CREW: Federal Communications Commission: Regarding McCain, Clinton and Obama: McCain Doc: Part 2

J2 -y%& 2 r-3- % 7 L 3
4p““
@‘
b-””
Universal Service Administrative Company

Schools & Libraries Division $
Administrator’s Decision on Appeal - Funding Year 2002-2003 4”

April 2,2003
Gary Baxter
Latch School Inc.
8145 N. 27‘h Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85051
Re: Billed Entity Number: 150596

47 1 Applicaticc Nmber: 328123
Funding Request Number(s): 882674
Your Correspondence Dated: August 1,200
After thorough review and investigation of all relevant facts, the Schools and Libraries
Division (“SLD”) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) has made
its decision in regard to your appeal of SLD’s Year 2002 Funding Commitment Decision
for the Application Number indicated above. This letter explains the basis of SLD’s
decision. The date of this letter begins the 60-day time period for appealing t h s decision
to the Federal Commnications Commission (“FCC”). If your letter of appeal inchded
more than one Application Number, please note tkdt for each application
appeal is submitted, a separate letter is sent.
Funding Request Number: 882674

Decision on Appeal: Denied in full
Explanation:
Your appeal correspondence states that although ineligible items were contained in
the submission, the cost of firewall and non-server related pc cards were clarified. I
You contest that the ineligibility percentage equates to 29.6%, and you state these 2-
issues were not discussed during PIA review. Additionally you state the listing of pre-
school should read K-12. 3
0 Upon thorough review of this appeal it is determined that charges contained in

your item 21 attachments, in addition to cost components provided during initial
review to verify your funding request, resulted in the denial of your funding.
Since Pre-K students and facilities are not eligible to receive e-rate funding in
Arizona, the Wireless LAN for Pre-K campus you referenced on the Item 21 4
attachment was deemed ineligible. There is no indication in the original
submission that the Pre-K campus should have read K- 12 campus. Firewall
UnitrWebsite Filter non-recumng charges are ineligible changes in accordance
Box 125 - Correspondence Unit, 80 South Jefferson Road, Whippany, New Jersey 07981
Visit us online at: h~/~.s/.universa/service.org
,"--
with program rules. Also, since you were not able to provide the costs of the
questionable Antennas andNIC Cards, the costs of Wireless PCYLAN Cards
were therefore deemed ineligible. The total ineligible requested finding equates
to 42.6% of the $238,042.00. Program rules require that funding requests found
to contain greater than 30% of ineligible products/services be denied. As your
funding request includes 42% of ineligible services, your appeal is denied.
Your Form 471 application included costs for the following ineligible services:
Service/Equipment to Pre-K Campus, Wireless PCULAN Cards, Firewall
Unit/Website Filter FCC rules provide that discounts may be approved only for
eligible services. See 47 C.F.R. $5 54.502, 54.503. The USAC website contains
a list of eligible services. See USAC website, http://www.universalservice.org,
Eligible Services List. Program procedures provide that if 30% or more of an
applicant's fimding request includes ineligible services, the funding request must
be denied. 42% of your funding request was for ineligible services. Therefore,
your fknding request was denied. You did not demonstrate in yoiu. appeal that
your request included less than 30% for ineligible services. Consequently, SLD
denies your appeal.
If you believe there is a basis for further examination of your application, you may file an
appeal with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) via United States Postal
Service: FCC, Office of the Secretary, 445-12" Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. If you
are submitting your appeal to the FCC by other than United States Postal Service, check the
SLD web site for more information. Please reference CC Docket Nos. 96-45 and 97-21 on
the first page of your appeal. The FCC must RECEIVE your appeal WITHIN 60 DAYS
OF THE ABOVE DATE ON THIS LETTER for your appeal to be filed in a timely
fashion. Further information and new options for filing an appeal directly with the FCC
can be found in the "Appeals Procedure" posted in the Reference Area of the SLD web site,
www.sl.universalservice.org.
We thank you for your continued support, patience, and cooperation during the appeal
process.
Schools and Libraries Division

Universal Service Administrative Company
Box 125 - Correspondence-Unit, 80 South Jefferson Road, Whippany, New Jersey 07981
Visit= online at: http://~yww.s/.
universa/service.org
--
REVIEW CIPA REQUIREMENTS. On December 2 1 , 2 0 0 0 , t h e C h i l d r e n ' s I n t e r n e t P r o t e c t i o n Act
C I P A ) was s i g n e d i n t o l a w . T h a t law r e q u i r e s s c h o o l s and l i b r a r i e s t h a t r e c e l v e
h n l v e r s a l S e r v l c e d i s c o u n t s f o r , c e r t a i n s e r v i c e s t o a d o p t an I n t e r n e t s a f e t y p o l i c y
incorporating t h e u s e o f f i l t e r i n g o r b l o c k i n g t e c h n o l o g on computers w l t h I n t e r n e t
a c c e s s a s a c o n d i t i o n of r e c e i v i n g t h o s e d i s c o u n t s . FunXing Year 2 0 0 2 yay be t h e Second
Funding Year f o r p u r o s e s of CIPA f o r one o r more s c h o o l s a n d / o r l i b r a r i e s r e p r e s e n t e d
o n y o u r Form 4 8 6 . (Funding Year 2002 is t h e Second Funding Year f o r p u r p o s e s of CIPA
f o r a s c h o o l o r l i b r a r y i f a Form 486 f o r i n t e r n e t a c c e s s o r i n t e r n a l c o n n e c t i o n s w a s
s u c c e s s f u l l y d a t a e n t e r e d f o r Fundin Year 2001. See t h e s e c t i o n of t h e Form 486
I n s t r u c t i o n s e n t i t l e d "Impact of C I P j Requirements on Form 486" f o r more i n f o r m a t i o n
on F i r s t , Second and T h i r d Funding Y e a r s . ) I f Fundin Year 2002 is t h e Second Funding
Year f o r p u r p o s e s of CIPA f o r one o r more s c h o o l s andqor l i b r a r i e s r e p r e s e n t e d on y o u r
Form 4 8 6 , t h o s e s c h o o l ( s ) a n d / o r l i b r a r y ( i e . s ) must c e r t i f t h a t t h e y a r e i n compliance
w i t h , CIPA u n l e s s s t a t e o r l o c a l p r o c u r e m e n t , r u l e s , o r r e u y a t i o n s o r , c o m p e t i t i v e b i d d i n g
r e q u i r e m e n t s p r e v e n t t h e making of t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n o t z e r w i s e r e q u i r e d . A s c h o o l o r
l i b r a r y s o p r e v e n t e d ma r e q u e s t a w a i v e r f o r Funding Year 2 0 0 2 . C e r t i f i c a t i o n ( s ) f o r
p u r p o s e s o f C I P A and,CI$A w a i v e r r e u e s t s must be made on t h e Form 486 o r t h e Form 479,
whichever i s a p p r o p r i a t e . See t h e jorm b8k I n s t r u c t i o n s and t h e Form 479 I n s t r u c t i o n s
f o r more i n f o r m a t i o n . You may a l s o r e f e r t o t h e SLD web s i t e a t
c w w w . s l . u n i v e r s a l s e r v i c e . o r g > o r c a l l t h e C l i e n t S e r v i c e Bureau a t 1-888-203-8100 f o r
more i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t Form 486, Form 4 7 9 , and t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of C I P A .
F I L E FORM 472 (APPLICANT) o r FORM 474 (SERVICE PROVIDERL After a Form 486 h a s been
p r o p e r l y f i l e d t h e SLD must receive a n i n v o i c e from e i h e r t h e ap l i c a n t o r t h e s e r v i c e
p r o v i d e r i n o r d e r t o make payments f o r approved d i s c o u n t s on e l i g i g l e s e r v i c e s . Form
4 7 2 , B i l l e d E n t i t y A p p l i c a n t Relmbursement (BEAR) Form, i s f i l e d by t h e a p p l i c a n t ;
Form 4 7 4 , S e r v i c e Provider I n v o i c e Form, is f i l e d by t h e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r .
NEW DEADLINES FOR I N V O I C E S . I n v o i c e s must b e fostmarked w i t h i n 9 0 da s of , t h e l a s t d a t e
t o , r e c e i v e , s e r v i c e o r w i t h i n 90 d a y s of t h e d a e of t h e Form 486 N o t i T i c a t i o n L e t t e r ,
whichever i s l a t e r . If a n i n v o i c e i s postmarked a f t e r t h e l a t e r of t h o s e two d a t e s ,
payment w i l l be d e n i e d .
TO APPEAL THESE FUNDING COMMITMENT D E C I S I O N S
I f you wish t o a p e a 1 t h e Fundin Commitment D e c i s i o n s (FCD i n d i c a t e d i n t h i s l e t t e r ,
o u r a p e a 1 must i e RECEIVED BY ?HE SCHOOLS AND L I B R A k I k S D I V l S I O N (SLD WITHIN 60 DAYS
8 F THE f B O V E DATE ON THIS LETTER. F a i l u r e t o meet t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t w i l r e s u l t i n
a u t o m a t i c d i s m i s s a l of y o u r a p p e a l . I n y o u r l e t t e r of a p p e a l :
1
1 . I n c l u d e t h e name, a d d r e s s , t e l e hone number, f a x number, and e-mail a d d r e s s
E
( i f a v a i l a b l e ) f o r t h e p e r s o n w o can most r e a d i l y d i s c u s s t h i s a p p e a l w i t h u s .
2 . S t a t e o u t r i g h t t h a t y o u r l e t t e r i s an a p p e a l . I d e n t i f y which FCD L e t t e r you a r e
a p p e a l i n g . I n d i c a t e t h e r e l e v a n t f u n d i n g y e a r a n d . t h e d a t e of t h e Funding Commitment
D e c i s i o n L e t t e r . Your l e t t e r of a p e a l must a l s o i n c l u d e t h e a l i c a n t name, t h e
Form 471 A p p l i c a t i o n Number, and t g e B i l l e d E n t i t y Number from
Letter.
fie
t o p of your FCD
3 . I d e n t i f y t h e p a r t i c u l a r Funding R e q u e s t Number (FRN) t h a t is t h e s u b j e c t of y o u r

a p p e a l . When e x p l a i n i n g y o u r a p e a l , i n c l u d e t h e r e c i s e l a n g u a g e o r t e x t from t h e
!
Commitment D e c i s i o n Let e r t h a t i s a t t h e R e a r t of o u r a p e a l . B p o i n t i n g
k n ? i n ? h e e x a c t words t h a t g i v e r i s e t o o u r a p p e a l , t h e SL8 w i l l Ee a b l e T o more
r e a d i l y u n d e r s t a n d and r e s ond a p r o p r i a x e l y t o y o u r a p p e a l . P l e a s e keep your l e t t e r
t o t h e p o i n t , and p r o v i d e s o c u m e n f a t l o n t o s u p p o r t y o u r a p p e a l . Be s u r e t o keep
c o p i e s - o f y o u r c o r r e s p o n d e n c e and d o c u m e n t a t i o n .
4 . P r o v i d e an a u t h o r i z e d s i g n a t u r e on y o u r l e t t e r of a p p e a l .
I f you a r e s u b m i t t i n g z o u r a p p e a l on a p e r , p l e a s e send y o u r ap e a 1 t o : L e t t e r of Appeal,
S c h o o l s and L i b r a r i e s i v + s i o n , Box 155 - Correspondence U n i t , E O South J e f f e r s o n Road,
t h i p p a n y , N J 07981. A d d i t i o n a l o p t i o n s f o r f i l i n g an a p p e a l can b e found i n t h e
Appeals Procedure" p o s t e d i n t h e R e f e r e n c e Area of t h e SLD web s i t e o r by c a l l i n g t h e
C l i e n t S e r v i c e Bureau.
While we encourage you t o r e s o l v e o u r a p p e a l w i t h t h e SLD f i r s t , , y o u have t h e o t i o n
o f f i l i n g an a p p e a l d i r e c t l y w i t h !he F e d e r a l Communications Commission (FCC). K O U
s h o u l d r e f e r t o CC Docket Nos. 96-45 and 97-21 on t h e f i r s t pa e of ea1 t o the
FCC. Your a p e a l m u s t be RECEIVED BY THE FCC WITHIN 60 DAYS 09 THE xi"oEag! TE ON THIS
L E T T E R . F a i P u r e t o meet t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t w i l l r e s u l t i n a u t o m a t i c d i s m i s s a l Of
a p p e a l . F u r t h e r l t i n f o r m a t i o n and o p t i o n s f o r f i l i n an a p p e a l d i r e c t 1 w i t h t h e r e t r c a n
b e found i n t h e Appeals P r o c e d u r e ' p o s t e d i n t h e j e f e r e n c e Area of t x e SLD web s i t e o r
by c a l l i n g t h e C l i e n t S e r v i c e Bureau. We s t r o n g l y recommend t h a t y o u , u s e e i t h e r , t h e
e - m a i l o r f a x filing o p t i o n s b e c a u s e of c o n t i n u e d s u b s t a n t l a l d e l a y s i n m a i l deliver:'
FCDL/Schools and L i b r a r i e s Division/USAC .Page 2 of 6 06/17/2002

.-
~
t o t h e FCC. If ou a r e s u b m i t t i n g your a p p e a l v i a United S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e , send t o :
F C C , O f f i c e of t g e S e c r e t a r y , 445 1 t h S t r e e t SW, Washington, DC 20554.
NOTICE ON RULES AND FUNDS AVAILABILITY
r
A p l i c a n t s ' r e c e i t of funding commitments is c o n t i n e n t on t h e i r compliance with a l l
s a t u t o r y r e g u l a f o r y , and p r o c e d u r a l requirements 02
t h e u n i v e r s a l s e r v i c e mechanisms
f o r s c h o o l s and l i b r a r i e s . FCC Form 471 A p p l i c a n t s who have r e c e i v e d f u n d i n g commitments
c o n t i n u e t o be s u b j e c t t o a u d i t s and o t h e r reviews t h a t SLD o r t h e Federal Communications
Commission may u n d e r t a k e p e r i o d i c a l l y t o a s s u r e t h a t f u n d s have been committed and a r e
b e i n g used i n accordance w i t h a l l such r e u i r e m e n t s . If t h e SLD s u b s e q u e n t l y determines
t h a t i t s commitment was e r r o n e o u s l y i s s u e 1 due t o a c t i o n o r i n a c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t
l i m i t e d t o t h a t by SLD, t h e A p p l i c a n t , o r S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r , and t h a t t h e a c t i o n o r
i n a c t i o n was n o t i n accordance with such r e a u i r e m e n t s , SLD mav be r e a u i r e d t o c a n c e l
t h e s e funding commitments and seek repa menf of any funds d i s b u r s e d r i o t i n accordance
w i t h such r e u i r e m e n t s . The SLD, and o f h e r a p p r o p r i a t e a u t h o r i t i e s ( i n c l u d i n u b u t n o t
l i m i t e d t o UjAC and t h e F C C ) , may pursue enforcement a c t i o n s and o t h e r m eans of r e c o u r s e
t o c o l l e c t e r r o n e o u s l y d i s b u r s e d f u n d s . The timing of payment o f i n v o i c e s ma a l s o be
a f f e c t e d by t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of funds based on t h e amount of funds c o l l e c t e d $,om
c o n t r i b u t i n g telecommunications companies.
We look forward t o c o n t i n u i n g our work w l t h you on connecting o u r s c h o o l s and l i b r a r i e s
through advanced telecommunications s e r v i c e s .
Sincerely,
Schools and L i b r a r i e s , D l v i s i o n
U n i v e r s a l S e r v i c e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Company
En c l o s u r e s
--
- - ,<
A G U I D E TO THE F U N D I N G COMMITMENT REPORT

A t t a c h e d t o t h i s l e t t e r w i l l be a r e p o r t f o r e a c h E - r a t e f u n d i n g r e q u e s t f r o m y o u r
application. We a r e p r o v i d i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s .
FUNDING REQUEST NUMBER F R N ) : A Funding R e q u e s t Number i s a s s i ned by t h e SLD t o each
B l o c k 5 of y o u r Form 4'71 once a n , a p p l i c a t i o n h a s been p r o c e s s e % T h i s number i s u s e d
t o r e p o r t t o A l i c a n t s and S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r s t h e s t a t u s o f i n d i v i d u a l d i s c o u n t f u n d i n g
r e q u e s t s s u b m i f f e d on a Form 471.
Each FRN w i l l have one of t h r e e d e f i n i t i o n s :
F U N R I N G STATUS: "Funded," "Not Funded,"
or As Yet Unfunded.
1. An FRN t h a t is "Funded" w i l l be approved a t t h e , l e v e l t h a t SLD d e t e r m i n e d i s
a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h a t i t e m . The f u n d i n g l e v e l w i l l g e n e r a l l y be t h e l e v e l
r e q u e s t e d u n l e s s t h e SLD d e t e r m i n e s d u r i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n r e v i e w p r o c e s s t h a t
some a d j u s t m e n t i s a p p r o p r i a t e .
2. An FRN t h a t i s "Not Funded'' i s o n e , f o r which n o f u n d s w i l f , be c o m m i t t e d . The
r e a s o n f o z t h e d e c i s i o n w i l l b e b r i e f l y e x p l a i n e d i n t h e Funding Commitment
f l e c i s l o n , and a m p l i f i c a t l o n of t h a t e x p l g n a t i o n may b e o f f e r e d i n t h e s e c t i o n ,
Funding Commitment D e c i s i o n Ex l a n a t i o n . An FRN may be "Not Funded" b e c a u s e
R
t h e r e q u e s t d o e s n o t comply w i t program r u l e s , o r b e c a u s e t h e t o t a l amount of
f u n d i n g a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s Funding Year was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o f u n d a l l r e q u e s t s .
. I
3. An FRN t h a t is "AS Yet Unfunded" r e f 1 e c t s . a t e m p o r a r s t a t u s t h a t i s assi ned t o

an FRN when t h e SLD i s u n c e r t a i n a t t h e time t h e l e t K e r i s g e n e r a t e d w h e t z e r
t h e r e w i l l b e s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s t o make commitments f o r requests f o r i n t e r n a l
c o n n e c t i o n s a t a p a r t i c u l a r d i s c o u n t l e v e l . For exam l e , i f y o u r a p p l i c a t i o n
f
i n c l u d e d r e q u e s t s f o r d i s c o u n t s on b o t h telecommunica i o n s s e r v i c e s and i n t e r n a l
c o n n e c t i o n s , ou m i h t r e c e i v e a l e t t e r w i t h o u r f u n d i n g commitment f o r y o u r
t e l e c o m m u n i c a i i o n s Tunding r e q l e s t s and a message t h a t y o u r i n t e r n a l c o n n e c t i o n s
r e q u e s t s a r e A s Y e t Unfunded. You would r e c e i v e a s u b s e q u e n t l e t t e r ( s )
r e g a r d i n g t h e Eunding d e c i s l o n on your i n t e r n a l c o n n e c t l o n s r e q u e s t s .
SERVICES ORDERED: The t y p e of s e r v i c e o r d e r e d from t h e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r , a s shown on
Form 471.
SPIN ( S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Number): A , u n i q u e number a s s l g n e d by t h e
U n i v e r s a l S e r v i c e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Company t o s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s s e e k i n g payment from
t h e U n i v e r s a l S e r v i c e Fund f o r a r t i c i p a t i n l i n t h e u n i v e r s a l s e r v i c e s u p p o r t
mechanisms. A SPIN is a l s o u s e s t o v e r i f y e l i v e r y of s e r v i c e s and t o a r r a n g e f o r
payment.
S E R V I C E PROVIDER NAME: The l e g a l name of t h e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r .
CONTRACT NUMBER: The number of t h e c o n t r a c t between t h e e l i g i b l e p a r t y and t h e
s e r v i c e - p r o v i d e r . T h i s w i l l b e p r e s e n t o n l y if a c o n t r a c t number was p r o v i d e d on
Form 471.
BILLING ACCOUNT NUMBER: The a c c o u n t number t h a t y o u r s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r h a s e s t a b l i s h e d
with y o u , f o r b i l l i n g p u r p o s e s . T h i s w i l l b e present o n l y i f a B i l l i n g Account Number
was p r o v l d e d on Form 4 7 1 .
EARLIEST POSSIBLE EFFECTIVE DATE OF DISCOUNT: The f i r s t p o s s i b l e d a t e , o f s e r v i c e f o r
which t h e SLD w i l l r e i m b u r s e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s f o r t h e d i s c o u n t s f o r t h e s e r v i c e .
CONTRACT EXPIRATION DATE: The d a t e t h e c o n t r a c t e x p i r e s . T h i s w i l l be p r e s e n t only
i f a c o n t r a c t e x p i r a t i o n d a t e was p r o v i d e d on Form 471.
S I T E IDENTIFIER: The E n t i t y Number h i s t e d i n Form 471, Block 5 , Item 22a w i l l be
listed. This w i l l appear only f o r s i t e s p e c i f i c " FRNs.
A N N U A L PRE-DISCOUNT AMOUNT FOR E L I G I B L E RECURRING CHARGES: E l i i b l e monthly
p r e - d i s c o u n t amount approved f o r r e c u r r i n g c h a r g e s m u l t i p l i e d %y number of months
of r e c u r r i n g s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d i n t h e f u n d i n g y e a r .
A N N U A L PRE-DISCOUNT AMOUNT FOR E L I G I B L E NON-RECURRING CHARGES: Annual e l i g i b l e
n o n - r e c u r r i n g c h a r g e s approved f o r t h e f u n d i n g y e a r .
P R E - D I S C O U N T AMOUNT: Amount i n Form 471, Block 5 , Item 23, Column I , a s d e t e r m i n e d
through t h e a p p l i c a t i o n review p r o c e s s .
FCDLjSchools and L i b r a r i e s Division/USAC .Page 4 of 6 06/17/2002

.--
. DISCOUNT PERCENTAGE APPROVED BY THE SLD: T h i s i s t h e d i s c o u n t r a t e t h a t t h e SLD h a s

approved f o r t h i s s e r v i c e .
F U N D I N G COMMITMENT D E C I S I O N : T h i s r i p r e s e n t s t h e t o t a l amount of f u n d i n t h a t t h e SLD
has r e s e r v e d t o r e i m b u r s e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s f o r t h e approved d i s c o u n t s ? o r this
s e r v i c e f o r this f u n d i n g I t i s i m p o r t a n t t h a t you and t h e s e r v i c e r o v i d e r
b o t h r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e SxEaEhould b e i n v o i c e d and t h e SLD may d i r e c t disEursernent
of d i s c o u n t s o n l y f o r e l i g i b l e , approved s e r v i c e s a c t u a l l y r e n d e r e d .
E U N D I N G COMMITMENT DECISION EXPLANATION: T h i s e n t r y may a m p l i f y t h e comments i n t h e
Funding Commitment D e c i s i o n " a r e a .
e
FUNDING COMMITMENT REPORT
Form 471 A p p l i c a t i o n Number. 328123
Funding R e q u e s t Number: 882674 Funding S t a t u s : N o t Funded
S e r v i c e s Ordered: I n t e r n a l Connections
S P I N : 143019785 S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r Name: Premise One, I n c .
C o n t r a c t Number: AD-000217-006
B i l l i n g Account Number: N / A
E a r l i e s t P o s s i b l e E f f e c t i v e Date of D i s c o u n t : 0 7 / 0 1 / 2 0 0 2
C o n t r a c t E x p l r a t i o n D a t e : 06/30 2003
k
Annual P r e - d i s c o u n t Amount f o r l i g i b l e R e c u r r i n g Char es: $ . O O
Annual P r e - d i s c o u n t Amount f o r E l i g i b l e N o n - r e c u r r i n g S h a r g e s : $238 ,0 4 2 . 0 0
P r e - D i s c o u n t Amount: $ 2 3 8 , 0 4 2 . 0 0
D i s c o u n t P e r c e n t a e Approved b t h e SLD: N / A
Fundlng Commltmen? D e c l s l o n : $E. 00 - I n e l . svcs ./ o r p r o d u c t ( s
B
Funding Commitment D e c i s i o n E x p l a n a t i o n : 30% o r more of t h i s F N i n c 1 u d e s . a r e q u e s t
f o r f i r e w a l l , PC Cards which a r e i n e l i g i b l e & P r e y s c h o o l e uipment. A p p l i c a n t h a s
n o t p r o v i d e d s u f f i c i e n t d o c . t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e l i g i b i h t y P? Cards.
-
-
* ' USAC Universal Service Administrative Company
Schools Si Libraries Division
.> ,c- .
FORM 471 RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER
% . *
(Funding Year 5: 07/01/2002 06/30/2003) -
LATCH SCHOOL I N C .
GARY BAXTER
8145 N 27TH AVE
PHOENIX, A 2 85051
Re: Form 471 A p p l i c a t i o n Number: 328123

Funding Year 5: 07/01/2002 -
06/30/2003
A p p l i c a n t ' s Form I d e n t i f i e r : 471-Le
B i l l e d E n t i t y Number: 150596
NOTICE: This n o t i f i c a t i o n i s an acknowledgment of RECEIPT and SUCCESSFUL DATA ENTRY
of your FCC Form 471, S e r v i c e s Ordered and C e r t i f i c a t i o n Form, r e f l e c t i n g
$238,042.00 i n t o t a l program y e a r p r e - d i s c o u n t c o s t s f o r s e r v i c e s . T h i s l e t t e r
confirms t h a t t h e Form 471 and s i g n e d Form 471 C e r t i f i c a t i o n have been r e c e i v e d .
T h i s l e t t e r d o e s NOT c o n t a i n any d e c i s i o n s concerning your r e q u e s t s f o r d i s c o u n t s . Note,
however, t h e three-week r e s p o n s e d e a d l i n e d e s c r i b e d below.
P l e a s e keep t h i s l e t t e r f o r your r e c o r d s . The Form 471 a p p l i c a t i o n number c i t e d above i s
c r i t i c a l f o r you t o l i n k your a p p l i c a t i o n t o f u t u r e Schools and L i b r a r i e s D i v i s i o n (SLD)
communications.
P l e a s e be advised t h a t t h e l a s t of your Form 471 a p p l i c a t i o n m a t e r i a l s i d e n t i f i e d above
was postmarked o r received by t h e SLD on 01/14/2002 a n d . s u c c e s s f u l l y e n t e r e d i n t o o u r d a t a
system. SLD's Program I n t e g r i t y Assurance (PIA) Team w i l l now review your a p p l i c a t i o n f o r
compliance with program r u l e s . Once t h e review of your a p p l i c a t i o n h a s been completed,
you w i l l r e c e i v e a Funding Commitment Decision L e t t e r ( s ) t o inform you of t h e d i s p o s i t i o n
of your a p p l i c a t i o n . U n t i l you r e c e i v e a Funding Commitment Decision L e t t e r from t h e
SLD, you cannot assume t h a t you w i l l r e c e i v e t h e d i s c o u n t s f o r which you a r e a p p l y i n g .
Your a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d w i t h i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f i l i n g window wherein a l l
a p p l i c a t i o n s t h a t meet t h e Minimum P r o c e s s i n g Standards a r e t r e a t e d as though t h e y were
r e c e i v e d on t h e same d a y .
HOW TO USE THIS 471 RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER TO CORRECT INFORMATION ON YOUR
FORM 471 (ACT WITHIN 3 WEEKS!)
I f you f i n d d a t a e n t r y e r r o r s on t h i s l e t t e r , o r you p r e v i o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d e r r o r s on
your Form 471, t h e s e can be c o r r e c t e d u s i n g t h i s Form 471 R e c e i p t Acknowledgment L e t t e r .
Examples of t h e e r r o r s t h a t can be c o r r e c t e d a r e :
* Block 1 i n f o r m a t i o n such a s c o n t a c t person o r s t r e e t a d d r e s s ) ;
* Reductions t o Block i Funding Requests (Reductions t o Block 5 Funding Requests
a r e a l l o w a b l e e x c e p t f o r t h o s e t h a t would i n c r e a s e your d i s c o u n t p e r c e n t a g e due
t o a change i n r e c i p i e n t s of t h a t Block 5 s e r v i c e . ) ;
* C o r r e c t i o n of an i n c o r r e c t SPIN because of a d a t a e n t r y e r r o r o r because t h e
company h a s merged w i t h o r been a c q u i r e d by a n o t h e r company (Requests t o change
s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s f o r o t h e r reasons cannot be accommodated through t h e R e c e i p t
Acknowledgment P r o c e s s . ) ;
.- - ___~--_
-L
Box 175 -- Correspondence Unit. 80 South Jefferson Road, Whippany? U e w Jersey. 07981
Visit us online at: h t t p : , www.sl.icnivevsalservice.org
.*
* I f on our Form 471 you i n c o r r e c t l y combined o r "bundled" i n t o one Funding
Requesx Number ( F R N ) t w o o r more s e r v i c e s from d i f f e r e n t s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s
f o r exam l e , l o c a l phone s e r v i c e from one company and long d i s t a n c e s e r v i c e
hrom anotRer) o r from d i f f e r e n t e l i g i b l e s e r v i c e c a t e o r i e s (such as i n t e r n a l
connections and I n t e r n e t a c c e s s ) , you may r e q u e s t u s ?.o s p l i t " o r "unbundle"
t h e FRN.
NOTE: The t o t a l d o l l a r amount r e r e s e n t e d by t h e newly d i v i d e d FRN m u s t
n o t exceed t h e amount you r e uesfed f o r t h e o r i g i n a l combined FRN On t h e
hotocop of our R e c e i p t Acznowledgment Letter c r o s s o u t t h e o r i g i n a l
gundled S R N , !hen w r i t e i n t h e SPIN, S e r v i c e P r 6 v i d e r Name, S e r v i c e s Ordered
categor T o t a l Program Year Pf;e-DiscountlI$ Amount, and Discount f o r each
d i s t i n c f ' s e r v i c e ou have now unbundled, making s u r e t h a t t h e t o t a l d o l l a r s
r e q u e s t e d add up r o no more t h a n t h e O R I G I N A L r e q u e s t .
To n o t i f y u s of t h e a l l o w a b l e c o r r e c t i o n s you wish t o make, p l e a s e n o t e t h a t t h e SLD
must r e c e i v e t h e s e c o r r e c t i o n s w i t h i n 3 weeks of t h e d a t e of t h i s l e t t e r .Follow t h e s e
s i m p l e s t e p s t o make c o r r e c t i o n s :
1. Photoco y your R e c e i p t Acknowledgment Letter.
2. Draw a ?+ne t h r o u h each i n c o r r e c t i t e m , and mark c l e a r l y n e x t t o it what t h e c o r r e c t
i n f o r m a t i o n shoul! b e .
3 . P l e a s e w r i t e t h e name of t h e c o n t a c t e r s o n and t e l e p h o n e number on t h e f i r s t gage
of t h e RAL cop t h a t w i l l be s e n t t o !he SLD s o t h a t we can c o n t a c t you i f we ave
i u e s t i o n s abouf your r e q u e s t e d chan es
4. ake a photocop of o u r marked-up ? e t i e r . t o keep f o r your f i l e s
5. Send your markez-up Tetter t o a r r i v e w i t h i n t h r e e weeks of t h e d a t e of t h i s Form 471
R e c e i p t Acknowledgment L e t t e r t o : Data Entry C o r r e c t i o n s , Schools and Libraries
D i v i s i o n , Box 125 - Correspondence U n i t , 80 South J e f f e r s o n Road, Whippany, N J 07981.
( P l e a s e no e - m a i l . ) We recommend t h a t you send your marked-up l e t t e r v i a , c e r t i f i e d
mail o r a n o t h e r mode of d e l i v e r y t h a t w i l l p r o v i d e {ou with proof of d e l i v e r y .
A l t e r n a t i v e 1 , you,may f a x your marked-u l e t t e r w i h i n t h r e e weeks of t h e d a t e of
t h i s Form 47y R e c e i p t Acknowledgment L e t f e r . P l e a s e f a x o u r marked-up l e t t e r w i t h
a Fax Cover Page t o : Data Entry C o r r e c t i o n s , fax # (973) g84-8217 and i n d i c a t e t h e
number of pa es you a r e f a x i n g . When f a x i n , s a v e your c o n f i r m a t i o n page from
s e n d i n t h e ?ax a s your r e c e i t , o f complete! t r a n s m i s s i o n .
6 . Allowa%le c o r r e c t i o n s r e c e i v e s i n a t i m e l y f a s h i o n w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n o u r Funding
Commitment Decision L e t t e r . We w i l l not,make c o r r e c t i o n s t h a t do n o t f a l l j n t o t h e
c a t e g o r i e s d e f i n e d as Allowable Correckions, above. Plftase n o t e : t h e SLD w i l l n o t
a d v i s e you t h a t we have r e c e i v e d your change r e q u e s t .
7 . P l e a s e n o t i f y your s e r v i c e g r o v i d e r of any c o r r e c t i o n s t o t h e R e c e i p t Acknowledgment
L e t t e r t h a t you submit t o t e SLD. Your s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r h a s a l s o r e c e i v e d a copy of
t h e o r i g i n a l Form 471 RAL l e t t e r . This c o r r e c t i o n w i l l h e l p your s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r
keep your r e c o r d s updated.
EXPLANATION OF LINE ITEM INFORMATION
C e r t a i n j n f o r m a t i o n from each Block 5 of Form 471 A p l i c a t i o n Number 328123 t h a t
p a s s e d Minimum P r o c e s s i n g Standards and t h a t could ge e n t e r e d i n t o o u r d a t a system i s
shown below. There a r e s i x i m p o r t a n t components of i n f o r m a t i o n shown f o r each Block 5:
1. FRN (Funding Request Number): The FRN i s t h e Fundin R e u e s t Number t h a t t h e SLD
a s s i g n e d t o each Block 5 f u n d i n r e q u e s t t h a t i s enfere8 i n t o o u r d a t a system.
This number w i l l be c i t e d i n r e y a t i o n t o t h e SLD's funding d e c i s i o n c o n t a i n e d i n
t h e Funding Commitment Decision L e t t e r . The FRN i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l a l s o . b e s h a r e d
with s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s s o t h a t t h e y can provide d i s c o u n t e d b i l l s and i n v o i c e t h e
SLD f o r t h e a p roved d i s c o u n t amount.
2. SPIN ( S e r v i c e F r o v i d e r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Number) : This i s t h e , S e r v j c e P r o v i d e r
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Number t h a t you provided. This i s a unique - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number
a s s i g n e d t o each s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r .
3. S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r Name; This i s t h e l e g a l name i n o u r d a t a b a s e t h a t i s a s s o ci a t e d
with t h e S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Number t h a t you r o v i d e d .
4.
x
Categor of S e r v i c e : This i s t h e t pe of s e r v i c e f o r whicg you have r, e a u e s t.ed
d i s c o u n f s from Block 5, Item 11. T e c a t e o r i e s of s e r v i c e s a r e : T e l e c 6mmun i c a t i o n s
S e r v i c e s ( T e l c Svc) ; I n t e r n e t Access (Ine? Acc) ; I n t e r n a l Connections ( I n t r Con).
5. P r e - d i s c o u n t D o l l a r Amount: This i s t h e t o t a l annual p r e - d i s c o u n t cos t f o r each FRN.
This amount i s t a k e n from Block 5 Item 23, Column I .
6. Discount P e r c e n t a g e : This i s t h e d i s c o u n t p e r c e n t a g e from Block 5 , I t.em 23,
Column J .
MISSING FRNs
I f i n f o r m a t i o n about a E a r t j c u l a r FRN i s n o t included i n t h e , i t e m i z e d l i s t , o f Block 5
FRNs s e t , f o r t h above, t i s , i s because t h e FRN d i d n o t p a s s Minimum P r o c e s s i n g S t a n d a r d s .
I f t h i s i s t h e c a s e , you w i l l r e c e i v e a s e p a r a t e l e t t e r from t h e SLD informing you t h a t
Schools and L i b r a r i e s Division/USAC Page 2 . o f 4 471RA L t r . 04/11/2002
c
-
t h e s e FRNs have been r e j e c t e d , with an e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e r e a s o n f o r r e j e c t i o n . If YOU
b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e were FRNs included i n your Form 471 which a r e n o t l i s t e d i n t h i s
l e t t e r AND you have n o t r e c e i v e d a l e t t e r informin you t h a t t h o s e FRNs a r e r e j e c t e d ,
l e a s e w r i t e t o us a t t h e a d d r e s s l i s t e d a t t h e boftorn o f t h i s l e t t e r . See a l s o
'QUESTIONS ABOUT T H I S LETTER" below.
P l e a s e n o t e t h a t t h e SLD C l i e n t S e r v i c e Bureau may n o t have t h e i n f o r m a t i o n n e c e s s a r y
t o respond t o your i n q u i r y ; t h e r e f o r e , your l e t t e r should be s e n t t o t h e New J e r s e y
a d d r e s s f e a t u r e d below.
FUTURE CONTACTS WITH PIA
I t may b e i m p o r t a n t f o r us t o c o n t a c t you as our PIA Pro ram I n t e g r i t Assurance) Team
P
reviews t h e f u n d i n r e q u e s t s contained i n your Form 451. 8 u r r e q u e s t s o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n
a n d / o r a d d i t i o n a l gocumentation w i l l r e q u i r e a rom t r e s p o n s e . T h e d u e d a t e f o r such
f x
r e s p o n s e s w i l l be e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e t i m e , t h a t he I A Team ma c o n t a c t you. P l e a s e make
s u r e t h a t t h e c o n t a c t person on your a p p l i c a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e . o speak with t h e P I A Team,
o r t h a t a s u r r o a t e 4 s a v a i l a b l e . In a d d i t i o n , ou should monitor on a d a i l y b a s i s t h e
f a x and e-mail y o c a t i o n s t h a t you may have c i t e s i n your Form 471 f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t and
f o r t h e c o n t a c t person f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t .
COMMUNICATIONS WITH YOUR SERVICE PROVIDERS
The SLD i s a l s o s h a r i n t h i s FRN i n f o r m a t i o n with s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s whose SPINS a r e
l i s t e d on Form 471 a p p q i c a t i o n s This i n f o r m a t i o n is provided so t h a t s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s
can undertake t h e . p r e p a r a t o s t e s of i d e n t i f y i n g . t h e i r o t e n t i a l customers f o r whom
d i s c o u n t s may b e i s s u e d . NOTISCOf3NTS w i l l b e provided u n f i l a f t e r :
* t h e SLD i s s u e s t h e Funding Commitment Decision L e t t e r f o r a ' p a r t i c u l a r
a p p l i c a t i o n ; AND
** technology p l a n s , i f a p p l i c a b l e have been a proved; AND
t h e a p p l i c a n t submits a Form 486 w i t h a v a l i g s e r v i c e s t a r t d a t e .
The SLD encourages Form 471 a p p l i c a n t s t o c o n t a c t t h e i r s e r v i c e r o v i d e r s t o inform t h e
s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s of t h e funding r e q u e s t s submitted t o t h e SLD. g e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s ma
r e q u e s t a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n concerning t h e s p e c i f i c s e r v i c e s c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n e a c z
f u n d i n r e q u e s t i n o r d e r . t o f a c i l i t a t e discounted b i l l i n g . A p l i c a n t s a r e encoura ed t o
?
share h i s information with s e r v i c e providers i n order f o r t i e s e r v i c e providers
begin t h e p r e p a r a t o r y b i l l i n g s t e p s .
80
QUESTIONS ABOUT T H I S LETTER
I f you have any q u e s t i o n s , r e g a r d i n g t h e above i n f o r m a t i o n , p l e a s e write t o u s a t SLD,
Box 125-Correspondence U n i t , 80 South J e f f e r s o n Road, Whippany, N J 07981.
Thank you f o r your i n t e r e s t i n t h e Schools and L i b r a r i e s U n i v e r s a l S e r v i c e Program.
Schools and L i b r a r i e s , D + v i s i o n
U n i v e r s a l S e r v i c e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Company
d -
Fundin
- Re u e s t Number: 882674
SPIN : ?430?9785 S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r Name: Premise One, I n c .
Cate ory o f S e r v i c e s : I n t r Con
P r e - l i s c o u n t $ Amount $ 2 3 8 , 0 4 2 . 0 0
Discount P e r c e n t a g e : 9 0 %
-L
:., :.., . ,...
I..,”
,.,,
(’ ..,
USAC
Schools and I.ibrarics Ilivision
Hox I25 Corrcspondcncc Unit
XO South Jcficrson Road
Whippany, Ncw Jcrscy 07981
k 00430
LATCH SCHOOL INC
GARY BAXTER
8145 N 27TH AVE
PHOENIX, AZ 85051
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Connie Fletcher Laird

Executive Director
Latch School, Inc.
8 145 North 27* Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85051
RE: Latch School, Inc.

Application Number SLD 328 123
Dear Ms. Laird:
Thank you for your letter of May 20,2003, regarding the appeal of Latch School,
Inc. (Latch), Phoenix, Arizona, for funding under the schools and libraries universal
service mechanism (E-rate). I recognize how important such E-rate support is to schools
and libraries that want to provide access to telecommunications and information
technologies. Your letter was forwarded to us by Senator John McCain’s office. Senator
McCain has asked us to respond to your concerns.
I
Latch’s appeal is logged into our appeals file as of May 27,2003. While I cannot
comment on the merits of the appeal while it is under review, I can assure you that we
will give full consideration to the arguments made by the school district in the appeal,
and reach a decision as quickly as possible. Once issued, a copy of the decision will be
sent directly to Latch.
Thank you for your interest in this program, and please contact me if you have
any additional questions at (202) 418-7400.
Sincerely,
Narda {ones 1
Deputy Chief
TelecommunicationsAccess Policy Division
Wireline Competition Bureau
TED STEVENS. ALASKA ERNEST F. HOLLINCC, S W T N CAROLINA
CONRAD I U R N O , MONTANA DANILLK INOUVE. ElAWAll
TRgNT C O T . MISSISDIPPI J a n N D. ROCKEFELLER IY. WEST VIRGINIA
KAY W L E V MUTCINON. ‘I€& JOHN F. KCRRV, MASSACHUSETTS
OLVMYIA J. SNOWE. MAINE JOHN 8. BRCAUX. LOUl$l&NA
SAM BROWNBACK. KANSAS
CORDON SMITH, OREGON
PETER G. FITZCERALD. ILLINOIS
JOHN ENSIGN. NEVADA
BYRON L. DOHGAN, NORTH OAKOTA
RON W D E N . OHEGOM
m u U A R A BOXER CAI.IFORNIA
BILLNELSON. FLORIDA
United $Utes Smote
GCOROE ALLEN. VIRPINIA M A U m C A N W E L L WnSHINaTON COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE,
JOMNE, WNUNU, NEW WAMPSHIR%
AND TRPNSPORTATION
.‘@ANNE BUMFWS. RCWBLICAN STAFF OlRECrOR AND GENEnAL COUNSCL
K W l N 0. KAYES. OEMOCRATIC STAFF DIRECTOR AND CHIEI: COUNSEL WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6125
November 3,2003
The Honorable Michael K. Powell

Chairman
445 12”’ Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Powell:

I a.m writing to share my concerns about recent reports of alleged “pay for play” on
both television and radio broadcasts, which call into question the adequacy of the Fcderal
Communications Commission’s (“Commission”) regulations on broadcast sponsorship and
identification. I urge you to examine thesc issues more closely in light of these reports.
Last month, The Washington Post detailed the practices of WFLA-TV in Tampa,
Florida. The station airs a local morning show, “Daytime,” with Nl3C’s peacock logo and
WFLA-TV’s ‘‘News Channel 8” insignia at the bottom of the screen. Segments of the program,
however, are actually paid advertisements. The program’s anchors interview guests who pay
$2,500 to appear on the program. According to the article, the only mention of payment is at the
end of the program when the words “the following segments were paid advertisements” appear
in small type on the screen for about four seconds. The editorial board of The Washington Posl
described the practice as “pioneering the latest descent into pay-for-play journalism.” Today, the
same newspaper reported that broadcasters’ practice of charging for interviews “may be inore
widespread than commonly thought,” citing WLBT-TV in Jackson, Mississippi, which has
charged for interviews conducted by its news staff.
Likewise, The New York Times has reported allegations that musical artists face
frequent demands to perform at live concerts to promote radio stations. According to recording
executives quoted in a March 3 1 2003 article, “there [is] often an implication that a station
would continue playing the group’s music only if it appeared at the concert.’’
In light of this apparent emergence of novel means of profiting from broadcast air time in
ways that appear not fully disclosed to the public, I am writing to inquire whether you believe the
Commission‘s rules on sponsorship identification and “payola” are adequate. Please comment
on whether you believe Congressional action is necessary to ensure broadcasters do not continue
to deceive viewers through such ”sham” television programs as “Daytime,” or to preclude radio
stations from demanding perIormances from musicians as compensation for air time.
www.sanaca.gou/sommslc0
RECEIVED TIME NOV. 3, 6:31PM PRINT TIME NOV, 3. 6:33PM

Chairman Michael K. Powell
November 3,2003
Page 2 of 2
Finally, I ask that this matter be handled in strict accordance with existing agency rules,
regulations, and ethical guidelines. I am not advocating a specific result in this matter, and I trust
that whatever decision or course of action you may take will be made in the best interests of the
country.
Sincerely,
Chairman
cc: Commissioner Kathleen Abemathy

Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein
Commissioner Michael Copps
Commissioner Kevin Martin
RECEIVED TIME NOV. 3, 6:31PNi PRINT TIME NOV. 3. 6 : 3 3 P M

U S , SENATE COE- ON
Commerce, Science, and Transportation

JOHN &CAIN, Chairman www.smate.gov/-cornmcrce
OFFICE: - GC
_-
PAGE 1 OF: 3
_- . . - - _-. .- -- . - -______---
R E C E I V E D TIME NOV. 3. 6:31PM P R I N T T I M E NOV. 3. 6:33PM
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN December 11,2003
The Honorable John McCain

Chairman
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
United States Senate
254 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 205 10
Dear Chairman McCain:
Thank you for your recent letter concerning reports on paid programming on broadcast
television and “payola” issues associated with broadcast radio. I appreciate your concerns on
these issues, and want to assure you that the Commission takes seriously its obligation to enforce
the payola and sponsorship identification rules.
The Commission’s Localism Task Force will examine broadly the separate issues of paid
television programming and, thanks in part to the leadership of Commissioner Adelstein, radio
payola. This examination will occur both through an upcoming Notice oflnquiry on localism
issues, and the Task Force’s public hearings being held throughout the country. Specifically, the
Task Force will determine whether current statutory provisions and Commission regulations are
adequate to protect the public. Should the Task Force determine that stronger protections are
necessary than are currently in place, it will make recommendations for legislative or regulatory
changes in its final report to the Commission.
In the meantime, however, neither the Communications Act nor the Commission’s rules
preclude a broadcaster from obtaining payments from persons seeking to have material
broadcast. Rather, the law prohibits hidden payments or consideration by requiring on-air
disclosures of such payments. Therefore, if a broadcaster required a musician or other
programmer to provide a quidpro quo exchange to secure airplay - whether through payments,
barter, or the trading of services - it would not violate any Commission rule as long as the
sponsorship was disclosed at the time of broadcast. The Commission’s Enforcement Bureau can
take enforcement action where appropriate when complaints are received on these issues.
With regard to your specific concerns on the alleged practices cited in “The Washington
Post” by the television stations in Tampa, Florida, and Jackson, Mississippi, I would note that it
is my understanding that the Tampa station was providing disclosures as required by our rules,
and even modified its messages to provide more disclosure in response to the concerns raised in
the newspaper coverage. However, it is difficult to tell from press reports the situation
Page 2-The Honorable John McCain-December 1 1, 2003
surrounding the Jackson station, and whether disclosures were aired. In both instances, the
Commission has not received any complaints that would warrant further review at this time.
As important as the vigilant enforcement of our current rules, however, are the broader
policy questions of whether these types of broadcast practices should be allowed at all and, if so,
under what conditions. For example, while labeling may be appropriate to protect the public in
paid entertainment television programming, it may be an incomplete solution for radio payola.
These issues will receive proper attention through the actions of the Localism Task Force and
our upcoming Notice oflnquiry.
I hope this information is helpful to you. Please let me know if I can be of further
assistance.
a Sincerely,
-Michael K. Powell
. . . . .- . ..
4450 SOUTHRURAL ROAD
SUITE B - 1 3 0
TEMPE,A Z 85282
(480) 897-6289
2 4 0 0 EAST ARIZONA
uii TMORE CIRCLE
December 3,2003
445 12th Street

Washington, DC 20554-0001
Thank you.
Sincerely,
United States Senator

JMlzkp
Enclosure
Dear FCC, Arizona Attorney General, Senator Jon Kyl and
Senator John Mc Cain, .
-,J - 2-
c r.,-t%, C c
f .
A
I
$pi.
I-‘ L t . 1
I am a subscriber to “Dish Network.” t subscribe to the “Top

100 Channels”. The channels in this package are suitable for
family entertainment, that is why I chose this package. I have
NEVER Q K : ~ subscribed to a pay-per-view movie, nor have I
rented a movie at any movie store in my life, that was rated
higher than an “R” rating.
On the evening ofJune 15, 2003 my son whom had just
returned home, asked me to go into his room and see what
was on his television. I could not believe what I saw. The
screen was showing what appeared to be at the very least, “X’
rated material. I then checked the other televisions in our
home, and each had the same “X” rated material showing on
multiple channels! The “X’’ rated material was neatly
“sandwiched” right next to what I would describe as family
material. It was not something that would be hard to miss
when s cro f Ii ng through c hannels .
This was NOT the first time this had happened, courtesyof
“Dish Network.” On another occasion, which I am unable to
date, the same type of material was on my television. I had
contacted “Dish Network” about this, and they ”downplayed”
what 1 was describing, and said that it must have been some
“programming fluke.” Upset as I was, I let it go, believing that
“Dish Network” would not partake in purposely sending this
type of material to my home or any other home. Since then, I
have not f0Ulrd t h i s type Q f materiaf ShOtSiinCJ Up U!’lti\JUne of
this year (2003).
When I found this type of material again on my television, J
decided that I would document it. I used my camera t o take
photos of the material on my television screen, documenting
the date and time by pushing the “information button” on the
remote control. This also shows the types af movies running
right before and after the unwanted material.
The “X” rated movies were being run on channels which were
right above movies such as”,-M“ which in my .
opinion is a suitable “family movie.” I and my family, all use
the “scroll” button when searching for something to watch on
television. It would not be hard to stumble upon these movies
which I speak of.
I once again contacted “Dish Network” via telephone. A t first,
“Dish Network” deniedthat I could receive the type of material I
was‘‘ describing ” on my television insinuating that I had
ordered them!
Then “Dish Network” changed their “story” and rtidely told
that this was a ‘’GIFT” from “Dish Network” and that they have
absolutely “NO CONTROL” over what is sent through the
satellite to my television!!! They said that theywere not to
blame.
They also told me that I csuid “set” my television so that f
would not receive this type of material. I told them that I did
not want it, nor did I order it and that _/shouldnot have to
“screen” out the filthy “sexual” material they are sending to me,
which I did not request!
Knowing that my conversation and experience with “Dish
Network’ was truly unbelievable, I decided to call “Dish
Network back and tape the next conversation with “Dish
Network” representatives. I spoke with a “supervisor.” I have
that tape. Boy did they let me have it for complaining!
So why don’t I change t o another type of cable or satellite
company? Well, I had t o payfor “Dish Network” to instalf their
equipment at my home. This equipment includes two
physically “mounted” satellites on top of my roof and wires
throughout my home along with a box and remote to each
television. Am 1to pay for another company to install another
system and possibiy removal of the”Dish Network” system?
I have no way of making copies of the tape and think that
there might be a law against sending each of you copies of the
photos. i am absolutely willing and able to bring these photos
and the tape to you on request, but will NOT relinquish them
pending further investigation into the legalities o f this type o f
behavior.
I had a tough time getting the film processed. In one case a
photo lab technician told me that id there were naked bodies on
the film, that they would call the authorities.
I explained the situation to an employee a t a local 1 hour lab
on Friday November 21, 2003 and was able to get the film
developed.
Earlier on Friday November 2 1, 2003, a “Dish Network’
representative had been out to our home to change service
from one room to another and remove service completely of
another. I told him what had happened and asked him if he
could stop “Dish Network” from sending me t h i s type of
material. He did not know, but made a note on the work order.
I have-the p I am notexaggerating the
rating or their response to my complaint. In fact if there is a
rating above “X” then these would likely meet the criteria.
Bodies are completely naked and on one movie 3 people are
appearing to have homosexual sex.
I I have a contract with Dish Network to provide the “Top
100 Channels.” I do not have a contract with “Dish Network”
to provide “X’ rated material, nor did I ever agree to accept this
type of “filth”. Never have I , nor would I , allow this type of
material in any form in my home.
“Dish Network’’ has violated my family and I, with this
material.
I believe it may be illegal to impose !‘X” rated material onto
others. if i t s not, it should be. It is illegal for anyone under the
age of 18 to purchase a magazine such as “Playboy,” cigarettes
or liquor. “Dish Network” purposefully, willfully, and knowingly
sends this stuff to my television for my family to view.
i compare this to subscribing to “Better Homes and Gardens”
magazine and getting “Playboy” instead for my subscription. If
there are no laws broken here, at the very feast the consumer is
not receiving what they are expecting.
I understand that “Dish Network” originates in Utah not
Arizona. I have several questions.
1 . Is there a state or federal law, which prohibits sending
unwanted po r n og raphic mate riaI t hro ug h o u r t e I evis io n s?
2. If so, would these laws apply to companies originating in
Utah, or would there be some special exclusion for them?
. 3. Are there any state or federal laws which “Dish Network” has
broken?
Si ncere By,
Deborah J. Diternan
6429 East Odessa Street
Mesa, Arizona 8521 5
I will be forwarding copies of this letter to other individuals

or companies that might have an interest in this situation.
.-
Fcde ral Comm UII icat i o 11s Co In m i s s II) 11

3 $ 2003
EB-IHD-DEL
CN0303673
Ms. Deborah J. Diteman

6429 East Odessa Street
Mesa, Arizona 8521 5
Dear Ms. Diteman:
By letter dated December 3,2003, Senator John McCain has requested that this agency
respond to your recent letter to him regarding programming transmitted by the DISH Network.
Specifically, you state that the DISH Network, your satellite provider, transmitted “’X’-rated
material’’ that contained nudity and which depicted three people engaged in homosexual sex.
You ask for information as to whether DISH Network has broken any federal laws.
The Federal Communications Commission has authority to enforce statutory provisions

restricting obscene and indecent broadcasts. See 18 U.S.C. 5 1464; 47 U.S.C. 5 73.3999. The
statutory restrictions on indecency, however, do not apply to cable and non-broadcast satellite
programming, and courts generally have held that statutory restrictions on cable indecency
violate the First Amendment. See Denver Area Educ. Telecornm. Consortium, Inc. v. FCU, 5 18
U S , 727 ( 1 996). There is, however, a statutory provision that prohibits the transmission of
obscene material over a cable system or by subscription television: satellite systems such as the
DISH Network. See 18 U.S.C. 5 1468. In cases in which the Commission concludes that
material appears to be obscene, we refer the matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
To be obscene, material must satisfy each element of a three-prong test: { 1) an average

person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole,
appeals to the prurient interest in sex; (2) the material must portray, in a patently offensive way,
sexual conduct specially defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must
lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. See Miller v. Calfomia, 413 U.S. 15
(1973). While we understand that you are offended by the material transmitted over the DISH
Network, based upon the limited infomation that you have provided, we cannot conclude that
the material satisfies this definition. As a result, the Commission has no basis for taking action.
I have enclosed an information sheet that discusses the law with respect to indecency and
obscenity and our complaint and enforcement procedures. If you would like to file a compIaint
directly with the Commission regarding a padicular program, including the one cited in your
letter to Senator McCain, you should submit a written statement describing the content of the
program, including a significant excerpt or tape of the material you believe to be obscene. You
should also include the date and time that the material was transmitted, and should send your
Ms. Deborah J. Diteman 2.
complaint to the Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations &

Hearing Division, 445 12th Street, S.W ., Washington, D.C. 205 54.
Sincerely,
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
Enclosure
cc: Senator John McCain
FCC ENFORCEMENT OF PROHIBITION
AGAINST OBSCENE AND INDECENT BROADCASTS
It is a violation of federal law to broadcast obscene of indecent programming. The prohibition is set fa&
at Title 18 United States Code, Section 1464 (I 8 U.S.C. 8 1464). Congress has given the Federal
Communications Commission the responsibility for administratively enforcing 18 U.S.C. 0 1464. In
doing so, the Commission may issue a warning, impose a monetary forfeiture or revoke a station license
for the broadcast of obscene or indecent material. The statutory prohibition against indecency does not
apply to cable-only channels. See, e.g., United Stares v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803
(2000). Moreover, the FCC does not have jurisdiction over indecency on the Internet.
Obscene Broadcasts Prohibited at All Times
Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and may not be broadcast at any time. To be
obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community
standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (ie.,material having a
tendency to excite lustful thoughts, see Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476,48811.20(1957)); (2) the
material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defied by
applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value. Miller v. Califamia, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
Indecent Broadcasts Restricted to 10 p.m. - 6 a.m.
The Commission has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or
describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the
broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. In applying the “community standards for the
broadcast medium” criterion, the Commission has stated: “The determination as to whether certain
programming is patently offensive is not a local one and does not encompass any particular geographc
area. Rather, the standard is that of an average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any
individual complainant.” Indecent programming contains sexual or excretory references that do not rise
to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First
Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be resbicted in order to avoid its broadcast
during times of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. For a summary
of the Commission’s case law regarding the indecency standard, see Ipldusfiy Guidance On the
Cornrnissioii’sCase Luw J n t w p t w i n g I8 U.S.C. 6 1464 and Eirforcemmt Policies Regal-dirig Broadcast
IndecenG 16 FCC Rcd 7999 (2001).
Consistent with a subsequent statute and federal court decisions interpreting the indecency statute, the
Commission adopted a rule (47 C.F.R. 6 73.3999) pursuant to which broadcasts - both on television and
radio - that fit within the definition of indecency and that are aired between 6:OO a.m. and 1O:OO p.m. are
subject to indecency enforcement action.
Enforcement Procedures and Filing Complaints

Enforcement actions in this area are based on complaints of indecent or obscene broadcasting received
from the public. The Commission’s staff reviews each complaint to determine whether it alleges
information sufficient to suggest that a violation of the obscenity or indecency prohibition has occurred.
If it appears that a violation may have occurred, the staff will commence an investigation by sending a
letter of inquiry to the broadcast station. zfthe complaint does not contain information sufficient to
ascertain that a violation may have occurred, the complaint will be dismissed. In such a case, the
complainant has the option of re-filing the complaint with additional information, filing a petition for
reconsideration of the staff action or filing an application for review (appeal) to the full Commission. If
the facts and information contained in a complaint suggest that a violation did not occur, the complaint
will be denied. In that situation, the complainant has the option of filing a petition for reconsideration of
the staff action or an application for review (appeal) to the full Commission.
Rev. 2/03
,. , . . .~ . .- . .. , . , .. ..- . ...
In making indecency determinations, context is key. The commission staff must analyze what was
actually said during the alleged broadcast, the meaning of what was said and the context in which it was
stated. Accordingly, the Commission staff asks complainants to provide the following information:
Information regarding the details of what wus actually snid (OF depicted) during the allegedly
indecent or obscene broadcast. There is flexibility in how a complainant may provide this
information. A complainant may submit a significant excerpt of the program describing what was
actually said (or depicted) or a full or partial tape or transcript of the material. In whatever form the
complainant decides to provide the information, it must be suficiently detailed such that the
Commission can determine the words and language actually used during the broadcast and fie
context of those words or language. Subject matter alone is not a determining factor of whether
material is obscene or indecent. Thus, for example, stating only that the broadcast station “discussed
sex” or had a “disgusting discussion of sex” during a program is not sufficient. Moreover, the use of
specific, isolated words is not determinative of whether material is indecent. Consequently,listing,
for example, only isolated words spoken by a radio announcer, without more, is not enough
information upon which the Commission staff will initiate an investigation. General descriptions
without a detaiIed explanation of what was actually stated (or depicted) are generally not sufficient.
0 The date and time of the broadcast. Under the Communications Act of 1934, if the Commission
assesses a monetary forfeiture against a broadcast station for violation of the rule, it must specify the
date the violation occurred. Accordingly, it is important that complainants provide the date the
material in question was broadcast. Moreover, under statutory and judicial case law, a broadcaster’s
right to air indecent speech is protected between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Consequently,the
Commission must h o w the time of day that the material was broadcast.
0 The call sign of the station involved. The Commissjon’s obscenitylindecency enforcement
program is directed at individual broadcast station Iicensees and not an individual radio announcer,
the music industry or a specific music performer. Accordingly, the Commission must h o w the call
sign of the station that aired the material. It is not enough to name the radio announcer who made the
on-air statement.
Documented complaints should be directed to the Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement
Bureau, Investigations & Hearing Division, 445 12* Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Any
documentation of the programming becomes part of the Commission’srecords and cannot be returned.
JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSELLSENATEOFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0303
ARIZONA ( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN 4 4 5 0 S o u r n RURALROAD
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
United Sates;Senate
SUITE 8-130
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION TEMPE,AZ 85282
COMMITTEE O N ARMED SERVICES (480) 897-6289
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 2400 E A S TARIZONA

BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 11 50
PHOENIX, A Z 85016
(602) 952-2410
450 WEST PASEOREDONDO

SUITE 200
TUCSON,A Z 85701
(520) 670-6334
TELEPHONEFOR HEARING I M P A I R E D
(2021 224-7132
(602) 952-0170/)
January 2,2004
Director
Office of ,egislative Affairs
445 12th Street
Dear Director:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning James Shepherd who has encountered a
problem regarding taxes charged on his Qwest Communication bill.
Because the situation is under your jurisdiction, I am respecthlly referring this matter to you
for consideration. I feel that this issue would be better addressed by you and request that you
respond directly to James Shepherd.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
& ack,
John McCain
JM/zkp
Enclosure
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

8762 E Lariat Lane
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
December 23,2003
Senator John McCain

4450 S Rural Road
Suite B 130
Tempe, AZ 85282
Senator McCain:
There is a $6.50 “FEDERAL ACCESS CHARGE”, on my $13.18 Quest stateme%

5!
which
4
is a 49% tax on my residential telephone service. i
I-
c”;
Please provide the following: 0-i
1. How much does the FCC collect “to cover the cost of providing access to the
telephone network?
2. Hoinr does the FCC provide access?
3. How does the FCC spend the money?
Please provide me the total collections and a detailed summary of how the fees are
spent.
My telephone bill of$13.18 has local, state and federal charges as follows:
Federal Excise Tax .61
State Tax .75
City Tax .I8
County Tax .09
Federal Universal Srv .64
AZ Universal Srv .01
Telecom Excise Tax .14
911 Excise Tax .37
Federal Charge-Srv .43
Fed Access Charge 6.50
That is a total of $9.72 on my residence telephone charge of $13.18, which is 73.7% in

taxes!! !
Thanking you in advance for your answep
James A Shepherd
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
JAN 2 1 2004
Control No. 0400060/kah
Mr. James Shepherd

8762 E. Lariat Lane
Dear Mr. Shepherd:
Thank you for your letter addressed to Senator John McCain regarding your concerns
about the Federal Interstate Access charge and other charges on your telephone bill. Your
letter has been forwarded to the Commission for our review.
The FCC Interstate Access charge (also called Federal Subscriber Line charge) is not a
charge assessed by the government; it is a federally regulated charge capped by the FCC. This
charge is collected by local phone companies to recover some of the costs of connecting
telephone lines to homes or businesses. Local telephone companies incur these costs
regardless of whether the customer places or receives long distance calls. The government
receives no money from this charge. It is not a tax.
The FCC capped the subscriber line charge for primary residential lines to ensure that
all Americans can afford at least a minimal level of basic telephone service. This maximum
subscriber line charge is a subsidized rate because it does not cover the local telephone
company’s average costs for those lines. For the largest local telephone companies that
provide service to over 90% of the telephone access lines in the country, the subscriber line
charge cap for primary lines is $6.50 as of July 1, 2003.
The second and any additional telephone lines connecting consumers’ residential
telephone service to the telephone network are called non-primary lines. Effective July 1,
1999, FCC rules require incumbent local telephone companies to use a service location
(address) definition, meaning that any additional line billed to the same address is considered a
non-primary line, subject to a higher subscriber line charge cap, even if the bill is in a different
name at the same address.
The FCC increased the maximum amount that incumbent local telephone companies
may charge for additional lines to $6.07 per line per month. Starting July 1, 2000, through
June 30, 2005, the subscriber line charge for non-primary residential lines is capped at $7.00
per line per month. If the telephone company’s average interstate costs of providing the line
are less than $7.00 per month, however, the incumbent local telephone company can only
charge the residential consumer the amount of its costs.
- 1 T
Mr. James Shepherd Page 2
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 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 you in understanding the charges on your

telephone bill. The Commission seeks to ensure that consumers are fully informed about their
choices in telecommunications services. 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”).
Mr . James Shepherd Page 3
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 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.gov.
We appreciate your inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further
questions.
Sincerely,
TT K. Dane Snowden 'J

Chief
Enclosures

Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN January 29,2004
The Honorable Conrad Burns

Chairman
Subcommittee on Communications
428 Hart Senate Office Building
Dear Chairman Burns:
I am pleased to provide you with the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”)

FY 2003 Annual Financial Report where we received for the second year in a row an
“Unqualified Opinion.” I am enclosing the complete report containing the FY 2003 Financial
Statements package and the Independent Auditor’s Report issued on those statements.
Please let me know if you have any questions on the enclosed document.
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable George W. Bush

President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Dear President Bush:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Richard B. Cheney

President
S-2 12 The Capitol Building
Dear President Cheney :

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Chairwoman
Committee on Governmental Affairs
340 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Dear Chairwoman Collins:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
January 29,2004
The Honorable Kent Conrad

Ranking Member
Committee on the Budget
624 Dirksen Senate House Office Building
Dear Senator Conrad:

“Unqualified Opinion.’’ I am enclosing the complete report containing the FY 2003 Financial
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Tom Davis

Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
2 157 Rayburn House Office Building
Dear Chairman Davis:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable John D. Dingell

Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
2322 Rayburn House Office Building
Dear Congressman Dingell:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
January 29,2004
The Honorable Judd Gregg

Chairman
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary
Committee on Appropriations
S-146A The Capitol
Dear Chairman Gregg:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
January 29,2004
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert

Speaker
H-232 the Capitol Building
Dear Speaker Hastert:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings

Ranking Member
5 10 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Dear Senator Hollings:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C
CHAIRMAN
January 29,2004

Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, & the Judiciary
S-125 The Capitol Building

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
January 29,2004

Ranking Member

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Ranking Member
Dear Senator Lieberman:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Edward J. Markey

Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
Dear Congressman Markey:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
January 29,2004

Chairman
Washington, D.C. 20-510

Michael K. Powell
Enclosures
Washington, D.C
The Honorable Don Nickles

Chairman
624 Dirksen Senate House Office Building
Dear Chairman Nickles:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Jim Nussle

Chairman
309 Cannon House Office Building
Dear Chairman Nussle:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Jose Serrano

Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State & the Judiciary
1016 Longworth House Office Building
Dear Congressman Serrano:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable John M. Spratt

Ranking Member
B-7 1 Cannon House Office Building
Dear Congressman Spratt:

Sincerely, A/
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Ted Stevens

President Pro Tempore
Dear Senator Stevens:

-
Michael K. Powell
Enclosures
Federal C o m m u n i c a t i o n s Commission
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
January 29,2004
The Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin

Chairman
Dear Chairman Tauzin:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C
The Honorable Fred Upton

Chairman
Dear Chairman Upton:

Mkhael K. Powell
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Member
B-350A Rayburn House Office Building
Dear Congressman Waxman:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
January 29,2004
The Honorable Frank R. Wolf

Chairman
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State & Judiciary
U. S. House of Representatives
H-309 The Capitol Building
Dear Chairman Wolf:

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
January 29,2004
The Honorable Joshua B. Bolten

Director
Office of Management and Budget
Suite 252
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
1725 17th Street, NW
Dear Director Bolten:

Sincwely , R/
1
MicLael K. Powell
Enclosures
2
Office of Legislative Affairs
Washington, D.C.205 54
Office of the Director
January 27,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable W.J. ("Billy") Tauzin

Chairman
United States House of Representatives
Dear Chairman Tauzin:
Enclosed, for your review and handling, please find a copy of the Tenth Annual Report of
the Federal Communications Commission on the "Status of Competition in the Market for the
Delivery of Video Programming." The Commission is submitting this Report to Congress
pursuant to Section 628(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 0 548(g).
The report was prepared by the FCC's Media Bureau.
If you and your staff have any questions regarding this Report, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (202) 418-1900. I will be pleased to facilitate answers to those questions or to
arrange an appropriate briefing.
Sincerely,
Martha Johnston
Director
enclosure
Washington, D.C .205 54
January 27,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable John Dingell

Ranking Member
Sincerely,
Martha Johnston
Director
enclosure
Washington, D.C.20554
Ofice of the Director
January 27,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY

Chairman
Subcommittee on Telecommunication
and the Internet
Sincerely,
MaAha Johnston
Director
enclosure
January 27,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY

Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet
Sincerely,
Mdrtha Johnston
Director
enclosure
Washington, D.C .20554
January 27,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY

Chairman
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Sincerely,
Makha 'Johnston
Director
enclosure
December, 2003
VIA HAND DELIVERY

Ranking Member
Sincerely,
Martha Johnston
Director
enclosure
Washington, D.C .20554
January 27,2004
VIA HAND DELZVERY

Chairman
Dear Chairman Bums:
Sincerely,
Martha Johnston
Director
enclosure
News media Information 202 1418-0500
Fax-On-Demand 202 I 4 18-2830
PI 2021418-2555
Internet: http:llwww.fcc.gov
;Wf ftp.fcc.gov
’g,+ +e Federal Communications Commission
us*
445 1 2 ‘ ~Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20554
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order
constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F I d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974).
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEWS MEDIA CONTACT

January 28,2004 Michelle Russo (202) 418-2358
FCC RELEASES TENTH ANNUAL REPORT ON COMPETITION

IN VIDEO MARKETS
Washington, DC - The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released its tenth
annual report on competition in the market for the delivery of video programming. The report
examines the status of competition, discusses changes that have occurred in the competitive
environment over the last year, and describes barriers to competition that continue to exist. Today’s
tenth annual report also examines the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video
programming over the past decade and at various intervals in between.
The report finds that overall, due, in part, to Congressional efforts made over the past
decade, technological advances, and investment in new platforms for delivering video
programming, the vast majority of Americans enjoy more choice, more programming and more
services than any time in history. In addition to an increase in the number of video channels, cable
operators and other multichannel video programming distribution (“MVPD”) services also now
offer advanced video services and many non-video advanced services. Cable television remains the
predominant technology for the delivery of video programming. Ten years ago, cable operators
served almost 100% of the nation’s subscribers. Today, cable’s share has fallen to approximately
75% of all MVPD subscribers.
Competitive alternatives to incumbent cable operators have been available during the past
ten years to varying degrees and continue to develop, although not always as envisioned. For
example, Congress and the FCC previously expected local exchange telephone companies (“LECs”)
to launch video systems and become the primary competitors to cable systems. In 1992, the FCC
established the video dialtone framework that permitted LEC entry consistent with statutory
prohibitions. Subsequently, Congress amended the Communications Act to permit LEC entry in
their telephone service areas under one of four statutory frameworks. Despite these efforts to foster
competition, however, significant LEC entry into the video marketplace has failed to materialize.
On the other hand, direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) TV service, which first became
commercially available in 1993, has become the most significant national competitor to cable.
Today, most consumers have the additional choice of at least two national DBS providers that
provide service similar to that of cable operators, including advanced video and non-video services.
DBS now serves almost 22% of all MVPD subscribers. Today, other delivery technologies (ie.,
overbuilders, wireless cable systems, private cable systems) only serve small numbers of
subscribers in limited areas with competitive alternatives to cable systems as they have over the last
ten years.
-- more --
The total number of subscribers to both cable and non-cable MVPDs has increased
significantly over the last ten years and continues to increase incrementally each year. A total of
60.3 million households subscribed to MVPD services as of year-end 1993. As of June 2003, 94.1
million households subscribed to MVPDs, an increase of more than 56% over the last ten years. The
number of cable subscribers continues to grow, reaching almost 65.9 million subscribers as of June
2003, up from the 57.2 million cable subscribers at year-end 1993. In the last several years,
however, cable subscribership has declined such that as of June 2003, there was approximately the
same number of cable subscribers as there were at year-end 1999. The total number of non-cable
MVPD subscribers grew from 3.1 million as of year-end 1993, to 11.23 million as of June 1998, to
23.7 million as of June 2003, a significant increase since 1993.
During the period under review, cable rates have risen significantly. According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, between year-end 1993 and the end of June 2003, the Consumer Price
Index (“CPI”), which measures general price changes, increased approximately 25.5%, while cable
prices, also measured as a subcategory of the CPI, rose approximately 53.1%. Between June 2002
and June 2003, cable prices rose 5.1% compared to a 2.1% increase in the overall CPI.
Concurrently with these rate increases, the number of video and non-video services offered
increased, including a substantial increase in the number of video channels, increased use of cable
(as measured by a substantial increase in cable viewership), and the addition of advanced service
offerings, which are paid for separately by consumers. Cable operators attribute rising costs to
increased programming costs and higher labor costs that have risen faster than inflation, as cable
operators have increased the size and proficiency of their customer service workforce. A recent
study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) also found that programming costs,
infrastructure investments, and increased spending by cable operators on customer service were
putting upward pressure on cable rates.
The tenth annual report details the status of competitors in the market for the delivery of
video programming including: cable systems, direct-to-home satellite service (DBS and home
satellite dishes), broadband service providers, wireless cable systems, private cable operators (a.k.a.
SMATV), broadcast television, local exchange carrier (LEC) entry, open video systems, Internet
video, home video sales and rentals, and electric and gas utilities.
The report also examines market structure and competition by evaluating horizontal
concentration in the MVPD marketplace; analyzing vertical integration between cable television
systems and programming services; and discussing technical issues such as cable modems,
navigation devices and emerging services.
A list of the key findings of the report is attached.
Action by the Commission, January 5, 2004, by Report (FCC 04-5). Chairman Powell
issuing a separate statement; Commissioners Copps and Adelstein concurring and issuing a joint
statement.
-- FCC--
MB Docket No. 03-172
Media Bureau contacts: Marcia Glauberman, Anne Levine at (202) 418-2330.
TTY: (202) 418-7172
KEY FINDINGS
OF THE F C C ’ S TENTH
ANNUAL
REPORT ON VIDEO COMPETITION
Industry Growth:
In the 2003 Report, the FCC examines the status of competition in the market for the delivery of
video programming, discusses changes that have occurred in the competitive environment over the
last year and the past decade, and describes barriers to competition that continue to exist.
Competition provides consumers with choice, better services, higher quality, and greater
technological innovation. Overall, due, in part, to Congressional efforts made over the past decade,
technological advances, and investment in new platforms for delivering video programming, the
vast majority of Americans enjoy more choice, more programming and more services than any time
in history. In addition to an increase in the number of video channels, cable operators and other
MVPDs also now offer advanced video services and many non-video advanced services. Cable
television, however, remains the predominant technology for the delivery of video programming. At
year-end 1993, 94.89% of MVPD subscribers received their video programming from a franchised
cable operator, and by June 2003, 74.87% of MVPD subscribers received their video programming
from a fi-anchised cable operator.
The total number of subscribers to both cable and non-cable MVPDs has increased significantly
over the last ten years and continues to increase incrementally each year. A total of 60.3 million
households subscribed to multichannel video programming services as of year-end 1993, where as
of June 2003, 94.1 million households subscribed to MVPDs, an increase of more than 56% over
the last ten years. This subscriber growth over the last ten years accompanied 14.2 and 21.26
percentage point increases respectively in MVPDs’ penetration of television households to 85.25%
as of June 2003. MVPD penetration of television households was at its highest in June 2001, when
86.42% of television households subscribed to an MVPD.
Since our first Report, the number of cable subscribers continues to grow, reaching almost 65.9
million subscribers as of June 2003, up from the 57.2 million cable subscribers at year-end 1993. In
the last several years, however, cable subscribership has declined such that as of June 2003, there
were approximately the same number of cable subscribers as there were at year-end 1999. The total
number of non-cable MVPD subscribers grew fi-om 3.1 million as of year-end 1993, to 23.7 million
as of June 2003, a significant increase over 1993.
DBS subscribership has grown significantly since its introduction ten years ago in 1993, and now
represents 21.63% of all MVPD subscribers. Since its introduction, the DBS growth rate has
exceeded the growth rate of cable by double digits in every year except in the past year, when DBS
growth exceeded cable growth by 9.16 percentage points. Between June 2002 and June 2003 alone,
the number of DBS subscribers grew from about 18.2 million households to more than 20.4 million
households. The continued growth of DBS is still, in part, attributable to the authority granted to
DBS operators to distribute local broadcast television stations in their local markets by the Satellite
Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (“SHVIA”), and an increase in the number of markets
where such service is offered. Since its introduction, DBS has attracted former cable subscribers as
well as consumers not previously subscribing to an MVPD.
Over the last year, the number of subscribers to MMDS and large dish satellite service (“HSD”)
continued to decline, the participation of incumbent local exchange carriers in the distribution of
video programming also continued to decline, and the number of subscribers to open video systems
(“OVS”) and private cable has remained relatively stable, although their market share remains
small. Although subscribership to these services and their relative market share have been steadily
declining over the last several years, the deployment and use of these services has contributed
significantly to the early acceptance of non-wireline alternatives to traditional MVPD service, and
has inspired current iterations of all-digital, wireless DBS services.
Cable Rates:
During the period under review, cable rates have risen significantly. According to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, between year-end 1993 and the end of June 2003, the Consumer Price Index
(“CPI”), which measures general price changes, increased approximately 25.5%, while cable prices,
also measured as a subcategory of the CPI, rose approximately 53.1%. Between June 2002 and June
2003, cable prices rose 5.1% compared to a 2.1% increase in the CPI. Using a different
methodology and covering a different mix of cable services and a different time period, the FCC’s
annual survey of cable industry rates found that the monthly rate for basic service, the most highly
subscribed to cable programming service tier (expanded basic or CPST), and equipment rose 8.2%
between July 1, 2001, and July 1, 2002.
Concurrently with these rate increases, however, the number of video and non-video services
offered increased, including a substantial increase in the number of video channels, increased use of
cable (as measured by a substantial increase in cable viewership), and the addition of advanced
service offerings. Cable operators attribute rising costs to increased programming costs and higher
labor costs that have risen faster than inflation, as cable operators have increased the size and
proficiency of their customer service workforce. In a recent study, GAO also found that
programming costs, infrastructure investments, and increased spending by cable operators on
customer service are putting upward pressure on cable rates. GAO notes that industry
representatives believe that certain factors related to the nature of ownership affiliations may also
indirectly influence cable rates through their influence on cable operators’ choice of which cable
networks to carry. The FCC also notes that in certain locales, cable operators’ pricing decisions may
be affected by direct competition. Available evidence indicates that when an incumbent cable
operator faces “effective competition,” as defined by the Communications Act, it responds in a
variety of ways, including lowering prices or adding channels without changing the monthly rate, as
well as improving customer service and adding new services such as interactive programming. In
this regard, GAO’s recent study reports that where wire-based competition is available, cable rates
are lower by about 15%. GAO further found that in markets where DBS companies provide local
broadcast stations, rates are only slightly lower, but cable operators are more likely to improve the
quality of their service in response to DBS competition.
Convergence of Cable and Telephone Service:

Congress and the FCC expected LEC video systems to become the primary competitors to cable
systems. In 1992, the FCC established the video dialtone framework that permitted LEC entry into
the video marketplace consistent with statutory prohibitions. Subsequently, Congress amended the
Communications Act to permit LEC entry in their telephone service areas under one of four
statutory frameworks, including the open video system (“OVS”) framework. Both efforts were
aimed to facilitate competition between incumbent cable operators and telephone companies.
Despite these efforts to foster competition, significant LEC entry into the video marketplace has
failed to materialize. A few smaller LECs continue to offer, or are preparing to offer, MVPD service
over existing telephone lines. The FCC first noted in our 1997 Report that several cable multiple
system operators (“MSOs”) were beginning to offer resale, and in some cases, facilities-based
telephone service. The FCC anticipated that telephone service offered by cable operators would
4
become a significant source of competition to incumbent LECs. Today some cable MSOs are
offering circuit switched telephony. Most cable MSOs, however, are waiting for IP technology to
become widely available before accelerating their rollout of telephone service. Some of these cable
operators are currently offering, or continuing to test, IP telephony products.
High-speed Internet Service:

The most significant convergence of service offerings continues to be the pairing of Internet access
services with video programming services. The FCC first reported in our 1997 Report that cable
operators were beginning to offer a bundle of services to include high-speed access to the Internet
via cable modem. By year-end 1998, there were approximately 500,000 subscribers. Some cable
operators offer access to the Internet through the subscriber’s television and a specially designed
set-top box, but the most popular way to access the Internet over cable was, and still is, through the
use of a cable modem and personal computer. Today, virtually all of the major MSOs offer Internet
access services via cable modems in large portions of their service areas and about half of all mid-
sized and small cable operators provide this service. As of June 2003, there were more than 13.8
million cable modem high-speed Internet access subscribers. Like cable, the DBS industry is
continuing to develop ways to bring advanced services to their customers. Many MMDS and private
cable operators also offer Internet access services. In addition, BSPs continue to build advanced
systems specifically to offer a bundle of services, including video, voice, and high-speed Internet
access.
Promotion of Entry and Competition:

Since our first Report, non-cable MVPDs have described regulatory and other barriers to entry that
limit their ability to compete with incumbent cable operators. These non-cable MVPDs continue to
report that many of the same barriers to entry noted in the 1994 Report are still experienced today.
For example, in our 1994 Report, the FCC noted that non-cable MVPDs experienced some
difficulties in obtaining programming from vertically-integrated cable programmers and from
unaffiliated programmers which make exclusive agreements with cable operators. Many non-cable
MVPDs report the same difficulties today. Others described problems accessing vital sports and
regional news programming as a result of exemptions to the program access rules, most notably, the
terrestrial delivery of programming to distributors. In our 1998 Report, the FCC noted that in
multiple dwelling units (“MDUs”) potential entry was discouraged or limited because an incumbent
video programming distributor has a long-term and/or exclusive contract. This remains a concern
for commenters today. In addition, as described in previous Reports, non-cable wireline MVPDs
report problems obtaining franchises from local governments and difficulties in gaining access to
utility poles needed to build out their systems. These concerns also remain.
Distribution Technologies Findings:

FCC findings as to particular distribution technologies operating in the market for the delivery of
video programming include the following:
Cable Systems: Since the 1994 Report, subscribership to cable television services has increased
steadily (between year end 1993 and June 2003, there was a 15.2% increase in subscribership fiom
57.2 million subscribers to 65.9 million subscribers). In recent years, some specific cable operators
have experienced decreases in subscribership, but the industry on a whole has experienced average
year-to-year increases of about 2% each year. The industry has also continued to grow in terms of
revenue (an approximate 125% increase between year-end 1993 and year-end 2002), all-day
audience shares for cable networks (which rose from an average 29 share during the 1993-1994
5
television season to an average 55 share for the 2002-2003 season), and expenditures on
programming.
Over the last decade, the cable industry has invested more than $75 billion to upgrade and improve
cable plant. As a result, digital compression technology has been implemented, resulting in
significant increases in channel capacity over the last ten years, as well as the introduction of such
non-video services such as Internet access and telephony.
Direct-to-Home (“DTH”) Satellite Service (DBS and HSD): Since 1994, video service has been
available from high power DBS satellites that transmit signals to small DBS dish antennas installed
at subscribers’ premises (DBS service). Video service using low power satellites and larger
antennas (HSD service) has been available since 1979. DBS currently has over 20 million
subscribers, an increase of approximately 11.6% since the 2002 Report. There are currently a little
more than 500,000 subscribers to HSD services, as measured by the number of HSD users that
actually purchase programming packages. This is down significantly from its peak subscribership of
2.4 million in 1995. DirecTV and EchoStar are each among the five largest providers of
multichannel video programming service. In 1993, DBS was not available to consumers. As of June
2003, DBS represented a 21.6% share of the national MVPD market. Currently HSD represents
another 0.53% of the MVPD market. At its peak, HSD represented almost 3.5% of MVPD service
subscribers.
Broadband Service Providers: In our 1994 Report, the FCC identified municipal and independent
overbuilders. At that time, video distribution was the sole focus of overbuilding activity. In our 2001
Report the FCC addressed a new class of providers called BSPs, entities that compete with existing
cable systems using state-of-the-art systems that offer a bundle of telecommunications services,
including video, voice, and high-speed Internet access. As of June 2003, BSP served approximately
1.4 million subscribers, representing approximately 1.5% of all MVPD households.
Wireless Cable Systems: Currently, the wireless cable industry (“MMDS”) provides competition
to the cable industry in limited areas. At year-end 1993, there were approximately 400,000
subscribers to MMDS service. At its peak in mid-1998, MMDS systems provided video service to
approximately one million customers. MMDS subscribership declined over the last year from
approximately 490,000 subscribers in June 2002 to 200,000 subscribers in June 2003. With the
advent of digital MMDS and the FCC’s authorization of two-way MMDS service, it appears that
most MMDS spectrum eventually will be used to provide high-speed data services. Wireless cable
represented an approximately 0.66% share of the MVPD market at year-end 1993, and
approximately 0.21% share of the national MVPD market in June 2003. At its peak, MMDS has
represented only 1.3% of the MVPD market.
Private Cable Operators: Private cable operators, also known as SMATV operators, use some of
the same technology as cable systems, but do not use public rights-of-way, and focus principally on
serving subscribers living in MDUs. At year-end 1993, there were about one million subscribers to
SMATV services, representing 1.67% of the MVPD market and today, there are a little more than
1.2 million subscribers, representing approximately 1.27% of the MVPD market. Subscribership has
declined over the last year, from its peak subscribership in mid-2002, when there were
approximately 1.6 million reported subscribers to SMATV services, representing 1.78% of the
MVPD market.
6
Broadcast Television: Broadcast stations and networks, and non-broadcast networks alike, must
either produce programming or purchase programming from third-party producers. Broadcast
networks and stations also are suppliers of content for distribution by MVPDs. In addition, they
supply video programming directly to those television households that are not MVPD subscribers
and to television sets in MVPD households that are not connected to such service. Since the 1994
Report, the broadcast industry has continued to grow in the number of operating stations (from
1,518 as of November 1993 to 1,726 as of June 2003), adding about 1.3% more stations on average
each year over the last ten years. Broadcast stations and networks, like MVPDs and non-broadcast
networks, derive revenue from advertising. Advertising revenues averaged an annual six percent
increase since the I994 Report, but fell dramatically during the general economic recession of 200 1,
when advertising revenues declined about 12% from the prior year. Audience levels continue to
decline as they have for many years. During the 2002-2003 television season, broadcast television
stations collectively (network affiliates, independent stations and public broadcast stations)
accounted for an average 49 share of prime time viewing for all television households, compared to
an average 74 share ten years earlier. During the 2002-2003 television season, broadcast television
stations collectively accounted for an average 45 share of all-day viewing for all television
households, compared to an average 71 share ten years earlier. Broadcast television stations
continue to deploy digital television (“DTV”) service. As of September 2003, all but two of the 40
stations that make up the top-four network affiliates in the top ten television markets were
broadcasting DTV service. Virtually all of the more than 1,300 commercial television stations have
been granted DTV construction permits or licenses and 1,038 are on the air with DTV operation, or
nearly 80%.
LEC Entry: LEC involvement into the video market over the last ten years has been lackluster. The
FCC previously reported that the largest incumbent LECs have largely exited the video business.
The most notable exception is BellSouth, which currently operates overbuild cable systems in 14
franchise areas, passing 1.4 million homes. In addition, a few incumbent LECs offer, or are
preparing to offer, MVPD service over existing telephone lines. Qwest Communications
International (formerly US West), offers video service in several markets, high-speed Internet
access, and telephone service over existing copper telephone lines using very high-speed digital
subscriber line (“VDSL”). Currently, BSPs, many of which also operate incidentally as competitive
LECs, are the primary OVS certification holders. In fact, over the last ten years, Ameritech (now
owned by SBC) made the most significant entry of any incumbent LEC into the video programming
distribution market, purchasing and building facilities-based services such that by 1998, it held 1 11
cable franchises with the potential to pass more than 1.7 million homes, and had nearly 250,000
subscribers. But Ameritech (SBC) eventually sold all of its interests in video program distribution
systems, and no longer remains involved in the video business.
Internet Video: In 1994, Internet video was not yet in use. The World Wide Web was a nascent
technology. As of June 2003, an estimated 59 million Americans subscribed to an Internet access
service (with 20 million of those subscribing to a high-speed Internet access service). Real-time and
downloadable video accessible over the Internet continues to become more widely available and the
amount of content is increasing. Yet, despite the evidence of increased interest in Internet video
deployment and use, the medium is still not seen as a direct competitor to traditional video services.
Home Video Sales and Rentals: The FCC considers the sale and rental of home video, including
videocassettes, DVDs, and laser discs, part of the video marketplace because they provide services
similar to the premium and pay-per-view offering of MVPDs. In 1994, VCR penetration was 84%
7
of TV households. In 2003, Nielsen Media Research estimates VCR penetration at 91% of TV
households. Our 2998 Report was the first Report in which the FCC reported that DVD technology,
introduced in 1997, would likely replace laser disc technology as another means to view video
programming. The number of homes with DVD players has grown rapidly since their introduction,
and DVDs have made significant impact on the home video market. In the first half of 2003 alone,
equipment manufacturers sold 10.3 million DVD players. The newest home video technology is the
personal video recorder (“PVR’). Introduced in 1999, PVRs may be purchased from and
subscription obtained through an MVPD or directly from a PVR service operator. Currently, there
are approximately 2.1 million PVRs in use, as measured by PVR subscriptions.
Electric and Gas Utilities: In 1994, some utilities were engaged in the provision of video services
through overbuilding incumbent cable systems, though such activity was very limited. Section 103
of the Communications Act, enacted as part of the 1996 Act, removed a significant regulatory
barrier that had deterred registered public utility holding companies’ entry into video markets.
Today, many utilities continue to move forward with ventures involving multichannel video
programming distribution. Though their services are still not widespread, utilities do, provide
competition in scattered localities. Some of their characteristics, such as ownership of fiber optic
networks and access to public rights-of-way, make them competitively significant. Some utilities
offer telecommunications services on their own, while others partner with broadband service
providers, such as Starpower, RCN’s joint venture with PEPCO. It also appears that utilities,
particularly municipal utilities in rural areas, are willing to build advanced telecommunications
networks to offer a full range of services where incumbent cable operators and telephone companies
are not. Reports indicate that 105 public power entities offer video services.
Additional Findings
Consolidations and Clustering: Although cable operators continue to acquire and trade
systems, consolidation of the top cable operators appears to have declined slightly over the past
year, after many years of rapid consolidation and concentration. For example, the four largest
operators served about 51.7% of all U.S. cable subscribers in June 2002, and in June 2003, that
number was down to about 50.5% of all U S . cable subscribers. In terms of one traditional
economic measure, national concentration among the top MVPDs has increased since last year
as the largest MSOs have grown larger over the past year, and current levels are above levels
reported since the 2994 Report. DBS operators DirecTV and EchoStar rank among the five
largest MVPDs in terms of nationwide subscribership along with three cable MSOs. As of year-
end 2002, slightly more than 51 million of the nation’s cable subscribers were served by
systems that are included in 109 regional clusters. At year-end 1994, only about 20 million
subscribers were served by systems that were included in 97 regional clusters.
0 Programming Networks: The number of satellite-delivered programming networks has

increased significantly over the last ten years. As of year-end 1994, there were approximately
106 non-broadcast programming networks available for carriage by MVPDs. As of June 2003,
there were more than 339 national non-broadcast programming networks. During the same
period, vertical integration of national programming services between cable operators and
programmers has decreased from 53% at year-end 1994 to 33% as of June 2003. As the number
of vertically-integrated networks has increased, the total number of networks also has increased
such that the percentage of vertically integrated networks has steadily declined (from over 50%
8
in 1994 to 30% in 2002) until this year when the percent rose to 33%. In 2003, four of the top
six cable MSOs, ranked by subscribership, held ownership interests in satellite-delivered
programming services. In 1994, five of the top six cable MSOs held ownership interests in
satellite-delivered programming services. Sports programming warrants special attention
because of its widespread appeal and strategic significance for MVPDs. The 2003 Report
identifies at least 84 regional networks, 28 of which are sports channels, many owned at least in
part by MSOs. There are also 37 regional and local news networks that compete with local
broadcast stations and national cable news networks.
Program Access: The program access rules adopted pursuant to the 1992 Cable Act, and
recently extended by the FCC, were designed to ensure that other MVPDs can access vertically-
integrated satellite delivered programming on non-discriminatory terms. The 2003 Report
recognizes that the terrestrial distribution of programming, including in particular regional
sports programming, remains an important issue and could have an impact on the ability of
alternative MVPDs to compete in the video marketplace.
0 Advanced Technologies: In 1994, most technical efforts were focused on the development and
use of digital compression and modulation technologies. The cable industry was just beginning
to accelerate the upgrade of its wired networks to increase capacity and enhance the capabilities
of their transmission platforms to include such advanced services as voice, data transport (later
known as Internet access services), and advanced video services such as video-on-demand
(“VOD”). Today, many advanced services are available to subscribers, but many more are still
evolving. Many advanced services such as telephony and high-speed Internet access services,
are now in widespread use. MVPDs are now focusing on deployment of VOD and other
emerging interactive television services.
0 Cable Modems: There have been numerous significant technical developments regarding cable
modems and other technologies used to access a wide range of services offered by MVPDs.
Although cable modems were not available for residential use at the time of our 1994 Report, a
group of cable operators, joined together in December 1996 to issue a Request for Proposal
(“RPF”) that resulted in the development of the DOCSIS standard. As of September 2003, 365
DOCSIS modems have received certification and 54 Cable Modem Termination Systems
(“CMTSs”) have gained qualified status under DOCSIS. In addition, most operators continue to
improve their high-speed Internet access service, offering higher speeds and special features.
Packetcable, another CableLabs project, began in 1997, and is the standard developed for
delivering advanced, real-time multimedia services over two-way cable plant. Packetcable
enables a wide range of services, including IP telephony, multimedia conferencing, interactive
gaming, and general multimedia applications. By June 2003, there were approximately 13.4
million cable modem subscribers in the U.S.
0 Navigation Devices: There also have been numerous significant technical developments
regarding the navigation devices used to access a wide range of services offered by MVPDs. In
1998, the FCC adopted rules, pursuant to Section 629 of the Communications Act, so that
consumers could obtain “navigation devices” from commercial sources other than their cable
providers. In 2003, the FCC fwther adopted rules to permit television sets to be built with “plug-
and-play” functionality for one-way digital cable services, without the need for a set-top box. The
cable and consumer electronics industries continue to work on the development of an agreement
9
for two-way “plug-and-play” receivers. The FCC also extended the date for the ban on cable
operators provision of integrated set-top boxes from January 1, 205, until July 1, 2006. In
addition, the FCC adopted rules to assure that DTV broadcast content will not be
indiscriminately redistributed. Content marked by the descriptor may only be output or recorded
through to analog outputs, protected digital outputs, and a small class of unprotected digital
outputs at a lower resolution. Through the Opencable project, CableLabs developed hardware
specifications as well as specifications for the software interface that a host device needs to
accommodate these changes.
- FCC -
10
JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSELLSENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON,OC 20510-0303
ARIZONA ( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN 4450 SOUTH RURALROAD

COMMllTEE O N COMMERCE, SUITE 8-130
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE O N ARMED SERVICES Wnited states senate TEMPE, A 2 85282
(480) 897-6289
COMMITTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS 2400 EAST ARIZONA

BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 1150
PHOENIX,A 2 85016
1602) 952-2410
4 5 0 WEST PASEOREDONDO
January 22,2004 SUITE 200
TUCSON, A 2 85701
( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
TELEPHONEFOR H
Ms. Martha Johnston

Director, Legislative Affairs
445 12th Street, S.W.
Room 8-C432
Vv’ashingion, DC 20554-ii001
v
Dear Ms. Johnston:
I wish to bring to your attention the matter concerning my constituent, William Carnett, who
has encountered a problem with the Federal Communications Commission’s regulations on the
placement of amateur rad0 antennas. Please investigate, my constituent’s claim, within the
existing rules, regllations and ethical guidelines, and provide me with the final decision. MARK
ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Aciam Peterson

Office of Senator John McCain
450 W. Paseo Redondo
Suite 200
Tucson, Arizona 85701
The response you provide will be most appreciated and will be forwarded to my constituent.
If you should have any questions in the meantime, you can reach my office at (520) 670-6334. I
look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
John McCain
JWtap
Enclosure(s)
Q
ON
P
3
0

SENT BY: CARNETT CARE CENTER; 526 439 4466; JAN-5-04 I: l l P M ; PAGE II2
William G. Carnett
January 5,2004

241 Russcll Senate Office Building
SENT VIA FAX
Re: Congressional Assistance in FCC Matter
Dear Senator McCain,
As a resident of Arizona and registered voter, I am writing fir p u r assistance in il
9291 South Lippizan Circle

Hereford, Arizono 85615
520.803.6728
SENT B Y : CARNETT CARE CENTER; 520 4 3 9 4466; JAN-5-04 1:llPM; PA 212
Here’s the reason we need your help: In 1985, the FCC t lnced the interests of town
land USG authorities to maintain local zoning by requiring m to exercise “reasonable
accommodation” to requests ftom Amateur Radio homeox m to install some form of
antenna on their own property, thus acknowledging limited iderat interest in permitting
Amateur Radio liccnsccs to sct up antcnnas. 47 C.F.R. 97. l! 1.
The policy has been very successful and has generally d to tasteful yet effective
Installations as towns and residents work together reasonak Unfortunately, so far, the
FCC has been relwlant lo apply that same national p o k y ct lrivale land use mgulalions.
The m ’ 6 requests that the Commission revisit the 1 ue and reconsider it have
repeatedly been denied.
The ARRL’s request is modest and does not expand e x k g policy. It would require
only the homeowner’s association make “reasonable LUXOR odation” (the same flexible
and not intrusive standard required of towns) for a.~ mas for Amateur Radio
homeowners in subdivisions. It intrudes far less on the autl ity ofplanned communities
than do other Federal policies governing telecammunicati s facilities, and recognizes
the legitimate concerns of homeowners associations.
Please contact me if 1 can provide morc information. Alsc Itevc Mansficld, the ARRL
Legislative Liaison can be an exccllent rcsource for your res rch.
Thank you for your consideration of this very important ci :em to our community and
state,
Respectfully,
w 3
William G , Camett, D.O.

u
Amateur Radio Call Sign: AHGFC/7
Hereford, Arizona 8 56 15
520.803,6728
929 1 South Lippizan Circle

Hereford. Arizona 856 15
520.803.6728
202 418 2643 P.02
FEE-12-2084 18:12

February 12,2004
In Reply Refer to:

040026 1

United Stares Senator
450 W. Paseo Redondo, Suite 200
Tucson, Arizona 8570 1
Dear Senator McCain:
Thank you for your January 22,2004 inquiry on behalf of your constituent,
Mr. William G. Carnett, of Hereford, Arizona. On January 5,2004, Mr. Carnett
requested your assistance regarding an Application for Review that that the American
Radio Relay League, Inc., (ARRL) filed with the Federal Communications Commission
in December 2000. Specifically, Mr. Carnett states that Commission has not acted
favorably on the Application for Review and he requests that you intervene on behalf of
amateur radio operators in this matter.
As an initial matter, we note that in December 200 1 the Commission adopted a

Memorandum Opinion and Order which addressed the ARRL’s Application for Review.
A copy of the Illemorartdurn Opinion und Order is enclosed for your convenience, In this
decision, the Commission declined to expand to homeowners associations and to
covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) in deeds its policy that state and local
regulations governing amateur station antenna structures must reasonably accommodate
amateur service communications, The Commission noted, however, that should
Congress enact a statutory directive mandating expansion of this “reasonably
accommodation” policy to include homeowners associations and CC&Rs, it would act
expeditiously to fulfill its obligation under the directive.
202 415 2fi43 98% P.02

FEE-12-2004 10:10
202 418 2643 P.03
FEB-12-2004 10:13 FCC PSPIJD
Honorable John McCain Page 2
With regard to expanding our reasonably accommodation policy to include

homeowners associations and CC&Rs, we note that legislation addressing this matter is
pending. Specifically, H.R. 1478, The Amateur Radio Emergency Communications
Consistency Act of 2003, provides that private land use rules be treated as State or local
regulation for purposes of certain Commission regulations. If adopted, this bill would
expand our reasonable accommodation policy to include regulations of homeowners
associations and CC&Rs, as MJ. Carnett requests.
I trusr this information is responsive to your inquiry.
Sincerely,
A$&.
Scot Stone
Assistant Chief
Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Enclosure
P. 03
FEE-12-2884 18:18 202 418 2643
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN February 27,2004
The Honorable Jose E. Serrano

Ranking Member
Enclosed for your review is the Federal Communications Commission’s Annual Program
Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2003. This report is required by the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993.
We made tremendous progress in reaching our strategic and performance goals for Fiscal
Year 2003 - 92 percent (22 of 24) of our outcome indicators (trend data) were met or exceeded.
Although two of our outcome indicators were not met, we have taken steps to meet these goals in
Fiscal Year 2004.
With the implementation of our new Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-2008 based on six
strategic goals, the Commission is in a better position to ensure that the communication needs of
American consumers and industry are met. These goals conform to the priorities I have
discussed with Congress and center on the important public policy issues of broadband
deployment, encouraging sustainable domestic and international telephone competition, efficient
spectrum use and management, media ownership, the digital television transition, homeland
security, and modernization of the Commission.
By working closely with Congress, consumers, and those in the communications

industries, we believe that the Strategic Plan will allow the Commission to provide the leadership
necessary to facilitate competition in all communications markets and the development and
deployment of new telecommunications technologies and services for all Americans.
We look forward to any comments you have on our Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Program
Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Speaker
Dear Mr. Speaker:
We made tremendous progress in reaching our strategic and perfonnance goals for Fiscal
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Fiscal Year 2004.
By working,closely with Congress, consumers, and those in the communications

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Ernest Hollings

Ranking Member
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
S- 146A The Capitol Building
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary
Perfomance Report for Fiscal Year 2003. This report is required by the Government
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Dear President Pro Tempore Stevens:
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Dick Cheney

President, United States Senate
Dear Mr. President:
Fiscal Year 2004.

necessary to facilitate competition in all communicationsmarkets and the development and
Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.

Director
725 17thStreet, N.W. -Room 252
Dear Mr. Daniels:
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable C.W. (“Bill”) Young

Chairman
H-2 18 The Capitol Building
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable David R. Obey

Ranking Member
Dear Congressman Obey:
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We made tremendous progress in reaching our strategic and perfonnance goals for Fiscal
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Joe Barton

Chairman
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for your review is the Federal Communication Commission’s A nual Program
Performance Report for,Fiscal Year 2003. This report is required by the Government
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Federa I Commun icat ions Commission
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 27,2004

Ranking Member
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for your review is the'Federal Communications Commission's Annual Program

Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
B-350A Raybum House Office Building
We made tremendous progress in reaching ow strategic and performance goals for Fiscal
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
Fiscal Year 2004.
spectrum use and management, media ownership, the digital television transition, hdmeland

Performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
S-146A The Capitol Building
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Fiscal Year 2004.

performance Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Robert Byrd

Ranking Member
Dear Senator Byrd:
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Sincerelv.
7 Michael K: Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Fiscal Year 2004.

Performance Report.
Enclosure
JOMN HEWN. U I I Z O W CMAIRMAN
TED STEv6NI. A l A S U ERNEST F. WOlLIffiO. COUTW CAROLINA
CONRAD UUltNS. MONTANA DANIEL K. INWYE. MAWAll
TRENT L O T , MIPOISSIPPI JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER N.WEFT VIRGINIA
KAY WULM MvrCWlSON. TEXAS JOMN F. KERRY, MPbSACMUSFTTfl
OLYMPIA J SNOWE. MAINE JOHN 8. OREAUX. LOU16lANA
SAM aROWNBACK, KANBA$
GWIDON CMIM. OREGON
pmn 0. FITZCERALD.ILLINOIS
JOWN ENSIGN, NEVADA
BYRON L WRGAN. NORTM DAKOTA
RON W E N . OREaON
OARBIRA BOXER. WlIFORNlA
B l l l NELSON. M R l O h
Senate
%WedBtstQB:
, GEORGE ULEN.VIRBINIA
JOHN E. SUNUNU. NEW HAMPSHIRE
MARIA CANTWELL WASWINGTON
WANK LAUTENOERG. NEW JERSEY
COMMlllEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE.
AND TRANSPORTATION
J L A " E OUMWS. REPUBLICAN STAFF DIRECTOR AN0 GENERAL COUNSEL
K M N D. LAVES. DEMOCRATICSTAFF DIRECTOR AND CHEF COUNSEL
WASHINGTON, DC 2051W125
February 17,2004
Via Fa: (202) 418-2806
The Honorable Michael Powell ,

Chairman
445 12'~Street, sw
Dear Chairman Powell,
On Tuesday, February 24,2004, at 9:30a.m. in SR-253,the Senate Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation will hold a Full Committee hearing on Voice Over
Internet Protocol (VOIP). As Chairman of the Committee, I invite you to testify.
At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony on the policy implications of the
recent emergence of 11p services, which enablc the delivery of voice and other innovative means
of communication to consumers. The Committee asks that you focus your testimony on the
appropriate federal and state regulatory treatment of VOIP,including obligations related to
intercarrier compensation, disability access, E-91 1, universal sexvice, assistance to law
enforcement, and any other related issues you wish to bring to the attention of the Committee.
While your Eull statement will be made part of the record, we ask that, in your oral testimony,
you limit your remarks to five minutes, highlighting or summarizing the most important points.
Enclosed you will find a copy of the Rules of Procedure for witnesses testifying before
the Commerce Committee. Please read and follow these Rules carefully.
If you have any questions, please contact Bill Bailey or Paul Martino of the Republican
staff at 202-224-5184, or James Assey or Rachel Welch of the Democratic staff at 202-224-9340.
I appreciate your efforts to provide this information to the Committee and the Senate.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Chairman
JSMImd
Enclosure
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,SCIENCE.ANJJ TRANSPORTATION
1
The Committee requires witnesses to abide by the following rules. Please keep in mind
these rules are designed to: (1) ensure your testimony is inserted in the formal printed hearing
record; (2) enable the Committee to be of service to the public by posting your testimony to the
Committee’s web site (www.senate.gov/-comrce/); and (3) cut costs associated with printing.
Exceptions to any of the these rules may be made by the Chairman or the presiding Committee
Member, Your assistance and testimony are greatly appreciated.
Pre-hearing:
Oral Testimony
Each witness will have 5 minutes to present his or her oral remarks.
W
Electronic Submission of Testhon
Your prepared statement and all suppfemental material for inclusion in the
formal hearing record must be transmitted to the Committee in electronic
form 3 business daw prior to the hearing to the following two e-mail accounts:
( 1) docs@commerce.senate.gov; and (2) Mark-Delich@commerce.senate.gov.
:
In addition to providing your statement in electronic format, please provide
125 coDies of your written testimony to the Full Committee:
-25 couies should be delivered to SH-428of the Hart Senate
Office Building, b g , along
with 2 copies of a one-page summary of your testimony; and
-1 00 cor>iesshould be delivered to the Hearing Clerk in SR-254of the Russell
Senate Office Building, bv noon on the day before the hearine,
Post-hearing:
**
If you wish to review the hearing transcript pages of your oral testimony, please
contact the Majority Staffat (202) 224-5184 no later than two weeks fiom the
date of the hearing. Upon your request, you will be provided a draft of the
transcript pages that include your remarks. You are requested to provide the
Committee with any necessary corrections for accuracy, including any necessary
typographical and/or minimal grammatical corrections provided they do not
change the context of your original testimony. Revisions should be printed and
marked in contrasting color and returned to the Majority staff of the Committee.
In addition, you will be expected to respond to post-hearing questions, if posed.
Please return corrected transcri~tsand responses to _post-hearineauestions no later
than two weeks after roceint of these materials. If the Committee-doesnot receive
your material within this time frame, the Committee reserves the right to assume
there are no corrections, supplemental material, or post-hearing responses, and the
formal hearing record will be printed accordingly.
US.SENATE COlvlMDTEE ON
n n .
Lommerce, Science, and hnsportation
. .
..
FAX NO:
-- DAP:
, PAGE I OF:
FROM: '
* '
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY

Ranking Member
Enclosed, for your review and handling, please find the Report to Congress on the Low
Power FM Interference Testing Program, submitted in accordance with Section 632 of the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, FY 2001 (P.L. No. 106-553).
contact Martha Johnston or Lori Holy in the FCC Office of Legislative Affairs at (202) 41 8-
1900.
Chairman
enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY

Chairman
contact Martha Johnston or Lori Holy in the FCC Office of Legislative Affairs at (202) 418-
1900.
Chairman
enclosure
Federai Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Conrad Bums

Chairman
1900.
Chairman
enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY

Chairman
S-124, The Capitol
Dear Chairman Stevens:
1900.
Chairman
enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY

Chairman
1900.
Chairman
enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd

Ranking Member
3 11 Hart Senate Office Building
Dear Senator Byrd:
1900.
Chairman
enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY

Chairman
2 125 Raybum House Office Building
Dear Chairman Barton:
1900.
Chairman
enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable John Dingell

Ranking Member
1900.
-
Michael K. Powell
Chairman
enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY

Chairman
1900.
Chairman
enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Edward Markey

Ranking Member
1900.
Chairman
enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young

Chairman
H-2 18, The Capitol
Dear Chairman Young:
1900.
Chairman
enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable David Obey

Ranking Member
1900.
Chairman
enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Frank Wolf

Chairman
H-309, The Capitol
Dear Chairman Wolf:
1900.
Michael K. Powell
Chairman
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
February 19,2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Josk Serrano

Ranking Member
1900.
Chairman
enclosure
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
445 12‘h STREET, S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20554
February 19,2004
Report to the Congress on the Low Power FM Interference Testing Program

Pub. L. NO.106-553
In accordance with Section 632 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act,

FY 2001 (the “Act”),’ the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”)
submits this report to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of
Representatives. This report includes the Commission’s recommendations to Congress
regarding the modification or elimination of minimum distance separation requirements
for low power FM (“LPFM”) stations operating on third-adjacent channels (+I-600 kHz)
to full power and other FM broadcast stations.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 20, 2000, the Commission authorized the licensing of LPFM stations,
and imposed minimum distance separation requirements for LPFM stations consistent
with current FM protection standards with respect to existing commercial and
noncommercial educational (“NCE”) FM stations, and FM translator and booster stations
operating on the same and on the two immediately adjacent channels. Based on studies
done by the Commission and the public, the Commission determined that LPFM stations
would not cause unacceptable levels of interference to FM stations operating on third-
adjacent channels. Accordingly, the initial LPFM technical rules did not impose third-
adjacent channel minimum distance separation requirements on LPFM stations. On
September 20,2000, the Commission, on reconsideration, adopted complaint and license
modification procedures to ensure that significant third-adjacent channel interference
problems would be resolved expediti~usