Elaine Berman, regarding
various charges on her telephone bill.

charge by the government; it's a federally-regulated charge collected by local phone companies

.' 1 1'
Enclosed is information to further assist Ms. Berman in understanding the charges on

her telephone bill. The Commission has available an e-mail service designed to apprise
parties on Commission regulatory proposals. This free service enables consumers to
subscribe and receive FCC fact sheets, consumer brochures and alerts, and public notices,
among other consumer information. To subscribe, an individual should send an e-mail to
subscribe@info.fcc.nov
- and, in either the subject line or the message insert: “subscribe fcc-
consumer-info first name last name” (e.g . , “subscribe fcc-consumer-info John Doe”).

TELL-FCC). Information on telephone-related issues can also be accessed via the Internet.
The Commission’s Home Page is located at httD://www.fcc.gov.
questions.
Sincerely,
\).t K. Dane Snowden ’\

Chief
Enclosures
- 1 1‘ ’
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTOd
NEW YORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
202-224-4451
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Office of Legislative and IntergovernmentalAffairs
443 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed are letters from my constituents- - 7 J

d h sconcerning the changing Universal Service Fund rates.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/DB/AM
Girard Heme
85 Wurts St. ,Kingston, New Ywk 12401
September10,2004 07:14AM ,

U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510-0001
Subject: Tell the FCC to Keep the USF Fair!

. .
As someone who lives and votes in your state, I urge you to support a fkk, nondiscnrmnatOrY
USF collection method. I have learned that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
may soon change the way it collects fees for the Universal Service Fund (USF). I oppose this
change, and urge you to do so as well. The change would unfairly raise my cell phone bill, and
make it more difficult for low and fixed income consume;rs and other low-volume long distance
users, like seniors, students and even teens, to afford any service at all. I urge you to contact the
FCC and ask them to maintain the fair, nondiscriminatory fee collection method now in effect.
Currently, the FCC collects f s s for the USF through a usagdrevenue-based methodology that is
competitively neutral. Under this system, businesses and consumm who make the most long
distance calls pay the most into the fund -- those who use more pay more, and those who use less
pay less. The FCC is considering cbanging to a per-connection based collection method. This
would mean that low volume users would pay the same amount into the fund as high volume
users. This per-connectionplan is unfiiir, and would increase costs for the consumers who can
least afford to pay.
I respecmy request that that you keep our cell phone rates affordable by insisting that the FCC
reject the "connection-based" collection method and retain the usage/revenue based method. I
thankyou for your consideration on this matter, and would appreciate it if you would inform me
of your position on this issue.
I
'Girard Henne
i
\
Jeffrey Knox
15 steele St. ,Mohawk, New York 13407
September 15,2004 05:40 PM

U.S. Senate
Subject: Don't Change the Universal Service Fund

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose efforts that would change the way the Federal
Communications Commission collects Universal Service Fund (USF) fees. The FCC is
reviewing a proposed 'per user' fee, which would place a larger burden on low-volume
users of long distance. Please contact the FCC and urge them to oppose this change, and
let them know you support the current fair and non-discriminatory collection method.
Under the present 'revenue based system', what is paid into the fund is determined by how
much is used. If you use less, you pay less; if you use more, you pay more. Changing to
a 'per user' fee will discriminate against low-volume users, since their fees will be the
same as those for high volume users. It is unfair for those who monitor their long
distance use and are on a budget to pay as much as big volume, big-budget users. Why
change a system that is fair? People should pay for what they use. Adopting the per user
proposal would hurt those the fund was created to help, low and fixed income consumers.
Supporting this proposal would be supporting a regressive tax.
I support the efforts of the Keep the USF Fair Coalition and urge you to do the same by
opposing efforts to change the current revenue based system to a 'per user' fee system.
Rejecting this proposal will ensure that phone service remains afXordable for all.
Thank you for your consideration and review of this urgent matter.
I
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Knox
i
i .'
i c
kathleen ross
10 birch st #2 ,binghamton, New York 13903
September 15,2004 0450 PM

U.S. Senate
Subject: Don't Change the Universal Service Fund
As your constituent, I urge you to oppose efforts that would change the way the Federal
Communications Commission collects Universal Service Fund (USF) fees. The FCC is
reviewing a proposed 'per user' fee, which would place a larger burden on low-volume users of
long distance. Please contact the FCC and urge them to oppose this change, and let them know
you support the current fair and non-discriminatory collection method.
Under the present 'revenue based system', what is paid into the fund is determined by how much
is used. If you use less, you pay less; if you use more, you pay more. Changing to a 'per user'
fee will discriminate against low-volume users, since their fees will be the same as those for high
volume users. It is unfair for those who monitor their long distance use and are on a budget to
pay as much as big volume, big-budget users. Why change a system that is fair? People should
pay for what they use. Adopting the per user proposal would hurt those the fund was created to
help, low and fixed income consumers. Supporting this proposal would be supporting a
regressive tax.
I support the efforts of the Keep the USF Fair Coalition and urge you to do the same by opposing
efforts to change the current revenue based system to a 'per user' fee system. Rejecting this
proposal will ensure that phone service remains affordable for all.
Thank you for your consideration and review of this urgent matter.
OS-OO3Y
March 2,2005

780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
ATTN: Dan Burton
Thank you for forwarding letters from your constituents regarding the impact of
proposals to reform the Commission’s universal service contribution methodology. 1
appreciate the issues highlighted in the correspondence and hope that I can allay some of
their concerns.
Consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), the

purpose of the federal universal service fmd is to ensure the delivery of affordable
telecommunications service to all Americans, including consumers in high-cost areag,
low-income consumers, eligible schools and libraries, and rural health care providers.
Commission rules adopted pursuant to the 1996 Act require individual carriers to
contribute to the universal service support mechanisms a percentage of their reported
interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. This percentage is set
quarterly by the Commission and is known as the universal service contribution factor.
Although not required to do so by the Commission, many carriers, including wireline and
wireless carriers, choose to pass through their contributions costs to customers in the:
form of a line item, often called the “Federal Universal Service Fee” or “Universal
Connectivity Fee.”
In May 2001, the Commission initiated a proceeding to review its universal

service contribution system. The Commission’s action were motivated, in large part, by
rapid changes in the telecommunications marketplace, including increased wireless
substitution for wireline services and the bundling of traditionally distinct interstate m d
intrastate telecommunications and non-telecommunications products and services, ab well
as concerns regarding carrier practices to recover universal service contribution cos@. As
part of this proceeding, the Commission released a Report and Order (Order) and Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second Further Notice) on December 13,2002,
adopting interim measures that modified the revenue-based contribution methodology
while the Commission further considers long-term reforms. Pursuant to the Order,
universal service contributions are currently based on carriers’ projected collected end-
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton Palge 2
user interstate and international telecommunications revenues. In addition,

telecommunications carriers are no longer permitted to recover their federal universal
service contribution costs through a separate line item that includes a mark-up above the
relevant contribution factor.
The Second Further Notice sought comment on further refinements to the

revenue-based system and three connection-based proposals in the record. The
Commission specifically sought comment on the impacts of the different proposals on
consumers, both generally and on residential consumers that place few or no long-
distance calls. Parties have raised concerns similar to the concerns outlined in your
correspondence about the effects that connection-based proposals might have for low-
income and/or low-volume users who use their phones on a limited basis, such as for
emergency or security purposes. As the Commission reviews the various proposals bo
reform the current assessment system, it will carefully weigh the record and examine the
potential impact of any course of action on all consumers before making any additional
changes to the existing system.
If there are any questions, or should additional information be required, pleasc do

not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Thomas Buckley
Acting Deputy Chief
Telecommunications Access Policy Division
Wireline Competition Bureau
COMMITTEES.
CONRAD BURNS
MONTANA APPROPRIATIONS
DEPUTY WHIP BUDGET
MMERCE, SCIENCE. AND
/:E: TRANS PORTATION
~$€NERGY AND NATURAL
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2603 ,:=;, RESOURCES
(202) 224-2644 1p.j SMALL BUSINESS
May 10,2005 1:
,, ,..I
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
445 12th Street, S.W.
Dear Chairman Martin:
We are writing to continue our dialogue about 91 1 obligations for Voice over Internet
Protocol services (VOIP’~).VoIP holds the promise of unleashing vibrant competition and today
we urge the Federal Communications Commission to ensure that if the agency mandates
Enhanced 91 1 (E-91 1) for VoIP, it also provides a clear means for VoIP companies to meet that
obligation for all customers, both mobile and fixed.
We understand that the Commission is poised to address certain 91 1 public safety issues
confronting VoIP providers and their customers. We applaud and share your commitment to
ensure every American receives access to emergency services. An Enhanced 91 1 (E-91 1)
solution for all VoIP subscribers would contemplate access to 9 11 elements that enable mobility
[such as Pseudo-ANI, which wireless carriers use to complete 91 1 calls when subscribers are
roaming].
It is encouraging to see that recently all four Bell companies--first Qwest, then Verizon,
SBC and Bell South--acted in the marketplace to grant VoIP providers access to some of the 911
infrastructure that they control. This type of leadership should be applauded by Congress and the
Commission. Moving forward it is essential that we do everything to build upon this progress
and ensure that the carriers will enable a solution that works for all V o P subscribers.
If the Commission finds it has the ability to require all VoIP providers to offer E-91 1 that
authority must certainly include the tools to meet this mandate. Fortunately this path was paved
by the Commission’s hard work with wireless E-9 11. The very same method [pANI and pALI]
used by wireless to steer mobile 91 1 calls is a solution that can work for 100% of VoIP users,
mobile and fixed.
We implore the Commission to ensure public safety needs are met and to continue
building upon the industry lead efforts by granting VolP providers access to all 91 1 elements.
Furthermore, we encourage the Commission to provide clear signals to all consumers that the
91 1 system is a public trust and any and all efforts must be expended to ensure their safety.
HELENA MISSOULA BUTTE BOZEMAN GLENDIVE KALISPELL GREATFALLS BILLINGS TOLL FREE
(406) 449-5401 (406) 728-3003 (406) 723-3277 (406) 586-4450 (406) 365-2391 (406) 257-3360 (406) 452-9585 (406) 252-0550 1-800-344-1513
http llburnssenate gov

CONRAD BURNS COMMITEES:
MONTANA APPROPRIATIONS
DEPUTY WHIP BUDGET
COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND
TRANSPORTATION
ENERGY AND NATURAL
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2603 RESOURCES
(202) 224-2644 SMALL BUSINESS
It is clear you understand the importance of resolving these public safety issues, given the
tremendous speed with which you are addressing the problem. We look forward to working with
your Commission to ensure that workable, non-discriminatory public safety rules will keep the
door open to this promising new technology.
Sincerely,
Q
Q Senator Conrad
1 --
Senatb Hillary Rodham Clinton
HELENA MISSOULA BUTTE BOZEMAN GLENDIVE KAL~SPELL GREATFALLS BILLINGS TOLL FREE
(406) 449-5401 (406) 728-3003 (406) 723-3277 (406) 586-4450 1406) 365-2391 (4061 257-3360 (4061 452-9585 (406) 252-0550 1-800--344-1513
http:llburns.senate.gov
r DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
5
iis>
I .fall
,
,.,.d
":e,
c3i?: Food and Drug Administration

l.,r":l Rockville MD 20857
c::'
,:<:
IP4
../.. ,.
...,f
(I I
FDA .L.il.
I
-,
:
..
bm; OFFICE OF LEGISLATION

+~ONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY REFERRAL
,l..l,l.,
TO: Ms. Martha Johnson

Director
Office of Legislative Affairs
445 12thStreet, S.W., Rm. 8C404
The attached i s referred to your Agency sllice all or part of Lie subject matter
falls within your purview. Senator Hillarv Rodham Clinton has been notified of
this referral by:
phone call to
letter, copy attached
this referral notice
cc: The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

New York, NY 10017-2024
/
June 9 , 2005
W
ACTION OFFICER DATE
Maria Gonzalez February 4, 2005

NAME OF CONSTITUENT DATE OF INQUIRY
NEW YORK
SENATOR
Wnited states senate

SUITE 476
202-224-4451
February 4,2005
Ms. Melinda K. Plaisier

Associate Commissioner for Legislative Affairs
Food and Drug Administration
U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Services
5600 Fishers Lane, Rm 15-55
Rockville, Maryland 20857
Dear Ms. Plaisier:
Enclosed is a letter from Maria Gonzalez, who has expressed concerns about Nextel cell
phone towers being placed near PS 122 in Astoria, Queens.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/db
Jan-10-2005 03:lTpm From-
T-650 P.004/033 F-001
'C -
12/12/04
This is a story that is hapning in our community. It is a story of corporate ~ ~ ~ r o g a n c e

and iadiffeerenceto concerned and reasonable requests. They have gotten away with it
many times but this time we are not going to take it because this time 'it involves 1300 of
OUR chil&mI!!
We are a committed and concerned group of parents whose children a t t e n d elementzrry
school P.S. 122 in Astoria, Queens. A little over a month ago Nextel installed 12 base
cell towers on top of a buJding directly across the street from the school at 23-8021"
Street rzlebuilding is three stories high. The school is five stories hi& UnWmable
as it is, o m e these towers are turned on they will b m potentidy hovmN RF
radiation diredy into our children's' classrooms and they Will expose our cbildrem
to this radttian CONTI[NUOUSLY for at least 8 bonrs a day, 5 days a week for
mauy years. These W e t s are less thau 200 feet away from our children!!!! Nextel
placed thesetowers on the building without cotlsulting or notiming the Community, wad
they done so they would have gotten the very clear message that these towem are not
wanted. All we want than to do is remove the towersand have them placed rr?sponsibly
away from our children and the surrounding residential housing. The cell phom
is a fairy new one and inthe last few years there has been an exploSionin the p k e m w
of these towers all aver the world. Tbe industry insists that. the towers are safe and no
cause for alarm. Well we are axtremdy concerned, alarmed and angry. The industry
bases their claims on studies which ihey have b d e d for the most part and many ofthem
are clearly old and outdated. Recently, both here and in Europe, there have been a
number ofaladng studies which mise many questions concemhg the long term effects
of RF radiation exposure on human health. Nextel tells us the towers are safk yet tbey
cannat guarantee .the safety of our children. The fact that there are very mious questions
now being raised clearIy cries out for the inieiation of exhaustive and detailed slxkdks of
the e f f i ofRF raCkhon on human he&& 'Inlight of this, with so many questions and
no definitive answers, how can anyme WiJlingJy pur small c b i l h in such close
proximity to a potentially life &reatering source? ft is abhorrent, unbelievable and it is
happening to us. Nextel in its corporate mogmce has, to date, shown a totd disregard
for our children and %bough w e have been generating LL great deal ofpnissmz on them
they appear to be gobg ahead with their plans to eventudly tum the rowers an,
We will settle for nothing shoa of the complete removal of tbese towers away corn out
children and we will not stop until this is done. To date we have bad a d l y which was
organizedby Councifman Peter Vallone and well attended by parenfs, cornrnmhy
residents and media, both print and TV- We have gone out and obtained over ZOO0
signatwes on petitions demanding the removal of the towers. The United Federation of
Teachers, rn beblfofthe ficulty of the school, which will also be exposed to tbk
continuous radiation, has lobbied Nextel to remove the towers. On December lstwe
staged a mail-in where we believe thousand of emails were sent to the corporate ofices
of Nexfel and its executives- We continue to e-mil themregularly and will do so until
.-
Jan-10-2005
- _.
03:17pm From- T-650 P . 005/033 F-001
our god is achieved W e are vigorously speaking to as many elective officials 8s

possible on both the federa4 state and l o d level in an effort to bringthese towers down.
We also hope to see the imicoduction ofmeaningful legislatioq where there is none now,
to protea a l l Citizens from the random, irresponsible placement ofcell phone base
towers- The landlord ofthe building in question is an elderly gentleman with a heart
condition and limited English. We have spoken with him and he has told us that at no
time were he aware of or told that there would be radiation of any kind emitted fbm his
rooflop. He m longer wishes to have these towers on his roof with the potential
consequences they may have to the children directly across the street- The landlord
himself wants to abrogate the coutract yet Nextel is nnwiliing to do sa
The thing that scares us most about this is that a huge compny such as N e e 1 can be so
indifferent to the requests of just about every person in the community, a cammunity
which they are supposedly trying to help with the placement ofthese towers. Ironically,
we are an cotmdkdto a boycott of Nextel and if these towers are turned on there will be
very few if any Nextel phones in the area which these towers wiU service. We can wwe
them that.. This is clearly a case of corptrrate gesd and indifference and this all &ates
down to the smallest,youngest and most prc3cious members or our comuniey, OUR
CHILDRIEN. How can they not believe that we will fight them with ewery kistbit of
strength and resolve. We have to, our children are invoived. We are a h looking for a
law firm or legal counsel to fight for us and take our cause on a pro bono basis. Nextel
seates &ax they have done everything legally and by the book. In convedons we have
had with Nextel they have m*edto calm us by saying they would come by to take level
tests and conduct studies. What kind of study can they possibly do? An efkctive and
honest study will take many years to complete. What are we supposed to do in the
meantime, allow our children to be continuously exposed to RF dation? Absolrrtely
not, this is completely unacceptable. Any levels they take are for a specific point in t h e .
Is anyone going to sit with our children and t a h level exposure for the length oftime
they axe exposed notjust a single point in time measurement. Again, this is totdly
unacceptable. Ifeven only one child should get cancer or some other disease as a result
of this irresponsible act I b t is one to many. And I fear that we will evenWly see
clusters ofdisease from RF exposure. Fifty years ago asbestos was touicd as the next
great thing. Well m y &her died ten years ago as a result of asbestospoisoning. He died
35 yerrrs after his exposure, Will ~s be the asbestos for the 2 1st century? 1 sincerely
hope not but I fear .thatit will. As a parentI am frightened zhat Nextel has so
irresponsibly and mgantly placed our children in harms way. I cannot allow it. I Will
never allow it and mither will. any of the other 1300 sets ofparents.
As the spokesperson for the parents and teachers and concerned community residents
pIease feel free to contacf me shouldyou have any questions or be able to help us in any
way- 1 can be m h e d by e-mail at rgonzale228@,nycrrr-corn. Thank you for your time.
I
_ I .. ..I .... I .. . ~ .. . .
COMMUNITY EDUCATION COUNCIL
DISTRICT 30
28-11 Queens Plaza North, Room 503A
Long Island City, NY 11101
718-391-8380
January 18,2005
V I A FAX; (212) 688-7444

780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
New York, NY 1.0017

As you may or may not be aware, Nextel has recently placed 12 cell phone
anteiuias on top of a building at 21-80 21‘’ Strcet, hstoria, NY 11105, directly across the
street fiom .P.S. 122 located at 21-21 Dibnas Boulevard. These antennas have not yet
becn turned on. Once they are turned on, they will be emitting RF radiation directly
into our children’s classrooms for at Ieast 8 hours a day, 5 clays a week for many
years.
At this point in t h e , we simply do not know the possible health consequences of

long term, low-level exposurc to the RI radiation being used by the antamas. The
industry claims thc antennas are safe; there is no cause for alam. We can hardly rely on
thcir assertions as they are based on outdated studies which have been largely funded by
the telecomiiwnications industry itself. In an article by Margaret Glaser of the EMR
Network, she tells us “what Americans need to Icnow, and what they are not being
told, i s that three out of four independent (non-industry sponsored) research studies
worldwide are showing biooIogical effects from low-level, non-ionizing radiation
similar to that used in wireless communications. These are called 6non-thcrmal
effects) because they occur at levels too low to cause tissue heating. The telecom
industry and the FCC’s safe exposure guidelines, recognize only thermal (heath$
effects. That means that exposures at intensity (power) levels below that threshold
are officially being considered ‘safe’ while the research Is suggesting otherwise.”
In 1998, NYC Deputy Buildings Commissioner Richard A. Visconti, issued a

zoning exemption which allows telecommunications companies to bypass the Board of
Standards arid Appeals, the community b o d hearing process and the public’s right to
due process. Once the companies reach an agreement with a landlord, they can put the
antennas up anywhere. The FCC regulates ilie comiiunications industry. However, tlie
1996 Telecommunications Act pre-empts local and state governments from zoning these
antennas based on health concerns. We need to restore the hearing process to avoid
situations like this right from the start. We need legislative help to restore proper
laws and regulations to protect our children first ami the community at large.
The placement of cell phane anteonas or similar equipment near school
buildings and other places where children are found is irresponsible and improper.
The landlord ofthe building where the antennas were installed has agreed to take them
down, but Nextel will not let him out of tlie conkact he has signed with them. Moreover,
Nextel completed the final inspection and intends to turn them on soon, knowing full well
how much opposition they fdcc. This is extremeiy irresponsible and improper on the
part of Nextel.
To date, Community Education Council District 30 (P-S. 122 is part of District

30), has passed a resolution condemning the antennas. A rally was organized by
Councilman Peter F. Vallonc, JT. and was well attended by parcnts, community residents,
local politicians and the media (both newspapers and television). Over 1000 signatures
have been obtained on petitions demanding the removal of the antennas. The United
Federation of Teachers, on behalf of the school faculty, (who will also be cxposed to this
coilstant radiation), have lobbied Nextel for the removal of the antennas. On December
1, 2004, the school's PTA staged a mail-in and thousands of e-mails were sent to the
corporate offices of Nextcl and its executives.
Please help us in putting pressure on Nextel to remove these antennas and

request that legislature introduce a bill to regulate the installation of such antennas.
It i s for tbe benefit and health of our children, our future. Together, united, we can
make a difference!
This letter is being forwarded to the FCC, government olficials, schools, parents,
newspapers, media and radio stations, in an effort to voice our concerns for the health and
safety of our children.
Ncxtcl can be contacted via e-mail at: mediarelations~~iextel.com;

by telephone:
703-433-4000, and by mail at the fo,llowing address:
Ncxtcl
200 1 Edmund Halley Drive
Reston, VA 20191
Thank you for your support.
Respectfully yours,
COMMUNITY EDUCATION COUNCIL DISTRICT 30
cc: Community Education Council District 30 Members

Chancellor Joel I. Klein
Reyes Irizan-y, Regional Superintendent
Mary Kojcs, Principal, P.S. 122
lsaac Carmignani, PTA President, P.S. 122
T i n a Barber, PTA President, P.S. 122
July 5,2005

U.S. Senate
780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
New York, NY 10017-2024
This is in reference to your letter of February 4,2005, on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Maria
Gonzalez, of Astoria, NY. Ms. Gonzalez is concerned about RF exposure to children and others
at Public School 122 from Nextel's cellular base-station antennas placed on the rooftop of a
building across from the school building.
The FCC has monitored the issue of potential health hazards from the transmitters and antennas it
regulates for many years. The biological effects and potential hazards of radiofrequency (RF)
emissions from such facilities are discussed in an FCC publication, entitled "Questions and
Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Fields." A copy of this publication, which includes information on the pertinent FCC rules, is
enclosed for your information. Also enclosed is an FCC information sheet, entitled, "Information
on Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields from Cellular and PCS Radio Transmitters."
The policy of the FCC with respect to environmental RF emissions has been developed to ensure
that FCC-regulated transmitters do not expose the public or workers to levels of RF energy that
are considered by expert organizations to be potentially harmful. Since the FCC is not a health
and safety agency itself, we must defer to other organizations and agencies with respect to the
biological research necessary to determine what levels are safe. In the United States, the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., (IEEE), and the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements (NCRP) have issued recommendations for human exposure to RF
fields.
On August 1, 1996, the FCC adopted revised guidelines for human exposure to RF
electromagnetic fields based on recommendations from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal health and safety
agencies. These FCC guidelines were derived from exposure limits recommended by the NCRP
and the IEEE mentioned above. In the case of typical wireless communications base-station
antennas, the power levels are low and the transmitting antennas are located high enough above
ground that levels of exposure to the public are substantially below the FCC limits.
For the particular Nextel base-station site, which is the subject of Ms. Gonzalez's letter, located
on the rooftop of a building located at 21-80 21" Street, Astoria, NY 11105, we note that the
configuration of the antennas has been modified. Since the date of Ms. Gonzalez's letter to you,
Nextel has removed the four antennas that originally appeared to point in the direction of the
school building. This leaves only eight antennas, in contrast to the twelve antennas originally
planned at the site, none of which are pointed in the direction of the Public School 122 building.
We have reviewed the measurements that were performed and detailed in the attached EMF
Measurement and Evaluation Report (which we received from Nextel) by expert Wireless
Solutions, Inc., and we find that the potential RF exposure at any physical location inside and
outside the school building due to the Nextel site would be well within the FCC's Maximum
Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for the General Public exposure on a continuous basis. In
fact, the report shows that the exposure is less than 2.5% (0.025) of the MPE limit for RF
exposure to the general public. These measurements include the effects of other sources of RF
energy in that area as well.
The FCC and its Local and State Government Advisory Committee produced the Local Official's
Guide to RF Emissions to address the issue of what State and local governments can request as
proof of compliance with the Commission's RF regulations. The Local Official's Guide, among
other things, provides guidance on how to determine if a wireless transmission facility may raise
compliance concerns. A copy of this publication is enclosed.
I hope that this information will be helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to
contact me or Saurbh Chhabra, of my staff, at (202) 418-2266. You may also find additional
information on our Internet Web sites at www.~~fcc.Kovloet/rfsafet\i.
Sincerely,
A'- Bruce A. Franca

Deputy Chief
Office of Engineering and Technology
Enclosures (4)
cc: Ray Rothermel, Nextel Communications

June 15. 2005
VIA FACSIM1I.E
Honorable Kcvin J. Martin

Cha i rman
sw
345 l z t hStreet,
Re: E91 1 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers
Wc writc to commend the Federal Communications Commission for its quick

action in adopting E9 1 1 requirements for Voice-Over-Internet-Protocol ('.VOIP") service
providers (WC Docket Nos. 04-36,05- 196). The Commission's Report & Order makes it
clear that VOIP service providers must supply thcir customers with an immediate
solution for E91 1 services. Your leadership on this issue since becoming Chairnian has
been outstanding. Few issues are more critical than ensuring that all Americans have full
access to 91 1 eincrgciicy services.
Not only arc wc plcascd that the Conimission imposed a clear rcquircmcnt on
VOlP providers to provide by1 1 capability, but the Commission acted appropriately i n
requiring VOlP providers to notify customers of any limitations with respect to 91 1
access. The recent tragedies around the nation, u hich involved VOIP customers who
were unaware that thcir service \vas not 91 1 capablc, must not be repeated.
As you arc aware, we recently introduced companion legislation in the Senate and
the House that would build upon the actions your agency has taken to enhance public
safety and improve E91 1 services with respect to VOlP services. 111 its Report & Order,
the Commission decided not to classiij VOIP service as a "telecommunications service"
and thereby bestow the conscquont rights that all other telecommunications service
providers crijoy. Thus, thc Commission did not cnsurc that VOIP service providers
would have access to the trunks and selecti\ferouters of incumbent local exchange
carriers. Although wc apprcciatc the Commission's reliance on third-party access to
wireline E91 1, w e believe that a further step in mandating acccss is necessary. Our
legislation addresses this point.
Wc also note that thc Cornniission expressly declined to resolve issues related to
liability. The Commission appropriately stated that liability issues must be addressed by
Congress. Our legislation indeed deals with this issue; it contains a provision that -
among other things -- \vould provide VOIP services with the same liability treatment
enjoyed by wireline and wireless services in this area.
Moreover, we urge the Commission to continue working with V O P providers,

the public safety community, and industry as these requirements arc implemented and to
seek to find solutions that address challenges that will likely arise. We anticipate that
many VOIP providers will not be able to meet the 120-day deadline for fixed services for
operational reasons. It nil1 likely take longer than 120 days for the necessary routers and
databases to be provisioned. We also anticipate that providers with nomadic services will
not be able to meet the E91 1 deadline because the technology to provide location
information for VOIP phones is not yet in place. It is going to take much hard work on
the part of all stakeholders to ensure success. But the Coinmission clearly has taken the
right first step with a very clear and thoughtfill order.
As always, we look forward to continuing to work with the Commission on these

and other critical public safety communications issues.
Sincerelv.
r ) '
i-
/,c(,cLc/.cG~,*
Rep. Bart Gordon
cc: Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abemathy

Commissioner Michael J. Copps
Coinniissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein
Washington, D.C.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 2 1,2005
The Honorable Bill Nelson

7 16 Hart Senate Office Building
Dear Senator Nelson:
Thank you for your letter regarding 91 1 obligations for Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) services. I am pleased to report that the Commission adopted an Order requiring
providers of “interconnected” VoIP service to supply enhanced 91 1 (E91 1) emergency calling
capabilities to their customers as a mandatory feature of their service. The new requirement
becomes effective November 28,2005.
There are many VoIP providers that either do not provide their customers with any access
to 91 1 emergency services, or only provide 91 1 access in certain areas of the country. There are
still other VoIP providers that only provide their customers access to a non-emergency line of
public safety personnel - a line that does not connect to trained emergency operators. The 91 1
system quite literally is one of life or death and should not be optional for any telephone service
provider. It is critical to our nation’s ability to respond to a host of crises, and the Commission
acted to minimize the likelihood of situations like recent incidents in which users of
interconnected VoIP dialed 91 1 but were not able to reach emergency operators.
The Order represents a balanced approach that takes into consideration the expectations
of consumers, the need to strengthen Americans’ ability to access public safety in times of crisis,
and the needs of entities offering these innovative services. I recognize that technical issues
must be resolved and coordination with public safety officials must take place before providers
can comply fully with the new requirements. Notably, the Order does not place obligations on
IP-based service providers offering instant messaging or Internet gaming services, because
although these services may contain a voice component, customers of these services cannot
receive calls from and place calls to the PSTN. I believe that the November effective date
properly balances the nonnegotiable need of VoIP customers to access public safety with the
practical need for adequate industry coordination and resolution of technical issues.
In adopting this Order, the Commission recognized that the successful nationwide
deployment of E91 1 service by interconnected VoIP providers is dependent on the cooperation
of interconnected VoIP providers, incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs), third-party
vendors, and the public safety community. Such cooperation is already taking place in several
. . _... ,, ..--.
I-L-..-_ -._.. - - . . . ... ”. ..
..
Page 2-The Honorable Bill Nelson-September 21,2005
major markets, and I have every reason to believe that this cooperation will continue throughout
the country.
As you indicate in your letter, ensuring consumers' safety is of fundamental concern. I

intend to ensure that consumers' public safety expectations are met, no matter what type of
phone they may be using. I appreciate your interest in and support for this very important
matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 2 1,2005
The Honorable Conrad Bums

187 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Dear Senator Bums:
Thank you for your letters regarding 91 1 obligations for Voice over Internet Protocol
There are many V o P providers that either do not provide their customers with any access
to 9 1 1 emergency services, or only provide 9 1 1 access in certain areas of the country. There are
still other V o P providers that only provide their customers access to a non-emergency line of
Page 2-The Honorable Conrad Bums-September 21,2005
the country.
As you indicate in your letters, ensuring consumers' safety is of fundamental concern. I

matter. Please let me know if I can be of any hrther assistance.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Enclosure
Federal Corn munications Corn mission
Washington, D.C.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 2 1,2005

still other VolP providers that only provide their customers access to a non-emergency line of
. ~ . _. . I....I .. . .. . .“I_ 1. ...... ” . . .. . . . ” . ...

Page 2-The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton-September 2 1,2005
the country.
As you indicate in your letters, ensuring consumers’ safety is of fwndamental concern. I
intend to ensure that consumers’ public safety expectations are met, no matter what type of
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Enclosure
.... .._f_.. ~ .
I . - . .-..--. ~ ,. , .
. ..
Washington, D.C.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 2 1,2005
The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo

205 Cannon House Office Building
Dear Congresswoman Eshoo:
properly balances the nonnegotiable need of V o P customers to access public safety with the
of interconnected VoIP providers, incumbent local exchange camers (LECs), third-party
Page 2-The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo-September 21 2005
the country.
As you indicate in your letters, ensuring consumers' safety is of fundamental concern. I

matter. Please let me know if I can be of any hrther assistance.
Sincerely,
-
Kevin J. Martin
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 2 1,2005
The Honorable Bart Gordon

2304 Rayburn House Office Building
Dear Congressman Gordon:
Page 2-The Honorable Bart Gordon-September 21,2005
the country.
As you indicate in your letter, ensuring consumers’ safety is of fundamental concern. I

Sincerely,
d?/e Kevin J. Martin
Enclosure ’
.. .-........ . . . -- --- . .. . . .. .....

Washington, D.C.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 2 1,2005
The Honorable John M. Shimkus

5 13 Cannon House Office Building
Dear Congressman Shimkus:
Page 2-The Honorable John Shimkus-September 2 1,2005
the country.
As you indicate in your letters, ensuring consumers’ safety is of fundamental concern. I

Sincerely,
d>/e Kevin J. Martin
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 21,2005
The Honorable Olympia Snowe

Dear Senator Snowe:
providers of "interconnected" VoIP service to supply enhanced 91 1 (E91 1) emergency calling
still other V o P providers that only provide their customers access to a non-emergency line of
provider. It is critical to our nation's ability to respond to a host of crises, and the Commission
of consumers, the need to strengthen Americans' ability to access public safety in times of crisis,
Page 2-The Honorable Olympia Snowe-September 21,2005
the country.
As you indicate in your letter, ensuring consrners7safety is of fimdamental concern. I

Sincerely,
Enclosure
. ..-.-,-" -..__.-.-. . . ..
" .. . " . __.
~ "... . ~ .. __ . ..
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON COMMITTEES:
ARMED SERVICES
NEW YORK
"5 ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
SENATOR ,U~+LTH,
EDUCATION LABOR AND PENSIONS
* SPECIAL COMMITEE ON AGING
SUITE 476
202-224-4451 United states Senate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3204 ,:. '
.1 1
June 20,2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Marlene Raynor.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRCIdblrh
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-_-
Cellphoge Antenhas to Sprout .
Atop Ljght Poles and Signs

J -
BY IA$J URBINA number of antennas needed.
#
At more a h $6,000 a month for a “We see this as a win-win situa-
few square ‘,eet, it may be the most tion*” Menchilli said.
expensive eal estate in New York. Evie Hantzopoulos of the Astoria
- m e thp .”‘sliver pf space on top of Neighborhood Coalition, which op-
lamppost traffic signals and high- Poses the unchecked spread of anten-
I,
way sig- 1 is where fie city plans to nas in the City, Sees it otherwise.
allow tt;iecommunications cornpa- “There has beens complete lack of
nies to put cellphone antennas and Public input on this and the city has
Internet transmitters. given the telecommunications indus-
The plan, which will add about carte blanche XCeSS,” Ms. Hant-
$21.3 million to city coffers, will im- zopoulos said. “It’s not just danger-
prove spotty cellphone reception - X W it’s irresponsible-”
and turn many intersections int&*- While there has been. widespread
wireless Internet ‘hot spots.” But, concern about radiation from cell-
city officials say, it will also help ? Phone towers Posing a risk of cancer
those who cannot afford regular tele- and infertility, most scientific stud-
phone service, by providing a cheap- ies have not found a link.
er option, through wireless Internet- The Six companies granted access
based access, in neighborhoods with to the Poles include two cellular pro-
the fewest connections to the phone viders, Nextel and T-Mobile, and
network. three non-cellular‘companies, Clear-
Opponents of the plan say that the Linx Network COW., Crown Castle
only thing the antennas will bring is Solutions and Dianet Communica-
an increased health risk. ‘*We have tions. The sixth company, IDT Busi-
no idea what dangers are posed by ness Services, will offer telephone
I
the concentration of these devices,” Service Via the Internet. Each com-
said Councilman Peter F. Vallone Jr. P a y Will be a b w @ dto use a maxi-
of Queens, explaining that the city mum of 3,000 poles citywide for a
does not keep records of the numbers term of 15 Years.
or locations of the antennas already The current Plan offers iiciess to
in the city. “They keep saying that Poles in three separate zones for dif-
these things are less dangerous than ferent prices. Zone A includes Man-
microwave ovens,” Mr. Vallone said, hattan south of 96th Street. Zone B i:
‘putno one has a microwave running everywhere in the city not include?
24/7, right next to their bedroom win- in the Other two zones. Zone <Ccon.
daw.” sists of a patchwoik of neighbor.
, City officials say the plan is need- hoods in Brooklyn, Manhattan anc
ed to keep pace with the rapidly the Bronx where five percent 01
growing use of cellphones and wire- more of the houses do not have tele
less Internet connections. The anten- phone service.
nas and Internet relay boxe? will Agostino Cangemi, deputy com
start appearing on city poles before missioner of information technolog
the end of the summer, said Gin0 P. and telecommunications, said a bit
Menchini, the city’s commissioner of advantage of the franchise plan i:
Formation technology and telecom- that it will provide phone access vk
munications. About 18,000 spots will the Internet in Zone C, areas typical
be leased. ly home to lower-income and immi
T” The pole-mounted antennas will al- grant families that rely on public pa!
low the city to shift away from the phones and high-priced phone cards.
!arge cellular base stations that IDT Business Services, a compan!
*’ $mit$igher radiation and are locat- based in Newark, will provide cus
Fd on many rooftops, Mr. Menchini tomers in Zone C Internet phone de
explained. And since one of the fran- vices and accounts to which they c a
chise companies will install univer- add prepaid minutes, Mr. Cangem
Gal antennas, which can be used by said. The Internet phones will cos
All cellphone providers, the new set- less than most cellphones, and then
up will actually lower t k n3 credit checks be said.
/ r
1 r- .
HIGHLIGHTS - ~~
H Wireless Notes ).
In early 1999, WTR’s Dr. George Carlo began issuing public

warnings about genetic changes from cell phone radiation. Re- Controversy Before Release of
searchers from Integrated Laboratory Systems (ILS) in Re-
search Triangle Park, NC, provided details that March at a meet-
ing of the Environmental Mutagen Society, and again at a WTR
workshop three months later (seeMWN, MIA99 and J/A99). A
d German Cell Tower-Cow Study
Controversy has flared in Germany over a study of the
health of dairy cattle housed near mobile phone antennas.
year ago, the FDA and the CTIA announced that they would The study’s findings are “explosive,” the nationally
work together to follow up these results (see MWN, N/D99). In broadcast TV news magazine Report Mainz claimed on Au-
June 2000, a formal FDA-CTIA agreement was signed, and on gust 21. The pro,gam said it had obtained partial results which
August 1-2 the RF Micronucleus Working Group met to plan showed that, “There were clearly more deformities and the
further studies (see MWN, J/AOO). The ILS research has been animals behaved differently” at the farms wifh antennas near-
drawing media attention for over a year and a half and has now by than at the other sites. The behavioral effects are similar
become the subject of a legally binding agreement between the to those associated with chronic stress, it repoded.
wireless industry and the U.S.goveinment-so some eyebrows The Bavarian state Ministry for Land Development and
were raised when ILS’ Dr. Ray Tice told the FDAXTIA work- the Environment, which is in’ charge of the investigation,
ing group that the first paper on the micronucleus findings had responded the next day that the broadcast was “not cred-
only been submitted for publication “at the end of last week.” ible’’ since the study w,as not yet complete. The ministry
When asked about the delay, Dr. Graham Hook, the paper’s lead said that it expects to have final results in late October.
author, replied that, “Too often experimental data is rushed into A knowledgeable source told Microwave News that a
publication.”Hook noted that, “Appropriateefforts and time must confidential draft of the report details behavioral effects simi-
lar to those described on T V and that the investigators had
be taken to assure that work that is submitted for publication be found a higher rate of reproductive problems in the exposed
of top quality, reproducible and as complete as possible.” Hook, herds.
formerly with WTR, is now at ILS. It will be some time before The study, which began in 1998, probed the behavior,
the paper is actually available-the-paper was submitted to Bio- milk output and reproductive health of herds at 38 farms,
electromagnetics,which is not known for a speedy publication some near wireless base stations and others not (see MWN,
schedule. J/A98). It was projected to cost approximately 700,000 marks
<<<< >>>> (US$300,OOo).
Dr. Jutta Brix of the Federal Radiation Protection Office
The FoQdand Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Devices in OberschleiRheim declined to comment to Microwave
and Radiological Health (CDRH) has long been reticent about News. A statement on wireless phone systems issued by the
making public statementson radiation health risks. So it was some- office earlier this year maintains that, based on current evi.
what surprising that Dr. David Feigal, director of the CDRH, dence, there is no danger of negative health effects from ex.
agreed to be on CNN’sLarry King Live to talk about cell phones posures within Germany’s TCNIRP-based limits. .
and brain cancer. (CNN was so eager to have him that the show
was delayed from an original July air date until August 9 to ac-
commodate Feigal’s schedule.) Dr. Christopher NeGman and his troubling that the industry is picking up the bill and will choose
attorney, Joanne Suder, were also on the show that night to dis- which projects receive funding” (see MWN, JIAOO). Business .
cuss their lawsuit alleging that cell phones caused Newman’s Week closed with: “Only well-designed and supervised
brain tumor (see p.2). But Feigal had insisted that he appear sepa- will tell us whether and how cell phones affect human’
rately and the last ten minutes of the show were devoted to a and calm consumers’ increasingly frayed nerves” (see als
one-on-one exchange with King. Feigal is no strangerto contro- Those frayed nerves were in evidence in Australia, where just a
versy, having previously headed up FDA’s work on antiviral drugs few days earlier, the Australian Consumers’ Association is-
(such as AIDS treatments), and he managed to dodge most of sued a press release titled MORERESEARCH NEEDED ON MOBILE
King’s questions. For instance, when King asked “Are we spend- PHONE SAFETY (see p. 3).
ing enough” on health research, Feigal answered, “It’s a difFi- <<<< >>>>
cult answer to say what’s enough.” Feigal said that he used his
cell phone about 20 minutes a day, and in closing the interview, Californiastate Senator Tom Hayden’s bill calling for a review
King asked “And you would use yours again for 20 minutes of research on possible health effects of mobile phones is dead.
tomorrow?” to which Feigal responded: “I certainly-I need to “It’s toe-tag time,” Hayden aide Rocky Rushing told Microwave
do that, yes.” News. The bill, SB1699, which passed the Senate in May, was
<<<< >>>> placed on hold by the Appropriations Committee of the Assem-
bly in August. Any further action must now wait until the legisla-
FDA’s wireless research effort has drawn fire from an unusual ture’s next session-but by then, Hayden will no longer be in the
source. In an August 14 commentary, Business Week called the Senate. (Under California’s term limit law Hayden cannot
FDA-CTIA initiative “flawed.” The magazine argued that, ‘‘It’s again.) SB1699 onginally would have required stores to post
6 MICROWAVE NEWS SeptemberlOctober 2000
HIGHLIGHTS
(2V/m) maximum exposurelevel, citing evidence of potentially
Germany Eyes Precautionary harmful effects at levels as low as 20 p,W/cm2(8.7 V/m).
RF/MW Limits for Cell Towers Switzerland’sprecautionary limit for 900 MHz radiation from
mobile phone towers is 4pW/cm’ (4V/m), more than 100 times
Germany may soon follow Italy and Switzerlandin adopting lower than ICNIRP (see ME”, J/FOO). Similar rules for RF/
strict exposure limits for radiation from mobile phone base sta- MW radiation have been adopted in Italy and in other parts of
tions. The Green Party wing of the federal government wants Europe (see hi”, J/FOO, J/AOO and S/OOO).
tighter standards but is facing resistance from the wireless in- The SocialDemocrats(in German, SPD),the dominantmem-
dustry and radiation control officials. ber of the governing coalition,have long advocated minimizing
“We want a change in philosophy-namely, to establish the exposures to non-ionizingradiation and basing standards on the
precautionary principle in the area of EMFs,” said Simonehobst, precautionary principle (see MWV, S/097).
a deputyenvironmentministerandGreenPartymember, at a June If Germany should adopt stricter limits, it would mark a sea
21 conference on mobile phones and health. This change,hobst change in policy. In 1999,Germany voted for a resolutionof the
continued,entailskeeping emissionsfrom towers “as low as pos- European Union Council of Ministers that endorsed the much
sible” in places where people spend time, supporting more re- looser ICNIRP guidelines as the basis for harmonizingmember
search on health effects (see box at right) and making informa- states’ limits (see MWN, J/A99).
tion on phone SARs more available to the public. The environment ministry has been working for some time
On July 1, the Federal Environment Ministry issued a press on revising the 1997 exposure ordinance, but it initially focused
release confirming that it is “currently considering whether to on closing gaps and resolving ambiguities. To explain the new
adopt precautionarylimitsto supplementthe existingguidelines,” openness to more sweeping changes, Robst cited “strong public
possibly based on the current Swiss standard. But the ministry concerns” and “scientificuncertainties”created by researchfind-
stressed that, “Deliberationshave not yet ended, decisions have ings of physiological and psychological effects from low-level
not been made.” exposures.
The wireless industry is already on record as opposing more The Greens’ support for precautionary measures is not lim-
stringent standards.Precaufionary limits below those now in force ited to exposure limits. The environment ministry is also look-
are “not supportedby science,” contendedT-Mobil,a Darmstadt- ing for ways to make more information on phone users’ radia-
based wireless canier that was formerly part of Deutsche Tele- tion exposures available to the public.
kom, in a statement released in May (see MWN, M/JOl). Phone makers announcedin May that, startinglater this year,
The ministry noted that the Radiation Protection Commis- they will include SAR information in the user instructions in-
sion (knownby its German acronym, SSK), an expert panel that side the box (see p. 11).The environment ministry suggestedthat
advises the government, will offer its own recommendations. a “low radiation” label for phones whose SARs do not exceed
The SSKs principal expert on non-ionizingradiationis Dr. Jiirgen 25% of the 2.0 W/Kg ICNIRP limit would be more “consumer-
Bernhardt, who is also the current vice chair and a past chair of friendly.” ANokia spokesperson said that labels would be “un-
ICNIRP. Bemhardt declined a request for comment from Mi- fair,’’ according to the May 14 Stutrgarter Nachrichten.
crowave News, but he is likely to oppose any change that would
undermine the existing limits, which are based on ICNIRP’s
guidelines (see MWN, S/097). Germany Set To Launch
Although the environment ministry has stated that its deci-
sion will be based “in part” on the SSKs recommendations, Mobile Phone Research Effort
their relations have been strained. The commission’s chair, Dr. Germany will soon begin a three-to-four-year research
Maria Blettner, an epidemiologistat the University of Bielefeld, effort on mobile phone safety with a total cost of approxi-
resigned in May because the ministry had ignored the SSK’s mately 8.5 million euros (US$7.4 million).
advice, according to the newspaper Tageszeitung (June 11). “The federal government wants to intensify its research
Some of Blettner’s work has concerned the question of mo- activitiesbecause in the years ahead we will face great chal-
bile phone safety (see Mw.1v, N/D99), but accordingto the Tuges- lenges in this area,” said Simone hobst, a senior environ-
zeitung (May 17) her break with the environment ministry was mental official, at a conference hosted by the Federal Ra-
primarily over its insistence that depleted-uranium munitions diation Protection Office in Salzgitteron June 21.
used by NATO forces in the former Yugoslavia could pose a On June 13, the German cabinet increased the environ-
major health hazard Blettner declined to comment. ment ministry’s budget for research on non-ionizing radia-
Other members of the SSK may be open to lower limits. One tion to 2.2 million euros (US$1.7million) for 2002. A simi-
pnelist, ChristianKuppers of the environmental advocacy group lar level of support is anticipated for each of the following
Oko-Institutin Darmstadt, told Microwave News that stricterlim- three years. The budget proposal now goes to the Bundestag,
its based on the Swiss model “would be appropriate for Ger- Germany’s parliament, where approvalis considered likely.
many.” But he noted that his p u p favors “protected areas” The radiation protection office will administer the pro-
around hospitals, kindergartens and schools (see also p. 14). gram with oversight by the environment ministry. The em-
Others want still tougher limits. In a report prepared for T- phasis will be placed on mechanisms of interaction, epide-
miology and dosimetry, according to the ministry.
Mobil, the Ecolog Institute in Hannover called for a I pW/cm2
5 10 MICROWAVE NEWS July/Angrtsr 2001
~
I -
^___ I
J e-mail for rebabe@juno.com printed on Tuesday, April 08,2003,11:39 AM
PO
B
I
JI From: JNewton at EMRNetwork <JNewton@emmetwork.org>

In To: rebabe@iuno.com, gorman93@aol.com. mwildes@wgw.com
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:46:24 -0500
r‘
Subject: London-Cancer cluster near mobile Dhone masts
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uWarchivedl~vk45/ilfordlnews/asp/news3.asp
- -
IlforddecorderAugust 27,2002 (East London)
TORY LEADER DEMANDS RESEARCH

INTO FNE-IN-SEVEN FIGURES
RIP in call for probe into mast links with cancer
REPORT ANDREW GOLDER
TORY leader Iain Duncan Smith has called for an urgent government probe into
the link between mobile phone masts and cancer.
[ He made his comments after it emerged that people living in five of the seven
1 homes
has 16
surrounding Forest House in Camarvon Road, South Woodford, -which
masts on its roof - have contracted cancer.
i
Residents blame the masts and want them removed immediately and Redbridge
council bowed to public pressure last week and agreed to monitor the radiation
levels coming from the masts to see if they exceeded recommended government
guidelines.
Mr Duncan Smith, the Chingford and Woodford Green MP, sai8: ‘‘There is are-‘-- .
urgent need for the government to carry out swift research into the connection
between mobile phone masts and cancer.
“Any decision taken in the interim regarding mobile phone masts in residential
areas must be treated with great caution. If research shows that there are clear
links between masts and cancer, there must be an urgent and immediate rethink of
government policy.”
.;hoe-mail for rebabe@juno.com printed on Tuesday, April 08,2003,11:39 AM
;/
* phone companies deny there is any connection but it is difficult to tell that to
,. people who have cancer and live near the masts. They obviously think there is a
connection,
“Everyone I’ve spoken to is absolutely horrified by the cancer rate along

Carnarvon Road, What we’d like to do is rid the building of the phone masts all
together but it will be a long fight.’
Constance Nash, 80, has lived in Carnarvon road for 30 years and says she was
assured the masts were safe when the first one was constructed 20 years ago. But
she was diagnosed with breast cancer earlier this year and both her neighbours
have cancer.
She said “There is so much cancer about in this area it is frightening. Everyone i
extremely concerned because cases have started cropping up in neighbouring
roads. I certainly wouldn’t move here now.”
At present planning applications to construct mobile phone masts cannot be tu

down on health and safety grounds.
Copyright 0 2002 Archant Regional. All rights reserved.
Janet Newton, President

The EMR Network, P.O. Box 221, Marshfield VT 05658
\
Donations should be sent to:
The EMR Network, P.O. Box 393, Concord MA 01742
Tel: (802) 426-3035 FAX: (802) 426-3030
Web Site: www.EMRNetwork.org
2 of2
At the end of the e-qeriment, the team
examined the animals for tumors in the
ions on
brain and 30 other tissues.The researchers
found no significant difference in tumor the Move
incidence among the groups. The team Theory of hydroxide’s
presented the findingsthisweekin Quebec
City at a meeting of the Bioelectromag- motion overturned
netics Society.
cells genetically engineered to make the “As far as I can tell . . . the greatest haz-
protein. hboth cases, the investigators doc- ard with cell phones is driving a car while New computer calculations have revealed
umentedthat the cancer cells promoted the talking on one,” says Roti Roti, whose study that a century-long assumption in chem-
death of the neighboring T cells. was partially funded by telecommunica- istry is wrong.
Chen’s team also injected mice with tions-industry giant Motorola. At the CN?[ of the matter is the move-
another type of cancer cell genetically Other scientistsaren’tasconvinced.The ment of the hydroxide ion, OH-, in water.
I
engineered to make B7-Hl. The resulting type of emissions the team tested isn’t the
tumors grew faster than ones generated most common or the most penetrating,
by cancer cells lacking the protein. comments W. Ross Adey of Loma Linda
We’re accumulating quite a list now of University in California. Though Roti Roti
potential mechanisms by which tumors tested the variety of signal that is used in the
escape”destruction,says Alan N. Houghton United States, says Adey, most of the world
Hydroxide ions and protons, H+,are impor-
tant players in the acid-base chemistryvital
to many important chemical processes,
including photosynthesis, the pumping of
protons across biological membranes, and
regulation of acidity in the body.
1
of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Cen- uses another signal type, which can travel
ter. In most cases, he explains, tumors further into tissue.
exploit the body’s natural regulation of Adey also notes that other long-terin ani-
Protons’movement though water is well
understood, and scientistshadlongbelieved
that the motion of hydroxideions could be
immune responses. [mal studies have shown mixed results. inferred from it. Researchers know that a
As for B7-Hl’s importance, Houghton Other findings presented at the bio- water molecule containingan extra proton
remains wary. ’’There’s a lot of biology left electromagneticsmeeting link cell phones’ forms weak bonds with three surrounding
undone,”he says. W e really don’t under- radiation to molecular changes in cells. A water molecules. As this positively charged
stand why the T cells die.“ team from Finland examined the activity ion-which is called hydronium,or H30+-
Chen is now testing in mice whether of about 4,500 genes in human cells cul- moves through water, those bonds break
blocking B7-H1 will boost therapies that tured in the laboratory and exposed to cell- and shift. They temporarilyformnewstruc-
relyontheimmunesystemtofight offcan- phone radiation for 48 hours. The tures until the ion is once again bonded
cers. -J. TRAVIS researchers, led by Dariusz Leszczynski of weakly to three water molecules in a nearby
the Radiation and Nuclear SafetyAuthor- location.
ity in Helsinki,found that in cells exposed Sincethe hydroxide ion looks like awater
Cell-Phone Buzz I to radiation. morethan 20 genes were
/A either more or less active than usual. They
molecule missing a proton, chemists had
assumed it behaved in a correspondingway,
1
Contradictory studies heat also noted changes in the amounts ofpro- but one that takes the ion’s negative charge
up radiation auestion teins produced by these genes. into account.
Preliminaryresults suggest that some of Wrong, says Mark E. Tuckerman of New
1 the genes control cell proliferation and York University. In the June 27 Nature,
A new long-term animal study of cell-phone response to stress. “It’s difficult to specu- Tuckerman and his colleagues in Europe
radiation suggests that emissions don’t , late on potential health effects at this stage,” report that a hydroxide ion movingthrough
cause cancer.However, studies by a second says Leszczynski. water weaklybonds to four, not three, water
teamhint that cell phones may damagepeo- At the meeting, he also revealed results molecules. The hydroxide ion also forms
\
ple in other ways. of an experiment exploring how cellular more-complicated intermediate structures
As cellularphones’populaxiyhas soared, phones might increase blood-vessel per- in water than the hydronium ion does.
SO have concerns about health effects from meability in the brain, as suggestedby pre- Moreover, certain quantum mechan-
an electromagnetic-radiationsource held vious rodent studies. The effect would per- ical effects that influence a hydroxide 1
so near the brain. Although the small mit molecules normallyexcludedfromthe ion’s movement have significantly less
amount ofenergy&oma cell phone has been brain to seep in. effect on a hydronium ion in water, says
reported to generate stress responses in ani- In the experiment, which used cultured Tuckerman.
mals’ cells and affect people’s reflexes, sci- human blood-vessel cells, Leszczynski On a fundamental level, this under--
entists are still at aloss to say whether such found that the active form of a protein standingofthe minutiae of ions’movement
radiation poses significanthealth risks (5”: known as heat shock protein 27 increases will update textbooks,saysTuckerman.o n
2/I2/00,p. 100;5/20/00,p.326). in abundancewhen cells are exposed to cell- a more practical note, he adds, it could
To collect more information, researchers phone radiation. This activity leads to an inform fuel cell designers how the maten-
at Washington University School of Medi- accumulation of stressfibers, which are part als they use behave on a microscopic level- f
cine in St. Louis exposed rats to the two fie- of a cell’s internal scaffolding. The extra “The Dresent work is an interesting ?’
advance,;’ comments Arieh Warshel of the
University of Southern California in LOS
Angeles. However, he says, the researchers’
Calculations consider only 32 water mole-
to radio antennas. For 5 hours each day, a nating,” comments Alan Preece of the cules around each ion and don’tinclude an
thirdoftheanimdswasexposedtothefre- University of Bristol in England. “If energy barrier that water molecdes must
quencyproducedbya digitalcell phone and repeated in the intact body, it has horrific overcome as they change their structure
another third, to the frequency of an ana- implications.”Preece chaired a conference and permit passage of the ions.
These limitations of the calculation
received no radiation. cognition. -J. PlCKRELL method might not significantly alter the
1
SCIENCE N E W S
/ L ’
Airport Screeners Codd Get

X-Rated X-Ray Views
I am looking at a copy of an ad that The technology is available, he
ran in the back of comic books in the said. “It’s a question of the decision
1950’s and early 1960’s.“X-Ray to deploy it and to try to balance that
Specs! See Thru Clothing! ” blares with legitimate privacy concerns,”
the copy, which is illustrated with a he added. “We haven’t put it out yet
cartoon of a drooling geek wearing because people are still hand-wring-
the amazing toy goggles and leering ing about it.”
at a shapely woman. Steve Elson isn’t exactly hand-
Now, any kid with half a brain wringing. Let’s just say-he is mighty
knew that X-Ray Specs were a nov- skeptical. A former Federal Aviation
elty gag that didn’t really work. But Administration investigator, Mr.
time marches on and technology ’ Elson led the agency’s red team of
makes the impossible possible. Stand undercover agents who poked
by, air travelers, because the Home- -
around airports looking for a i d
laud Security Department is prepar- finding -holes in security.
ini to install and test high-tech ma- “Backscatting has been around for
chines at airport checkpoints that years,” he said. “They started talk-
will, as the comic-bookads promised, ing about this stuff back during the
“See Thru Clothing!”
year-old daughter and a beautifu
The Homeland
-J ---__.
Mr. S&nell, the privacy adv
cate, scorns that reasoning as al
ist nonsense. He does see one-virtue,
though, for some airport screeners
backscatting technology becomes
the norm. “They’ll be paid to go to a
peep show,” he said. “Thev won’t
up tests Of new tech-
even need to br
I’ was
nologies like backscatter imaging.
Last month, Michael Chertoff,the
Chopra, the chief executive of OS1
Systems, recently told analysts.
M? Scannell.the Drivacv adva-
-
August 10,2005

U.S. Senate
780 Third Avenue
Suite 260 1
New York, NY 10017-2024
This is in reference to your letter of June 20,2005, on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Marlene
Raynor. Ms. Raynor is concerned about RF exposure from cellularhroadband antennas placed
on top of NY City's street light poles, traffic light poles, and highway sign support poles. She
also provides information on overseas developments related to RF exposure.
The FCC has monitored the issue of potential health hazards from the transmitters and antennas it
regulates for many years. The biological effects and potential hazards of radiofrequency (RF)
emissions from such facilities are discussed in an FCC publication, entitled "Questions and
Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Fields." A copy of this publication, which includes information on the pertinent FCC rules, is
enclosed for your information. Also enclosed is an FCC information sheet, entitled, "Information
on Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields from Cellular and PCS Radio Transmitters."
The policy of the FCC with respect to environmental RF emissions has been developed to ensure
that FCC-regulated transmitters do not expose the public or workers to levels of RF energy that
are considered by expert organizations to be potentially harmful. Since the FCC is not a health
and safety agency itself, we must defer to other organizations and agencies with respect to the
biological research necessary to determine what levels are safe. In the United States, the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), and the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements (NCRP) have issued recommendations for human exposure to RF
fields. Both the NCRP and IEEE guidelines were developed by scientists and engineers with a
great deal of experience and knowledge in the area of RF biological effects and related issues.
These individuals spent a considerable amount of time evaluating published scientific studies,
including studies of the health status of exposed persons, relevant to establishing safe levels for
human exposure to RF energy. We are confident that these organizations and the federal health
agencies continue to monitor recent developments such as those mentioned in Ms. Raynor's
letter.
On August 1, 1996, the FCC adopted revised guidelines for human exposure to RF
electromagnetic fields based on recommendations from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal health and safety
agencies. These FCC guidelines were derived from exposure limits recommended by the NCRP
and the IEEE mentioned above. In the case of typical wireless communications base-station
antennas, the power levels are low and the transmitting antennas are located high enough above
ground that levels of exposure to the public are substantially below the FCC limits.
On February 9,2004, the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunicationsof
The City of New York released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for franchises for installation and
use of telecommunicationsequipment and facilities, including base station and access point
facilities. These facilities are to be placed on the city's street light, traffic light and highway sign
support poles. As reaffirmed in section 5(g) of the RFP (attached), any such installed
telecommunications facility must be in compliance with the FCC's exposure limits for RF
exposure.
Base station antennas are placed on top of city poles to provide coverage to parts of the city
where there are gaps in coverage from the tower-mounted or building-mounted base station
antennas. Because city pole antennas are intended to provide much shorter range of coverage
than the tower-mounted or building-mounted antennas, the power output of city pole antennas are
much lower than the tower-mounted or building-mounted base station antennas. Due to the
radiation pattern and the location of the city pole antennas, little energy will come towards any
given individual in the general public. Even people who are in a building adjacent to a city pole
antenna, including those at the same height as the city pole antenna, will not be exposed to RF
energy in excess of our limits due to the low power operation of the antenna and the separation
between any city pole and any nearby building.
The FCC and its Local and State Government Advisory Committee produced the Local Official's
Guide to RF Emissions to address the issue of what State and local governments can do to ensure
that antenna facilities located in their communities comply with the Commission's RF regulations.
The Local Official's Guide, among other things, provides guidance on how to determine if a
wireless transmission facility may raise compliance concerns. A copy of this publication is
enclosed.
I hope that this information will be helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to
contact me or Saurbh Chhabra, of my staff, at (202) 418-2266. You may also find additional
information on our Internet Web sites at ~~~.fcc.czovi'oetlrfsafe..
Sincerely,
*,a-
. Bruce A. Franca
Deputy Chief
Office of Engineering and Technology
Enclosures (4)
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON COMMITTEES:
NEW YORK ARMED SERVICES
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
SENATOR HEALTH EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
SPECIAL COMMllTEE ON AGING
SUITE 476
WASHINGTON, DC 2051&3204
202-2244451 Wnited Senate ,j:;
'SA"
I"?--
May 25,2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Carmen G Graves, who expressed concerns
regarding unwanted phone calls from The Chinese Ministries.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
HRC/DB/TK
PRINTED O N RECYCLED PAPER
"I -
I
YES! I want t o help save lives in China by providing blankets and
Bibles with a gift that will be matched and multiplied 20x.
Enclosed is my gift of:
0 $50 0 $100 0 Other $ 1
Mrs. Martha Graves

8 Sharon Dr.
Massena, NY 13662-1652
IlIIIIllIIlIIIlllIIlIIIIIIlllIIlIilllIlIlllIlIIlIIIIlIllIIlllI
Please make your checks payable to N O R A LAM CHINESE MINISTRIES

Bills and your gift in the envelope provided.Al1gifts are tax deductible to the fullest extent of 1
H E A L I N G B O D I E S A N D S O U L S !
DYES! RUTH! I want t o send critical medical supplies t o the persecuted and poor of China. More importantly, I want t o shar
with them the life-savingWord of God. Please use my support t o send medical shipment with smuggled Bibles into China and
continue the summer China missions efforts. I have enclosed my best gift of:
0$100 0$250 0$50 0$500 0Other amt. $

HIHlRADl 001323377 Nora Lam
CHINESE MINISTRIES
INTERNATIONAL
Please make checks payable to NORA LAM CHINESE MlNlSTRl
INTERNATIONAL, Box 24466, San Jose, CA 95 I54.All gifts are
Mrs. Martha Graves tax-deductibleto the fullest extent of the law.Thank you!
8 Sharon Dr.
Massena, NY 13662-1652 My email address
so I can receive FREE the China Prayer Alert Newsletter.
Visit us at www.chineseministriesintemational.org
U ’ Y E S , RUTH! I WANTTO HELP. ENCLOSED IS MY LIFE SAVING GIFTTO HELPYOU BRING FOOD
AND SUPPLIES TO DEVASTATED SURVIVORS OF THE QUAKE-TSUNAMI CATASTROPHE.
HSA3RADl
$50 $100 c] $250 c] $500 [7 OtherAmount:$ 00 1323377
Mrs. Martha Graves

8 Sharon Dr. PLEASE MAKEYOUR CHECK PAYABLETO NORA U
Massena, N Y 13662- 652 CHINESE MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL.RO. BOX
24466, SAN JOSE,CA 95 154-9985 AND RETURNTH
111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111II11111111 FORM INTHE ENVELOPE PROVIDED. ALL CONTRI
BUTIONSTO NORA LAM CHINESE MINISTRIES
INTERNATIONALARETAX DEDUCTIBLETOTHE
FI II I F C T FYTEhlT n F T U F I A W Con RI F C C Y n I II
__ I I
“I._ __ - l l l - * _ _-_-
_ I^-
3.
but time is running out.
I must hear from you immediately. That is why I have sent the enclosed
Urgent Mail Postage-Paid Return envelope for your response. Every minute
-
counts! Please send your gift today.
Thank you for understanding the urgency of the situation... and the great
need of China. Your action today will help send them compassionate aid to heal
their bodies AND souls!
Your missionary to China,
Ruth Lam
PS.May I ask you to place the enclosed x-ray in your Bible, or with your prayer
requests as a reminder to p w for China? Please pray for our underground
evangelists... for the many members of our house churches... for the men
and women who attend our underground schools... and for many more who
live in danger of imprisonment and torture for proclaiming the name of
Jesus Christ.
Don't forget to use the enclosed Postage-Paid Envelope (Drop in any
mailbox or leave out for your own postman) f o r o u r best gift today. I must
hear from you immediately!
AUG 8 2005

New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Carmen G.
Graves, regarding unsolicited telephone calls they are receiving from The Chinese Ministries.
Mr. and Mrs. Graves are concerned that The Chinese Ministries’ aggressive efforts to collect
donations by telephone and U. S . mail may be a scam.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was adopted in 1991 to restrict the
use of the telephone network for unsolicited advertising via telephone and facsimile. Pursuant
to the TCPA, the FCC revised its rules in 2003 to establish a national do-not-call registry for
consumers who wish to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls. Under the national do-not-call
rules, telemarketers are prohibited, subject to certain exemptions, from contacting consumers
who have placed their telephone numbers on the national registry. They are also required to
place consumers on company-specific do-not-calls lists if a consumer request not to receive
future solicitations. However, calls that do not fall within the definition of “telephone
solicitation” as defined in the TCPA will not be precluded by the national do-not-call list or
company-specific do-not-calls rules. These may include surveys, market research, and
political or religious speech calls.
Complaints received by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau regarding

alleged TCPA violations, are forwarded to the Enforcement Bureau, which may take
enforcement action against alleged violators. Although the FCC does not resolve individual
complaints, and cannot award monetary or other damages directly to consumers, we do closely
monitor such complaints to determine whether independent enforcement action is warranted.
In such cases, where the alleged violations involve non-common carrier entities, the
Communications Act requires the issuance of a warning citation that informs the sender that it
is in violation of the Communications Act, and describes the monetary forfeitures that can
result if the unlawful activity continues. As provided by the Communications Act, if unlawful
activity continues after this warning, the Enforcement Bureau can then initiate a forfeiture
proceeding against the company. The Commission has issued numerous citations agamst
violators of the TCPA and the Commission’s unsolicited facsimile advertising rules. These
enforcement actions can eventually result in monetary penalties of up to $11,000 per violation.
1 1
I ‘’
We are enclosing a copy of the TCPA and the Commission’s rules, along with
information that explains the Commission’s efforts to protect consumers from receiving
unsolicited telephone marketing transmissions to which they object. Mr. and Mrs. Graves may
also wish to note that, under the TCPA, consumers may bring a private lawsuit in state court to
recover damages, if otherwise permitted by the state’s laws or rules of court.
Regarding the possibility of a scam by The Chinese Ministries, we are also enclosing
several consumer alerts taken from the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) website discussing
how consumers can avoid being victimized by scammers. Mr. and Mrs. Graves may contact
the FTC with their concerns. They can contact them by writing to the Consumer Response
Center, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20580
or by calling their toll-free number 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). Their web site is
www.ftc.gov and their Consumer Response Center web site is www.consumer.gov. The FTC
has developed resource guides to help consumers find the appropriate agencies to contact about
consumer-related matters. These guides contain lists of nonprofit, state and local agencies.
As for the letters mailed to Mr. and Mrs. Graves, this issue is under the jurisdiction of
the United States Postal Service. Mr. and Mrs. Graves can contact the Postmaster at their
local post office for further assistance.
We invite Mr. and Mrs. Graves to visit the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau’s Internet web site at http://www.fcc.pov/cgb. In addition, they may wish to view the
Enforcement Bureau’s web site at h-~-~/!w~ww.~fcc~-gov!eb!tcd!worklng~-h~~l for recent
Commission TCPA enforcement actions. Information on telecommunications-related issues
can be accessed via the Internet from the Commission’s Home Page located at
ht~~;//ww~w.~fcc~gov. Information is also available by calling toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC.
TTY users may call 1-888-TELL-FCC. The Commission has available an e-mail service
designed to apprise consumers about developments at the Commission, to disseminate
consumer information materials prepared by the Commission to a wide audience and to invite
comments from other parties on Commission regulatory proposals. This free service enables
consumers to subscribe and receive FCC fact sheets, consumer brochures and alerts, and
public notices, among other consumer information. To subscribe Mr. and Mrs. Graves should
vis it the FCC Consumer Registry at ~ ~ ~ . : . l . l ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~
1 1 1 ‘
questions.
Sincerely,
Jay Keithley
Deputy Bureau Chief
Enclosures
I 1
NEW YORK
SENATOR
SUITE 476
WASHINGTON, DC 2051s3204
202-224-4451 United Ststea Senate
June 22,2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Office 07 T,;.gislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
i l e a Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from Mr. Eugene Yanas who has a concern regarding Direct TV.

you soon.
Sincerely yours,
&llyL&L-Gh
HRC/db/tk
,I. .I) . . _-__.. ... - . . _.
I J
August 1,2005
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0501395
The Honorable Hilary Rodham Clinton

780 Third Avenue
Suite 2601
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Eugene Yanas of Palatine
Bridge, New York, concerning the availability of satellite-delivered broadcast network signals.
Specifically, Mr. Yanas has received a notice from DirecTV concerning the availability of
broadcast network signals. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
As you know, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (“SHVIA”) granted
satellite television carriers the authority to provide local television broadcast signals, i. e . local-
into-local service, in areas where the carrier wishes to do so. If the satellite carrier elects to offer
local-into-local service, the SHVIA requires that the “local” area be the Designated Market Area
(“DMA”) as defined by Nielsen Media Research, Inc. (“Nielsen”). Nielsen is an independent
entity that is not subject to regulation by the Commission. Nielsen assigns each county in the
United States to one of the 210 DMAs based on, among other things, audience surveys and
viewership levels. It is important to note that the Commission does not define the boundaries of
the DMAs, nor does the Commission determine the counties that are assigned to a specific
DMA. According to information provided in his correspondence, Mr. Yanas resides in
Montgomery County which Nielsen has assigned to the Albany-Schenectady-Troy DMA. Thus,
under SHVIA, a satellite carrier is authorized to provide Mr. Yanas, as well as other residents of
Montgomery County, with the local broadcast television stations that originate in the Albany-
Schenectady-Troy DMA. According to information on the DirecTV website, the company
serves the Albany-Schenectady-Troy DMA with local signals, including local ABC and Fox
affiliates. Mr. Yanas also subscribed to the signals of “distant” ( i e . ,outside of his DMA) ABC
and Fox network affiliated stations offered by DirecTV.
On December 8,2004, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of
2004 (“SHVERA”) was enacted as part of the Consolidated FY 2005 Appropriations Act
(P.L. 108-447). The SHVERA modified the SHVIA and made reforms regarding the ability of
satellite television subscribers to receive distant broadcast network programming. Among other
things, the SHVERA generally provides that satellite television subscribers who reside in areas
where the satellite carrier makes available the analog signal of a local network station may not
concurrently receive the analog signal of both a local and a distant station affiliated with the
same television network. According to the SHVERA, the analog signal of a local network signal
is “available” if the satellite carrier offers the analog local signal in the zip code where the
consumer resides. The SHVERA requires satellite carriers to contact certain distant signal
service subscribers to inform them of options they have with respect to local and distant signal
services. DirecTV has notified Mr. Yanas that he is required to elect to continue to receive either
the local or the distant network signals, but not both. Mr. Yanas, however, would like to
continue to receive his local broadcast stations, as well as the distant ABC and Fox network
signals.
The SHVERA provides a local network affiliate the discretion to grant a waiver which
, would authorize a satellite carrier to retransmit the local network, as well as the signal of a
distant station that is affiliated with the same network, to particular subscribers. Therefore, Mr.
Yanas may wish to consider contacting the local ABC and Fox affiliates to request a waiver that
would authorize him to receive the signals of distant stations affiliated with these networks. It is
important to note that the SHVERA does not contemplate a role for the Commission in this
waiver process and does not authorize the Commission to review a local television station’s
action or inaction concerning a waiver request.
Finally, for your review and to provide Mr. Yanas additional information, I have enclosed
an Information Sheet that discusses the availability of satellite-delivered television broadcast
signals.
I I hope that this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of
further assistance with this or any other matter.
Chief, Office of Communications and Industry Information

Media Bureau
Enclosure
Congress’ Irf tbe XHniteb States
mae’bington, BC 20515
July 28,2005
The Honorable Kevin J. Martin

chairman
Federal CommunicationsCommission
445 12*R., sw
We are concerned about what the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) is doing

to fblfill its statutory responsibility to monitor radiation leaking €?omcommunication and
surveillance towers.
In order for us to better understand how the FCC is meeting radio frequency radiation
monitoring requirements, we would appreciate a meeting being scheduled with the Chief
of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau and other appropriate senior ofkials. This will also
provide us with the opportunity to learn more about how you intend to update and
modernize the equipment your field staff must rely on to protect the public welfare fiom
radiation that exceeds safety standards. Matt Larkin in Rep.Israel’s oficecan be
contacted at (202) 225 - 3335 to schedule the meeting.
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to working with you and your sta€fon
this important issue.
Sincerely,
STEVEISFXEL
hhLL HILLAFtV RODHAM CLINTON
Member ofCongress United States Senator
, .
PRINTED ON RECYCLED FAPER

NEW YORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
202-224-4451 Wnited Statea Senate c
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3204 , I
2
i .
July 14,2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 12th Street, SW
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Enclosed is a letter from James Della Porta regarding a problem with the FCC and
Verizon Inc.

you soon.
Sincerely your!
Hillary Modham C linton
HRC/db/jt
21 Forest Road
Delmar, New York 12054
February 14,2005
Senator Hilary R. Clinton

Leo W. O'Brien Federal Office Building
IClinton Square
Room 821
Albany, NY 12207
Subject: internet Fraud and Verizon, Inc.
Dear Senator:
We would appreciate your assistance in resolving a problem with the FCC and
Verizon inc., our former local and long distance telephone provider.
Verizon is demanding payment of several hundreds of dollars for overseas

telephone calls, which were made without our consent, using a dialer that a
computer hacker appears to have inserted into our computer over the internet.
The details are in the attached letter to the FCC.
Verizon's position is that we are responsible for all charges regardless of whether
the calls were made as a result of internet hacking. The FCC's position is that it
referred the matter to Verizon, which was allowed to investigate itself, and that
since Verizon found that the charges were due, the FCC has no further obligation
to pursue the matter (See the letters from the FCC and Verizon.
Verizon acknowledges that what we are describing happens often. While Verizon
did not dispute the truth of our claim, Verizon indicated it was our fault because
we did not have better computer software, said that it was obligated by the
federal government to collect the fees, threatened to cut off our service, and
forwarded our name to a cotlection agency.Thus,jeopardizing our credit rating.
Moreover, Verizon has refused to provide us with any information about the
owners of the numbers to which the calls were made or whether other Verizon
customers have complained about unauthorized calfs being made to the same
numbers.
We do not think that an American Corporation should be altowed to benefit from

the victimization and extortion of Americans by global computer hackers or other
overseas entities. Moreover, we are concerned that post 911I, the FCC has
absolutely no interest in investigating who is responsible or other than Verizon,
who is financially benefiting from this activity.
We do not know if hijacking and inserting a dialer in our computer was a crime. If
it was not a crime, it should be; and the perpetrators should pursued and
prosecuted- not financiafly rewarded.
Please let me know if there is anything that can be done. We had a very good
credit rating up to now, hut we refuse to be blackmailed by Verizon or the
perpetrators, who have victimized us and possibly thousands of other Americans.
We would appreciate anything you could do. We may be reached at the above
address or (518) 439-8691 or Trioloc@atecone.net.
Sincerely,
January 14, 2005
Martha E. Contee, Chief

Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
445 12th Street SW, Room CY -B 523
Ms Veronica Catalina
Specialist-Regulatory Complaints
Verizon Long Distance
TXD 1921N
PO Box 152013
Irving, Texas 75062
Re: FCC Complaint IC #04 - 101200764 (518-439-8691)

regarding unauthorized internet international calls to Sao
Tome (nos. 239281488 and 239281490) through Verizon on
3/31/04 and 4/01/04 respectively.
Dear Ms Contee and Ms. Catalina:
We are in receipt of the FCC's letter of December 22, 2004

and Verizon's December 11, 2004 to the FCC. The FCC tells
us that the FCC is closing our complaint effective December
21, 2004 solely based on the letter from Verizon. It asks
us to advise us if the company's letter is wrong.
We dispute both the facts and allegations made in

Verizon's letter, and are requesting that the FCC and
Verizon reopen the investigation into how and by whom these
calls were made; rescind all charges; refer this matter for
further investigation by the appropriate federal and
international law enforcement/homeland security.
Our reasons for asking that the investigation of this
matter be reopened are as follows:
1.While we deny that anyone in our household called or

used the internet/phone to call the numbers for which
we were billed, there is evidence to support our claim
that these calls were unauthorized and took advantage
of weaknesses and failures in Verizon’s Systems.
Verizon admits that these calls were made using the
internet. Verizon also admits in paragraph two of its
letter that it is possible for an entity to reconnect a
customers modem without their knowledge or permission to
make unauthorized calls. However Verizon indicates in
paragraph three that if a customer is victimized they are
liable for the charges because they should have installed
software to protect themselves. This is the same as
saying a rape victim is at fault because they did not
ware a chastity belt and should pay the rapist for sex.
There are several facts that would indicate these calls

were made by an unauthorized party which stole the use of
our computer and phone number to generate charges that
Verizon proposes to collect and profit from.
a. There is a discrepancy between the bill we received

which indicates the disputed calls were made to Sao Tome
and Verizon‘s letter of December 11, 2004 which indicates
the calls were made to a number in Austria. The
discrepancy confirms that that the destinations for which
the charges were made did not eminent directly from our
phone/computer. However, the discrepancy is consistent
with the modus operandi for unauthorized calls which
Verizon describes in its letter.
b. The calls were placed at the end (3/31/04) and

beginning ( 4 / 1 / 0 4 ) of Verizon billing periods. When we
received the bill for the 3/31/04 call, Verizon told us
it was unable to tell if any additional calls had been
made using our number until the end of the April billing
period. We were latter notified of the 4/1/04 call.
Evidently the perpetrators exploited a weakness in
Verizon’s system. Had we not put an immediate block on
all long distance calls, we could have been further
victimized.
Credit card companies routinely alert customers or put a

holt on unusual credit card activity. Why doesn’t Verizon
have systems in place that can readily detect, advise
customers, or put a holt to unusual, costly calling
activity?
2. Verizon has provided no evidence that anyone in our
household made these calls. Moreover it has refused to
provide information as to identity of the owner of
these numbers/entities profiting from these charges.
We asked Verizon to identify the owners of these numbers

and/or the parties that fiscally benefit from calls made
to this numbers. We also asked Verizon whether other
customers had complained about being billed for internet
calls to these numbers/entities, specifically the number
and disposition of complaints involving these same
numbers, entities or their affiliates.
Verizon's representative admitted that Verizon benefits

financially from these calls but indicated Verizon was
unable to provide any additional information. We are re-
requesting this information from both the FCC and
Verizon. If Verizon does not have all the requested
information, we are requesting that it track the trail of
payments resulting from charges to the extent possible,
and provide us all the information it does have; so that
we might initiate a legal complaint as the situation may
indicate.
3. Verizon indicates its representatives attempted to

contact us numerous times without success to discuss
our complaint, but that they were unsuccessful in
contacting us. This is an inaccurate description of
events .
We initiated contact and discussed this matter with

representatives of Verizon numerous times. In every case
Verizon's representatives told us the same thing Verizon
indicates in their letter. They indicated that it really
didn't matter whether we were victimized or not. They
advised us the Federal Government required Verizon to
collect the charges, and if we did not pay, our local
service would be cut off and we would be turned over to a
collection agency. We told Verizon that we would not pay
the charges because we were victimized. Since Verizon
refused to disclose the identities of the recipients of
the calls we suggested that it bring legal action so that
we would have the opportunity of discovery. We
subsequently received a letter indicating our local
service would be cut off (We already had put a block on
long distance calls.) Despite telling Verizon and its
3
agents that we did not owe and therefore would not be
paying the charges, we received repeated harassing and
threatening calls both at home and at work. We are both
professionals. If the purpose of the call to my wife's
work location was to humiliate us before our employers
and co-workers, it succeeded. However, it has not
changed our position.
4.We have been customers of Verizon for over twenty

years. Why after twenty years would we refuse to pay
our bill if it were legitimate? Look at our account.
Is it usually in the arrears? Do we habitually make
such calls? I presume the calls were made to some porn
site but since we were not told to whom they were made
we really don't know.
We have read that Verizon is not interested in providing

services to land line customers in NYS, so we know we
know we are expendable. However, what is more
frightening is that Verizon appears to be a willing
profit at its customer's expense from the actions of
international internet criminals.
5. It was our understanding that the FCC was suppose to

regulate communication providers. Since Verizon
benefits financially from the collection of these
charges there appears to be a clear conflict of
interest in Verizon's investigation of itself, yet FCC
indicates it closed our case solely on the basis of
unsubstantiated, inaccurate information provided by
Verizon.
4
In addition to re-opening our case, we are asking that
the FCC clarify why Verizon was allowed to threaten us
with the loss of local telephone service while the
investigation was underway in explicit violation of the
FCC's own rules, and to confirm or disconfirm Verizon's
assertion that Federal Government makes them legally
responsible for collection of these charges regardless of
whether the calls were legitimate or not?
Sincerely,
James Della Porta and Family

21 Forest Road
Cc: Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Hilary Clinton
Congressman Michael McNulty
Mr. Eric Smith, Verizon 888/483-7770
C:\Documents and Settings\C. Triolo\My Documents\verizon

letter ]an 4 2005.doc
5
ssion
December 22,2004
our complaint. The

After reviewing the
ng us at I-888-CALL-FCC (-888-225-5322).
I
Sincerely,

December 11,2004 Verizon Long Distance
TXO1921N
P.0. Box 152013
Irving, TX 75062
Phone 888 483-7770
Fax 972 650-0592
Enforcement Division
InformalComplaints
Portals Consumer Center
445 12'h Street SW., Room CY-6514
Delmar, NY 12054
Telephone: 518143943691
IC Number: 04-10120764
Received: October 27,2004
Thank you for referring the complaint of Mr.James Della Porta to my office for review. We appreciate
his bringing this matter to our attention. Mr. Della Porta expressed concern about international
charges on his Verizon Long Distance bill.
Our investigation revealed that the calls in dispute were made on-line to Austria. Verizon has
determined that the calls to this location were directly dialed from the above address through an
Internet connection. According to the Federal CommunicationsCommission's website, some Internet
sites encourage computer users to download software in order to view certain material. The
downloaded software disconnects his or her computer's modem and then reconnects it using an
international long distance number. The result: the modem may actually be placing a call to as far
away as Chad, Madagascar, or other countries. If this happens, the computer user will be billed for an
international call.
To minimize the risk of this happening, consumers may have an International Block placed on the line
by their local exchange carrier (LEC). In addition, consumers may contact their Internet Service
Provider for further information regarding preventive software, for example, Spyware, pop-up
stoppers, and ad blockers.
e to contact Mr. Delia Porta, by a Verizon Long Distance representative,

Mr. Eric Smith, but were unsuccessful. A post card was mailed to the above address. In order to
resolve this issue, a Verizon Long Distance representative must speak to Mr. Della Porta concerning
the complaint. Due to no contact, Verizon Long Distance is closing this case. The charges will
continue billing. Should Mr. Della Porta wish to discuss this matter further, he may contact Mr. Eric
Smith at 8881483-7770.
We trust that this information will assist you in closing this complaint. We apologize for any
inconveniencethat Mr. Della Porta has experienced as a result of the above matter.
I Sincerely,
Veronica Catalina
Specialist - Regulatory Complaints
c: J:DELLA PORTA
__ - I_
iuial $14.26
Long Dhtance Surcharges and Taxes

6 . I:LU1crd Tax 4.89
7 NY Stdtw1,oc~ISales Tax 0 25
X.\:(;n>s&cpts TAXSurcllrlrgo -. __ 3 80-
Totit1 $8.94
Doniertic Calls: 518439-
PL 561-241-5043 11.11 34.0 0.G0
36.0 0.50
____ ___I_
i-
t-------
-_______
-.
Suhtotal 101:518-439-8691 21.0 144.48
Total of all Calls for: 518-439-8691 '\' 57.0 145.08
\
Total uf aU Itentized Calls 57.0 145.08
~-~
Billing Date: 04/01/04Page 5 of 5

Telephone Number' 518439 8691
Account 518 439 8691 666 24 7
Make progress every day How lo Reach Us: See page 2
k. -__- r
Total of all Calfs Cor: 515-439-8691 22.0 144.48

Total of dl ItemImd Calls 22.0 144.48
Iifftxtivc June I, 2004, the TalkTitute 50 per
iiiinule overage rate will iiicrcasc rro111 10 cenls
to 12 cenls.
1


780 third Avenue, Suite 2601
New York, NY 10017-2024
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. James Della Porta,
regarding the difficulties he is experiencing with the services and charges provided by Verizon.
Mr. Porta expresses concerns that the charges for international calls, which were made without
his consent, that are listed on his bill(s) in the amount of $163.94, have not been credited.
your inquiry. On October 27, 2004, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed
Verizon to satisfy or answer the complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records
and other information. Enclosed is a copy of the company’s response. In their response,
Verizon states that their investigation revealed that the calls in dispute were made on-line to
Austria and that the calls to this location were directly dialed from his address through an
Internet connection. Ms. Veronica Catalina, Verizon Specialist for Regulatory Complaints,
states in the response that their representative, Mr. Eric Smith, attempted to contact Mr. Porta
but was unsuccessful. Ms. Catalina further states that in order to resolve this issue, Mr. Porta
should call Mr. Smith at 1-888-483-7770.
On April 27, 2005, the Commission forwarded the additional concerns and issues raised
by Mr. Porta to Verizon and directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days.
A copy of the response is enclosed. In their response dated May 5, 2005. Mr. Smith, Verizon
Specialist for Regulatory Complaints, states that he contacted Mr. Porta and advised him that
Verizon determined that the calls were dialed from Mr. Porta’s address through an Internet
connection. Mr. Smith further states that Verizon’s position, after careful review of Mr.
Porta’s complaint, is to adjust 100% of the international calls, including taxes, in the amount
of $163.94. On August 26, 2005, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau confirmed
with Mr. Smith at Verizon that credits in the amounts of $163.94 were provided to Mr. Porta
on May 4, 2005, and May 16, 2005, for a total credit of $327.88. Based on the information
provided, the Commission does not plan to take any further action with respect to Mr. Porta’s
complaint.
The goal of the FCC’s informal complaint process is to make it easier for consumers to
file complaints regarding telecommunications services and for the service providers to act
promptly to satisfy complaints. The informal complaint process also helps to ensure that the
actions of the companies are not violating any applicable Commission rules and lets the
telecommunication companies know how customers feel about practices and policies that may
be detrimental to the consumer.
Generally, a complainant may also choose to continue to work directly with the
company to resolve the complaint, or, as in a contractual dispute, take civil action. We
appreciate your concern in this matter. If you have any further questions or require additional
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Wyatt
Deputy Bureau Chief
Enclosures
- 1
1 T
December 11.2004 Verizon Long Distance
500 E. Carpenter F ~ v y
Mail Code: TXDI 921N
Irving, TX 75062
Informal Complaints
445 l Z m Street SW., Room CY-6514
RE: Mr. James Della Porta

21 Forest Rd
Delmar, NY 12054
Telephone: 518/439-8691
IC Number: 04-10120764
Received: October 27,2004
Thank you for referring the complaint of Mr. James Della Porta to my office for review. We
appreciate his bringing this matter to our attention. Mr. Della Porta expressed concern about
internationalcharges on his Verizon Long Distance bill.
Our investigation revealed that the calls in dispute were made on-line to Austria. Verizon has
determined that the calls to this locationwere directly dialed from the above address through an
Internet connection. According to the Federal Communications Commission’s website, some
Internet sites encourage computer users to download software in order to view certain material. The
downloaded software disconnects his or her computer’s modem and then reconnects it using an
international long distance number. The result: the modem may actually be placing a call to as far
away as Chad, Madagascar, or other countries. If this happens, the computer user will be billed for
an international call.
To minimize the risk of this happening, consumers may have an InternationalBlock placed on the
line by their local exchange carrier (LEC). In addition, consumers may contact their Internet Service
Provider for further information regarding preventive software, for example, Spyware, pop-up
stoppers, and ad blockers.
Several attempts were made to contact Mr. Della Porta, by a Verizon Long Distance representative,
Mr. Eric Smith, but were unsuccessful. A post card was mailed to the above address. In order to
resolve this issue, a Verizon Long Distance representative must speak to Mr. Della Porta concerning
the complaint. Due to no contact, Verizon Long Distance is closing this case. The charges will
continue billing. Should Mr. Della Porta wish to discuss this matter further, he may contact Mr. Eric
Smith at 8881483-7770.
We trust that this information will assist you in closing this complaint. We apologize for any
inconvenience that Mr. Della Porta has experienced as a result of the above matter.
Sincerely,
Veronica Catalina
c: J:DELLA PORTA
- 1 ’ I - T
May 5,2005 Verizon Long Distance
P.O. Box 152013
Mail Code: TXD1921N
Irving, TX 75015
Informal Complaints
445 12’hStreet SW., Room CY-B514
RE: Mr. J mes De La P rta

21 Forest Road
Telephone: 518-439-8691
ICNumber: 05-60159696
Received: April 27,2005
Thank you for referring the complaint of Mr. Porta to my office for review. I appreciate him bringing
this matter to my attention. Mr. Porta expressed mncem about international charges on their
Verizon Long Distance bill.
According to our investigation, the calls in dispute were made on-line to Sao Tome. Verizon has
determined that the calls were dialed from the above address through an Internet connection. After
careful review of the Mr. Porta’s complaint and the charges on the bill, VZLDs position is to adjust
100% of the internationalcalls, including taxes, $163.94. In addition, Verizon will retrieve their
account from collections and refund any late fees associated with this issue. It was explained to the
Porta’s that should any more calls of this nature occur; they will be responsible for the charges.
On May 5, 2005, I contacted Mr. Porta and informed him of above information. Should Mr. Porta
wish to discuss this matter further, he may contact me at 888/483-7770.
We trust that this information will assist you in closing this complaint and we apologize for any
inconvenience that the Porta’s experienced because of the above matter. Please call me at
972717-7128 if there is anything I can do to assist you.
Sincerely,
Eric Smith
c: J. Porta
T
August 25,2005
VIA FACSIMILE
Honorable Kevin J. Martin

chairman
445 1Zth street, sw

We write because we are c c m c d tbat the C d s s i o n may soon require
Voice-Over-Intemet-Pmtocol(VOP') scvvice providers to disconnect VOW service to
tens o f thousands of mbscriiers nationwide.
that they had r e d and understood an advisory concerning such limitations, For
subscribers that do not acknowledge such limitations,the Bureau is requiring that VOIP
service providers shut off those customers' VOIP phone service by August 30,2005.
e cornend the Commission for its

recent aggressive act e pmvidm to provide E91 1 ctpbility
to their subscribers iIls in the Senate and
be E91 I capabk. The
bills, however, do not require VQP service providetg So unilatdly cut off phone service
where that service is not E91 1 capable.
Nonetheless, we are ;greatlyconccmed that the Commission is requiring

subscribers to bc disconnected frtm their VOIP service by August 30 if suhscriben have
not provided the eat. Many VOIP service providers have actively
contacted th& s ve acknowtadgmertts from
them ail, This may bt due to have baEa an vacation or do
not routinely answer requests SBMGC p m v i h are forced to
- -
disconnect VOIP subscribers' phollc service without subscrik consent this could
lead to unfortunate comucnw. For example,many customm suddenly wodd find
Chairnian Kevin J . Martin
August 25,2005
Page 2
themselves unable to contact public safety services (whcrc E91 1 capability exists) or
reach loved ones during emqmcies, such as h & w a ,
We urge the C o d consider the effects of its directive.

Although we agree that it is c to be warned about any E91 1
limitations, we are not convinced that the Comission should order VOW service to be
disconnected. In fact, we where the Commission has broadly
ordered any basic rsded. At the very least, we
ask that the Commission
VOW service providers can
The Commission also disconnection of VOP service that i s
E9 11 or 91 1 capable where the service provider has actively sought the required
subscriber acknowledpent,
As always, we io work with the Commission on these
and other critical public ts.
. ii/ifi/i!UU5 17:21 FAX 2 0 2 2 2 8 4 7 4 3 SENATOR BURNS @
0 0I2
Wnited States #enate

WASHINGTON, DC 20510
The Honorable Kevin Martin

Chairman, Federal Cornmanications Commission
445 1 9 Street s w
Washington, D.C. 20554 \
We commend and Lhare your commitment io uubli safety and rapid deploymcnt of 91 1and E-
91 l services to as many Americans as practicablc:.As yoii know, the Senate Commerce
Committee unanimously approved S. 1063, the “JP-Enabled Voicc Communications and Public
Safety Act of 2005” on November 2,2005, which gives interconnected VolP service providers
the necessary tools to fully deploy an enhanced 91 1 servicc,
The intent of oiu bill was to strike an appropriate balance between encouraging the rollout of
new and innovativc VoIP services desired by consumers in a competitive market, and obliging
interconnected V o P providers lo deliver E-9 1 1 iiationwide whilc providing them the necessary
access requirements to meet that obligalion.
We are encouragcd by the Commission’srecent public notice advising VolP providers that they
need not disconnect any existing custoiners come November 28‘”. However, this notice and the
marketing restriction contained therein may impede 911 deploynent by inadvertently
encouraging third pa- competitors to deny VolP providers access to essential 91 1 elements.
This restriction could impede competition and unnecessarily delay deployment of 91 1.
It is apparelit that despite considerablc effort, and due to elements they do not contTol, many
V o P providers will be unable to comply fully with the FCC’s order as proposed by November
28, 2005. Although it is unlikely that S. 1063 will become law by November 28, we have no
reason to believe that it will not eventually be signed into law. With that in mind, we strongly
urgc you to consider an approach based on this legjslation in thc interim.
R E C E I V E D TIME NOV, 18. 5:53PM PRINT TIME NOV. 18. 5:i4PM

ii/itJ/LUVS 17:21 FAX 2 0 2 228 4743
SENATOR BURNS @.0I 0 3
7
L
R E C E i V E D TIME NOV, le. 5:53PM

-run005 17:21 FAX 2 0 2 2 2 8 4 7 4 3 SENATOR BURNS B 001
UNITED STATES SENATOR MONTANA
CONRAD BURN
PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET):

SUBJECT; VoIP 1 Q&r
FROM: SkuQ N i \ \ e r
COMMENTS:
187 Dirkeen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20610-2609
"DD (202) 224-8616
R i m e : (202) 224-2644
0 F~:(202)224-8594 0 0
222 N. 32nd St.,Ste. 400 321 First Ave. North 211 Haggerty Lane 208 N.Montana AVC.
Billings, Montana 59101 Great Falls, Montana 69401 Bo@,man,Montana 59715 Suite 202A
Phone: (406) 252-OS60 TDD: (406)761-6885 Phone: (406)586-4450 Helena, Montane 69601
Fox: (406) 252-7768 Phone; (406) 452-9686 Fax: (406) 666-7647 Phone: (4061 449-5401
FEN:(406) 452-9586 Fax: (406) 449-6462
N
U U 0 c,r
z
125 W,Granite, 1845 Highway 93 South 122 West Towne, Sh, 207 116 West Front Street 0
Suite 200 suite 210 Glendive, Montana 69330 Missoule, Montana 59602 =
Butte, Montana 69701 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 365-2391 Plmner (406) 728-3003
Phone: (406) 723-3277 Phone; (406) 267-9360 Fnu: (406) 365-8836 Fa:(406) 728-2193
Fax: (406) 782-4717 Fax: (406) 257-3974
Home Page: http:llbuma.senate,gov
RECEIVED TIME NOV. 18. 5:53PM PRINT TiME NOV. 18. 5:54PM
May 19,2006
The Honorable Kevin Martin

Cllairnan
Federal Communications Coinmission
445 12th Street, S .W.

W e write to call your attention to an Emergency Pelition filed by WABC and WPK and
supported by WNET, New York City’s public television station, and by Connecticut Public
Broadcasting. In addition to being one of the earliest television stations in the country to operaie
in high definition, WABC has consistently brought invaluable service to its viewers in the New
York area by providing local news, public affairs, and emergency infomation.
We are aware that the Federal Communications Commission is curreiitly cngaged in the digitaI
channel election process. During this process, WABC selected to opcrate in digital on channel 7
(its currcnt analog c h m c l j because that channel lechaically allows for WABC to Teach the most
current WABC viewers. WAJ3C also chose Channel 7 for digital because engineers generally
believe that a VHF frequency is best for reception in an urban environment. Indeed, m New
York City, many viewers still depend on free, over-the-air reception for their television service.
It is our understanding that WABC’s election of channel 7 has not been granted because a public
television station in New Jersey, WNJB, has refused to agree to a limited amount of interfermce
that would be created by WABC’s operation in digital on channel 7. Notably, the interference
that would be created would be in areas in New York that currently are not even reached by
WNJB’s signal. Moreover, the viewas in the areas where thme would be interference also are
very well sewed by WNET, the public tclevision station that already serves New York.
Notwithstanding that WNET already serves the Ncw York market, WNJB has proposed to the
FCC that it be gaited a de facto reallocation froin New Jersey to New York City.
We request that the Comniission give careful consideration and due priority to this matter and
stress that we belicve that the public interest weighs in favor of WABC operating 011 digital on
Channel 7. Moreover, we believe that there is not a compelling public intercst justification for
moving WNJEl’s operations to New York, given that that station’s charge is to serve New Jersey
and that WNET’s charge is to serve New York.
TlianIc you for your attention to this mattcr.
Sincerely,
#
la
z
33 Charles E. Schunier
-c
StNAlUK LLlNlUN
. S E N A T O R FIILLARY R O D H A M C L I N T O N
OF N E W Y O R K
O F F I C E OF T H E DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE
A L I C E PUSHKAR
2 0 2 - 1 2 4 - 2 7 3 1 ( P H O N E ) 2 0 2 - 2 2 4 - 3 5 6 0 ( 5 A X )
3
FACSIMILE. T RAN S M ITTAL S I-I E ET
TO: tXOM
ChaJrman rvIartia Senator Clinton
COLIPAW DATE,
5/19/06
PAX NUMBER. 'I'UTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDTNC C0W.R
202-41kL2801 2
PHONE NUMBEx: SENDER'S RlSFERENCX NUMBBE
u. YOUR REFEMNCE N U W E k
4 7 6 R U S S E L L SILNATE OFFICI; D U I L I > I N G , W A S H I N G ' I ' O N DC, 2 0 5 1 0

(IF f l l E P E AIIIJ A N Y I'ROBLRMS WI'I'I.1 T H E * f R A N S M I S S I O N OF T H I S P A X , P L E A S E
C O N T A C T A L I C R PUSI-1'KAR A T 2 0 2 - 2 2 4 - 2 7 3 1 )
FEDE R AL Co M M u N I CATIo Ns Co M M I ssI O N
WASHI NGTO N
OFFICE OF September 5,2006

THE C H A I R M A N

Thank you for your letter regarding the status of the Emergency Request for Waiver filed
by television stations WABC and WPIX, New York, New York, and supported by
noncommercial educational television station WNET. The Commission will address this issue
shortly in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes the channels to be used by
broadcasters, including WABC, for their DTV operations after the digital transition. The Notice
specifically addresses the emergency relief requested.
Thank you for your interest in this matter. If I can be of further assistance with this or
any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHI N GTON
OFFICE OF September 5,2006

THE C H A I R M A N

Thank you for your letter regarding the status of the Emergency Request for Waiver filed
by television stations WABC and WPIX, New York, New York, and supported by
noncommercial educational television station WNET. The Commission will address this issue
shortly in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes the channels to be used by
broadcasters, including WABC, for their DTV operations after the digital transition. The Notice
specifically addresses the emergency relief requested.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
FEDE RAL C O M M U N I C A T I O N S C O M M I SS I O N
W A S H I NGTON
OFFICE O F January 29,2007

THE C H A I R M A N

I wanted to provide a further update regarding the status of the Emergency Request for
Waiver filed by television stations WABC and WPIX, New York, New York, and supported by
noncommercial educational television station WNET. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
was released on October 20,2006, the Commission granted WABC’s request for emergency
relief and proposed to allot channel 7 to WABC for its digital operations after the transition.
Sincerely,
K e v i d Martin
Chairman
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
W A S HI NGTON
OFFICE OF January 29,2007

THE C H A I R M A N

I wanted to provide a further update regarding the status of the Emergency Request for
Waiver filed by television stations WABC and WE, New York, New York, and supported by
noncommercial educational television station WNET. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
was released on October 20,2006, the Commission granted WABC’s request for emergency
relief and proposed to allot channel 7 to WABC for its digital operations after the transition.
Sincerely,
K d n J. Martin
Chairman
I
DEC.13.2006 9:50FIM FCC N0.379 P.3
SENATOR CLINTON Bo02
18/12/2006 1 9 : 3 4 FAX 202 224 1660 I
December 12,2006
Mwlenc EI. Dortch, Esq.

Secretary
Fedora1 CommunicationsComimission
!
445 12th Strest, 9.W.
Washington, b,C.20554 I
Dear Ms.Dortch:
It is my understandingtlmt Utica Collage'hss submitted an application for renewal of its
radio statimlicense, which is currently pmdhg bafore the Federal Communicntions
Commission (FCC). Utica College is a ceuttd componunt ofthe ~trongeconomy md the rich
culture o E b Mohawk Valley, and its student-run radio station, WPNIR-FM, plays B kWrole in
the College's many pouitive contributioiuto the local community,
WPNR broadcasts throughout Oneida County and offers uniquc pro@- that would
not othesWise be accessible to local rcaidenls. Moreover, it gives Utics students a opportunity
i o gain fushnd axpcriencc with the challengss and oppox3tmiitiissof the tdecommueicatfom
inrlustxy. For all of these reams, I b&eve that Mae is e compelliug public interest for thc
favorable consideration for the rcnewal of WPNR'Ybroadcast l i ~ e n ~ e .
'l["aank you fix your rzttmtjon to this important iseue facing Utica Collega and Oneida
County, If you have any questions or concqms rcZated to my endomement of this license renewal
-
application, please do not hesitate to contact Michael Szym;mdci of my staf.. at (202)224 445 1. I
I
SillccreIy yours,
I
I
Hillary Rodham C h t o n
RECEiVED TIME DEC. 13. 1 0 : 2 2 A M PRINT TIME DEC, 13. 1 0 : 2 2 A M I

DEC -13.2006 9: 50QM FCC NO. 379
12/12/2000 10;33 FAg 202 224 1680 SENATOR CLINTON
RECEIVED TIME D E L 13. 1 0 : 2 2 A M PRINT TIME DEC. 13, 1 0 : 2 3 A M

May 15, 2007

Chairman
445 12" Street, S.W.
Dear Chairman M d i n :
We are writing to request that the Commission expedite the consideration of the
Metropolitan Television Alliance's (MTVA) application for remporary authorization to operate a
distributed transmission system @TS) network on channels 12, 33 and 65 in and aroundNew York
City.
Following the lerror attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center on September 11,2001,
New York City's broadcasters rallied to install analog and digital facilities at the Empire State
Euilding. While the analog facilities created are adequate, the digital facilities there are hindered by
limited space for antennas on the mast. The digital signals from the Empire State Building do not
provide as robust coverage as the facilities at the World Trade Center did or as the planned digital
facilities at the Freedom Tower will. "hen the M N A brought this concern to OUT attention, we
responded by creating the NYC 9/11 Digital Transition Fund as part of Public Law 109-171. The
Fund supports the MTVA's efforts to design and build a temporary system to provide improved
digital signals from the Empire Sfatc Building during the t e m p o r q period before the completion of
the facilities at the Freedom Tower.
T h e Commission's approval of temporary authorization to operate a DTS network on

channels 12, 33 and 65 is an essential prerequisite to the testing of this system. The MTVA must
have its prototype system operational early this sunmer in order to evaluate results and begin build-
out of a larger DTS system before the analog shutoff in Febmary 2009. We ask that you speedup
your consideration of the MTVA'S application so that the M N A may oontinue its imporiant work
in the very limited time frame available.
Thank you for your attention to this application
Sincerely,
Member of Congress
PWNTED O N RECYCLED ?*PER

The Honorable Kevin .I.
Martin
Page 2
+2Jg*
red Upton
Subcommittee Ranking Member
-+
Subcornminee Chairman
Telecommunications and the Internet Telecoinmunications and the Internet
united States Senator

3 hales E. Schumer
Edolphus TOW?IS
Member of Congress
4---
An ony D. Weiner
Member of Congress
UfLj--
Frank Pallone. Jr.
Member of Congress
Michael Ferguson
Member of Congress W Member of Congress
bio Sires __
Member of Congress Member of Congress
/Member of Congress
Page 3
Member of Congress
Member of Congrcss
cc:
The Honorable Michael J. Copps

The Honorable Jonathan S. Adelstein
The Honorable Deborah Taylor Tate
The Honorable Robert M. McDowell
ELIOT L. ENGEL 7161 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE eUlLDlNG
WASHINGTON. DC2OS154217
17TH OISTRIC7. NEW YORK
WI 225-2464
COMMIFTEE O N DISTRICT OFFICES:
ENERGY AND COMMERCE
3655 JOHNSON AVENUE
SUBCOMMITEES: BRONX, NY 10663
ENERGYANDAIR QUALITY 17181 7869700
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET Bou$e of %fieprerjmtatibe$ E GRAMATAN AVENUE

SUITE 205
COMMITTEE ON MOUNTVERNON. NY 10550
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DiBns'bington, B&20515-3217 19141 6994100
SUBCOMMITTEES 261 WEST NYACK ROAD
WEST NYACK, NY 1099d
WESTERN HEMISPHERE. RANKING DEMOCRAT
18W735rlOOO
-
EUROPE AND EMERGlNGTHRE4TS
WEBSITE hnp:llsnl~l,h~urs.?0v
ASSISTANT DEMOCRbTlC WHIP
VICE CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC

TASK FORCE ON HOMELANO S E C U R I N
Fax Transmission
Date: st r!i/oy
Pages : 4
(including cover s h e e t )
Fax #: LIIr-daoI
From: / Cong.
- Eliot Engel - Bill Weitz
- Ned Michalek - Michelle Shwimer
- Emily Gibbons - Cristina Batt
-Hal Connolly - Britt McEachern
- Rachelle Wood - Jason Steinbaum
Subject :
COMMENTS :
I f t h e r e a r e any problems with t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n , please call

( 2 0 2 )225-2464.
FRINTEU ON RiCYCLED PAPER

FEDE R A L C OM M u N I CAT I O Ns C o M MI ssI o N
WASHINGTON
)FFICE O F
Z CHAIRMAN

Thank you for your May 16,2007 letter regarding an application that was filed with the
Commission by the Metropolitan Television Alliance, LLC (“MTA”) which requests
experimental authority to operate a digital television system (“DTS”) on Channels 12,33, and 65
in New York City.
I am pleased to report that, on May 23,2007, the Media Bureau granted MTA’s
application for experimental authority to operate a DTS on Channels 12,33, and 65 in New York
City.
I appreciate your interest in this important matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me
if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
COMM u N ICATIONS COMMISSION
FEDERAL
WASHINGTON
OFFICE O F
T H E CHAIRMAN
June 18,2007
Dear Representative:
As you are aware, our nation is in the process of transitioning over-the-air

television broadcasts from an analog format to an all-digital format, with February 17,
2009 as the statutory date for the transition of full power U.S. broadcast stations to be
complete. In addition to facilitating the DTV transition through policy-making
proceedings, the Commission has been working with the industry, consumer groups, and
other governmental agencies to ensure that consumers are prepared.
As part of our consumer education outreach, we have developed several consumer

publications that we have been disseminating to various groups, including a DTV Fact
Sheet with frequently asked questions, A DTV Information Booklet that gives a
comprehensive explanation of what the DTV transition entails and what consumers
should do to be prepared, and a DTV Buyer’s Guide for consumers who are considering
purchasing a new TV. I am attaching copies of these and some other materials for your
reference, and ask that you make these available to your constituents and to the media in
your district. These, as well as other consumer publications and information on the DTV
transition can be accessed, downloaded, and printed, in both English and Spanish,
through the official DTV website, www.dtv.aov. I encourage you to add a link to
www.dtv.nov to your Congressional website. You may also find some of the information
available in the outreach toolkit, www.dtv.gov/outreach.html, useful to include in
correspondence to your constituents.
I look forward to working with you to ensure that consumers are prepared for the
completion of the DTV transition, and I welcome any questions or suggestions you or
your staff may have. Please do not hesitate to contact me or the Commission’s
Legislative Affairs Office Director, Kevin Washington, at 202-41 8-1900.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Enclosures
NEW YORK
SENATOR

SUITE 476
202-2244451 "Idnited StmB Senate
August 27,2007
Ms. Jennifer Prime

445 12th Street Sw
14' '
Dear Ms. Prime:
I am writing in support of The Research Foundation of the State University of New

York's (SUNY), on behalf of the Adirondack - Champlain Telemedicine Information Network
(ACTION), application to the Federal Communications Commission for funding through the
Rural Health Care Pilot Program. I understand that this funding will be used to construct a state
of the art fiber optic network connecting all health care providers in Clinton, Essex, and Franklin
counties, and to connect to Internet 2.
The hospitals and medical centers in Clinton, Essex, and Franklin counties are currently
facing challenges to provide excellent patient care, due to the region's lack of an affordable, high
speed broadband infrastructure between all of the medical facilities capable of handling large
image and data flies without degradation. A modern dedicated fiber optic dedicated network
health care is necessary to support the telehealth needs of this rural region.
If this grant is approved, the funds acquired would be used to create a new fiber optic
network between the following ACTION Phase 1 members: Alice Hyde Medical Center,
Adirondack Medical Center, Elizabethtown Community Hospital, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
Health Center, Clinton Community College, North Country Community College, and the SUNY
Plattsburgh campus. This network will connect all of the medical centers in the three counties,
allowing them to share patient electronic medical records, medical specialists, teleradiology,
medical images, and professional development and continuing education. The funds will invest
in a sustainable telemedicine and telehealth network that will benefit the citizens of this rural
region.
I ask that you please give this application your full consideration. If you have any
questions, or desire further information, please do not hesitate to contact my staff member Kate
Beale at (202) 224-445 1.
Sincerely yours,

uN I C A TONS
FEDERALCOMM I COM
MISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
T H E CHAIRMAN

Thank you for your letter supporting the Adirondack-Champlain Telemedicine

Information Network application for participation in the Commission's Rural Health Care Pilot
Program. In an Order released November 19,2007, the Commission approved Adirondack-
Champlain Telemedicine Information Network's application for support up to $7,648,304.
The Commission dedicated over $4 17 million for the construction of 69 statewide or

regional broadband telehealth networks in 42 states and three U.S. territories which will support
the connection of more than 6,000 public and non-profit health care providers nationwide. The
Commission established this program to fund up to 85 percent of the costs associated with the
construction of state or regional broadband networks to connect multiple public and non-profit
health care providers. I was pleased when the Commission launched this program, noting the
opportunities it could create for stimulating innovative telehealth and, in particular, telemedicine
services to rural and underserved areas of the country where the need for such services is most
acute.
Through the Commission's Rural Health Care Pilot Program, I am hoping to establish the
basic building blocks of a digitally connected health system - regional and state-wide broadband
networks, all connected to a national backbone. I look forward to learning from this pilot
program how we can ensure that all Americans, including those in the most remote areas of the
country, receive first-rate medical care.
Thank you for your interest in this important matter. Please let me know if I can be of
any further assistance.
Sincerely,
KevinS. Martin
Chairman
FEDE R A L COM M u N I CATI o Ns COM M I ss I o N
WASHI NGTON
OFFICE O F
T H E CHAIRMAN
October 15, 2007
Dear Senator:
As you know, federal law requires that all h11-power television broadcast stations
switch fiom broadcasting over-the-air in analog format to digital format by February 17,
2009. We would like to offer to send FCC staff to local forums to discuss the upcoming
transition. At your request, we will make Commission staff available to participate in
and make a DTV presentation at any local town hall meetings or other outreach events
you may have for your constituents.
Commission staff is able to assist you in informing your constituents of the details
of the DTV transition at any time. We can aid in answering questions regarding what the
DTV transition means for consumers, how they need to prepare, and what resources are
available to them. In June, you received a Digital TV information packet outlining the
FCC’s consumer outreach program to help alert consumers and the general public to the
DTV transition. I am again attaching a Commission publication on the basic facts about
the transition. For other Commission publications and consumer alerts, you may refer to
www .dtv.gov.
I look forward to working with you to minimize the burden that this upcoming
transition could pose to consumers and maximize their ability to enjoy the exciting
benefits of digital television. As always, I welcome any questions or suggestions you or
your staff may have. For more information or to schedule a presentation by Commission
staff in conjunction with your state event, please contact the Commission’s Legislative
Affairs Office at (202) 418-1900.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
Enclosure
FEDE R A L C o M M uN I CAT ION s C o M M I s s I oN
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
October 15,2007
Dear Representative:
As you know, federal law requires that all hll-power television broadcast stations
switch fiom broadcasting over-the-air in analog format to digital format by February 17,
2009. We would like to offer to send FCC staff to local forums to discuss the upcoming
transition. At your request, we will make Commission staff available to participate in
and make a DTV presentation at any local town hall meetings or other outreach events
you may have for your constituents.
Commission staff is able to assist you in informing your constituents of the details
of the DTV transition at any time. We can aid in answering questions regarding what the
DTV transition means for consumers, how they need to prepare, and what resources are
available to them. In June, you received a Digital TV information packet outlining the
FCC’s consumer outreach program to help alert consumers and the general public to the
DTV transition. I am again attaching a Commission publication on the basic facts about
the transition. For other Commission publications and consumer alerts, you may refer to
www.dtv.gov.
I look forward to working with you to minimize the burden that this upcoming
transition could pose to consumers and maximize their ability to enjoy the exciting
benefits of digital television. As always, I welcome any questions or suggestions you or
your staff may have. For more information or to schedule a presentation by Commission
staff in conjunction with your district event, please contact the Commission’s Legislative
Affairs Office at (202) 418-1900.
Sincerely,
Kevin j.Martin
Chairman
Enclosure
HlLLARY RODHAM CLlllTON COMMllTEES:
NEW M f i K
SENATOR
WASHINGTON DC 2O5?&32O4
October 30,2007
The Honor,dh Kevin Martin

Chairman
445 12th S rect,!S.W.
Dear Chair mn Martin:
The transition liom mdog to digital television must preserve vital broadcast services to
every American. This is especially critical for viewers who depend on over-thc-air broadcasts as
their. link LO the rest of the world. Mmy New York State residents live in areas wirhout i~cccssto
cable or loc.d-to-local satel lite television. 1 am concerned about possible unintended consequences
of Federal (’ommunications Commission (FCC)procedures governing the ansition and its impact
on broadcasr. vicvers.
Whr n analog broadcasting terminates in February 209,some viewers could lose service. For
some, this is a result of confusion early in the transition process when stations had to choose between
“mattjmitattron” +d “replication” for the bui Id-out of their post-transirion digital facilities.
WOI NY-TV in Wm?rtowl,New York is B perfect example. The CBS affiliate is a vital local
source of telzvisibn ncws programs in the 176* market. In the channel election process, the licensee
wanted to “inaximize” ics digital signal and therefore chose ”maximization”. Subsequendy, the
statioii has 3t?amehthat “maximization” would mean nearly 59,000 viewers would not be abfe to see
h e station a l i e r $e ansition. The station should have chosen to “replicate,” because this more
closely 1nin.m m y ’ s curreni analog broadcast pattern.
Vicwers should not be deprived of a much needed source of local news and information due
to confusion on the part of the stiition licensee. T am asking the FCC to give stations in these
circumstmcb:sLhd opportunity to amend their election.
I apitecidie the helpful attitude displayed by members of the FCC staff in dealing with my
oftlco in thi: matter. Time is an issue since affected stations, like WWNY, must order and install the
necessary equipinknc io preserve coverage to underserved rural areas well ahead of the Februay
2009 deadline.
Thank yo? For your help rectifying this situation.
Sincerely yours,
iiillary’Rodham Clinlon
I
SIENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

OF' N E W Y O R K
)t'F'ICE OF T H L D I R E C T O X O F C Q R R E S F O N D E N C E
SHARYN MAChltlAN
20 2 -2 24- 93 3 S ( P 1-1 0 N E ) -
20 2 2 2 4- I 5 60 ( F A X )
- - L_
4 7 6 RuSSfi LL
- -
SENATI!. O F F I C E B U I L D I N G , W A S H I N G T O N D C , 2 O S l f J
( I F I-XEBE A n 6 ANY P R O R L C M S W I l ' l l THE T R A N S M I S S I O N 01;THIS F A X , PLEASE
i
h
C O N ?A C T S H A N V N N A C A R J A N A T 2 0 2 - 2 2 4 - 9 3 3 S )
FEDE R A L COM M u N ICATI o N s COM MI ss Io N
WASHINGTON
OFFICE O F
THE C H A I R M A N

Thank you for your letter regarding the digital operations of WWNY-TV, Carthage, New
York.
As you may know, WWNY initially was authorized to operate on digital channel 35 with
a power level of 1000 watts. More recently, during the final digital television (DTV) channel
election period, WWNY elected to operate its post-transition digital facilities on channel 7, the
station’s current analog channel. On August 1, 2007, the Commission adopted a final DTV
Table of Allotments (FCC 07-138) that, among other things, granted WWNY’s request to
operate on channel 7.
The licensee of WWNY, United Communications Corporation, filed a petition for

reconsideration of the final DTV Table of Allotments on October 26,2007, and requested
modifications to WWNY’s post-transition digital facilities so that WWNY may “replicate” the
area served by its analog signal. The pleading cycle for oppositions and replies to this petition
for reconsideration will close on December 13,2007. WWNY’s modification proposal will
receive every consideration consistent with the Commission’s technical requirements. In
addition, because of the proximity of WWNY to the U.S.-Canadian border, the agreement
between the United States and Canada requires that the Commission coordinate the station’s
post-transition facilities with the Canadian government. The ongoing negotiations with the
Canadian government contemplate facilities that would allow for WWNY to replicate its analog
coverage, so that if such modification is approved by Canada through bilateral negotiations and
in the Commission’s Order on Reconsideration, Canadian coordination should not delay
WWNY’s application process.
The Commission looks forward to working with United Communications Corporation

and will make every effort to help ensure that WWNY is available to as many viewers as
possible after the transition to digital television service.
I appreciate learning your views on this important matter. Please let me know if I can be
of further assistance with this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
HILLARY RODHAM CLIN'TON COMMITTEES:
NEU vaflx AllMEDIHVlCh
twwIrrFawii?taUC-
SENATOR kHDWO?%
~W3t~$WCht\%Um
CZ%ZZ
-ME-df'm
Wnited Btates Senate

November 29,2007
2572
The Honornble Kevin Martin
Chairman
Pedtxai ~oramuhicationsCommission
445 12th Sreet, S.W.
Washingtmm, D.C. 20554
Dear Chairman Maain:
X write to;inquire about an issue that has been brouglit to my attention by Mayor William
Glaclcen o.f'Freeport,New York. It is m y understanding that there i s an application pending
beforc the Comn~issionfor a new commercial radio station in Rockland County,New York. The
proposed new station would broadcast at 10,000watts at 1700 kHz AM. Mayor Glackm and
others in tht T r e e emergency mmagtmm\ cbmmudtcyb e exptcssebc~nc.c--Ts-%iisnew
station would effectively disable Freeport's pubIic safety radio stdtion frequency or 1690 kHz
AM,which broadcasts at less than 10 watts. Kt i s m y understanding that this new station would
not arrly impact the public safety broadcasts of Freepod, but also those of a number of other
comtr~unitiesin Mew Y ork, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
1 hope thk you will clarify the cunent starus of the application for the proposed new
radio statioli andlconsider in your review of the application the impact it could have on local
public safeyr radio broadcast, such as in Freeport.
Thank you far your time and for your considerati~nof these ccsncems. L~W~-CQW&Y&\Q
h~an'ng backhorn you on rhis impurtmtm~~e% J/"ycdave myqucsztunns orcmcems,phse
do not: hesikite to contact Josh of m y staff at (202)224 - 3565.
Sincerely yours,
15iilary Rodham Clinton

I
S ~ E N A T O RH I - L L A R Y R O D H A M C L I N T O N
P OF NEW YORK
OFF'TCK OF T H E 1 3 1 R E C T O R O f C 0 R R E S P O N U E N C : n
SHhkYN M A C ~ A R ~ A N
2112-224.933s [PHONE) 2 0 2 - 2 2 4 - I S G O( F A X )
I FACSIMILE TRANSMlaCThL SHEET

mw
f r):
- bKOM.
The .Honbrablc1 -Mnctin Senator &ton
Chstlman
COMPANL DATR
FCC: , 11/29/07
I
FAX NUMI.ER: 'I'CrAl. KO OF PACES INCLUDING CuVCR:

202*418-2801 2
-.
PHQNe hi MBUk SENDER'S IUEFEIuNCE NUM1IP.R:
U Y OUK U F f I'LENGE NUMBER:
I
R URGlMT X FOR REVIEW PI.l?ASIS COMMliNI. X Pt.F.hS6 REPLY PI.E&SE RECYCLE
%
=
~
l
4 V 6 RUSSBLI. S E N A T E O F F I C I S B U I L D I N G , W A S I l l N G T O N DC, 2051 0
(IF T H E B E A R E ANY P R O B L E M S WI'CH: THE T R A N S M I S S I O NOF THIS FAX. PLEASE
C O N T A C T S I I A R Y N M A G A R ) A N A'T 202-224-933s)
.
December 10,2007

Attn: Josh Williams
Re: Application of Polnet Communications, Ltd. for a New AM

Broadcast Station at Haverstraw, New York; Application of
Alexander Broadcasting, Inc. for Major Modification to license of
Station WRCR(AM), Spring Valley, New York; Application of
Talkline Communications Corp. for a New AM Broadcast Station
at Monsey, New York; Application of S&B Broadcasting
Company for a New AM Broadcast Station at Stony Point, New
York (File Nos. BSF-20071OOSAEG; BSF-20071OOSAEF; BSF-
2007 1OOSAEE; BSF-20071005AED)
Thank you for letter dated November 29,2007. Your letter addresses the merits
of the above-referenced matters.
Your correspondence, which was not served on the parties to these proceedings,
was forwarded to the Office of General Counsel for reply in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules (47 C.F.R. $9 1.1200-16), which are intended to ensure both
fairness and the appearance of fairness in Commission proceedings. The above-
referenced matters are restricted proceedings, and it will remain restricted until it they are
no longer subject to administrative or judicial review. The ex parte rules require that
written communications to Commission decision-making personnel relating to the merits
of restricted proceedings be served on all the parties to the proceeding.
In accordance with the ex parte rules, copies of this letter and your incoming
correspondence have been sent to the parties to these proceedings. Additionally, copies
of these items have been placed in a public file associated with, but not made part of, the
record in these proceedings, and therefore cannot be considered.
.4

Page 2
You may be assured that the Commission will give full consideration to all views
presented in accordance with the ex parte rules. If you wish the merits of your letter to be
considered, your letter or a cover letter must indicate that it was served on the parties
listed below.
Sincerely yoursA
Administrative Law Division

Office of General Counsel
cc :
Howard M. Weiss, Esq.

Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLLC
1300 North 17thStreet
11th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209
Roy R. Russo, Esq.

Cohn and Marks, LLP
1920 N Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036-1622
Jerome S. Boros, Esq.

1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
Arthur V. Belendiuk, Esq.

Smithwick & Belendiuk, PC
5028 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W
Suite 301
Attachments
WASHINGTON. DC 2051 0
December 14,2007
2684
Chairman
445 12th Strcel S W
We believe your delcrmincd push to relax media ownership rules by forcing a votc on
December 1 x ' short
~ circuits the pub1 ic cornment period that would normal 1y accompany
a major rule change of this type.
It is customary to provide a reasonable period for comment when proposing rule changes
in order to allow the American people an opporthlnity to review. understand and
comment.
When you proposed a new rule on the effects of communica~ionstowers on migratory

birds, you allowcd for a 90 day comment period. I low could you decide to allow 90 days
for a migratory bird rule and then shortchange the public on the media ownership rule?
You claim that you have given the public adequate opportunity by holding hesings
across the country on media ownership issues and allowing a 1 20 day comment period,
But no one attending those hearings or submitting comments could have been prepared to
assess a proposed rule that did not exist.
You announced the rule in a press release on November 13,2007 with a comment period
of just 28 days ending on December 1 1,2007. You announced you wouId takc final
action on the proposed ruIe just one week later on December 18,2007. We believe this
denies thc American public any real ability for input and fails to reflect reasoned and
transparent agency decision-making. Furthermore, we know you are aware that the
Senate Commerce Committee ltas unanimously passed a piece of legislation asking you
to defer action on December 18"'. We believe you have shortchanged the comment
process and you have not completed a full review of Iocalism prior to forcing a vote on a
nile change dealing with media ownership limits.
With this in mind we are writing to notify you that if yoill proceed to take final action on
this pule on December 18' without having given a reasonabIe opportunity for comment
on the actual rules and study the related issues, we will immediately move legislation that
will revoke and nullify thc praposcd rule. We arc notifying yoti and others of this
proposed action in order to make certain you understand the consequences of ignoring the
need for and the right of the American people to play a constructive role in attempts by a
federal agency to change ruIes tlaat have a substantial impact on the American people.
In Iight of this, we request and expect that you wilI postpone the action scheduled for
December 18,2007.
Cc:
The Honorable Michael J. Copps, FCC Commissioner
The I-lonorableJonathan S. Adelstein, FCC Commissioner
The Honorable Deborah T. Tate, FCC Commissioner
The TlanorabFc Robert M. McDowell, FCC Commissioner
February 12,2008

Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
We are writing today to inquire about the status of two proceedings related to Saga
Communications, Inc. currently pending before the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). Although Saga initiated the acquisition of several local Ithaca radio station, the
transactions are not complete due to the pending proceedings.
The first proceeding that remains pending is related to a pleading filed on June 3,2005 by Finger
Lakes Alliance for Independent Media (FLAIM) against Saga's purchase of several local radio
stations. In 2004, Saga filed applicationswith the FCC, initiating the process to acquire four
radio stations, two AM and two FM, and two FM translators in Ithaca, New York. Prior to the
initiation of these transactions, Saga had no stations in the market. Saga's applications were
granted May 4,2005, and Saga closed on the stations May 31,2005. Followingthe action to
close on the stations, FLAIM filed an "Application for Review" with the-FCC on June 3,2005.
The second proceeding is also related to a petition filed by FLAIM against Saga. On November
1,2006, Saga filed applications with the FCC for consent to acquire a third FM radio station in
the Ithaca radio market. The application was granted December 27,2006, and Saga closed on the
station September 1,2007. In this case, FLAIM filed a "Petition for Reconsideration" on
February 2,2007, preventing the acquisition from being finalized.
As these applications have been pending for over two years and one year respectively, we would
like the FCC to provide us with a status report on its review of both FLAIM petitions. Thank
you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
..
.I
Charles E. Schumer
U S . Senator ' U.S. Senator

CREW: Federal Communications Commission: Regarding McCain, Clinton and Obama: Clinton

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CREW: Federal Communications Commission: Regarding McCain, Clinton and Obama: Clinton

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

The Honorable Ellary Rodham Clinton

Dear Senator Clinton:

Secretary of the Commission

cc: Director of Congressional Liaison

Ms. Anna Davis

Dear Ms. Davis:

United States Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Senator Hillary Clinton

Attention N e w York Customers

The benefits associated w i t h the 2000 NIGHT 8, WEEKEND are

MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGES

Accotint Number Telephone Number Service User

STAYING CONNECTED. BEING FREE.

9/05/02 PAYMENT RECEIVED - THANK YOU! 55.45CR

TOTAL OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED THROUGH 9/26/02 55.45CR

8/25/02 Through 9/24/02

TOTAL MONlHLY SERVICE CHAR6ES 39.99

HOME AIRTIME CHARGES

8/25/02 Through 9/24/02 - AT&T DIGITAL ADVANTAGE-$39.99

Category Minutes Rate Charge

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

Re: Informal Complaint 02-BOO11705

Dear Senator Clinton:

COMPLAINT RESPONSE FORM

AGENCY'S Federal Communications Commission COMPANY'S AT&T Wireless

AGENCY NIA COMPLAINANT'S Jesse Archer

BY: Response sent via E-mail DATE: February 25,2003

cc: Jesse Archer

The Honorable John Shimkus

Dear Congressman Shimkus:

The Honorable Anna Eshoo

Dear Congresswoman Eshoo:

Dale Hatfield, who recently delivered an independent report on E9 11 deployment to the

The Honorable Edward J. Markey

Dear Congressman Markey:

The Honorable Fred Upton

Dear Chairman Upton:

Dale Hatfield, who recently delivered an independent report on E9 11 deployment to the

The Honorable John Dingell

Dear Congressman Dingell:

The Honorable W.J. ("Billy") Tauzin

Dear Chairman Tauzin:

Dale Hatfield, who recently delivered an independent report on E9 11 deployment to the

The Honorable Hillary Clinton

Dear Senator Clinton:

The Honorable Conrad Burns

Dear Chairman Bums:

The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings

Dear Senator Hollings:

The Honorable John McCain

Dear Chairman McCain:

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

Mr. Michael K. Powell

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

Dear Senator Clinton:

May 19,2003, I announced my intention to form a federal advisory committee on diversity to

RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. Michael K. Powell

Dear Mr. Secretary: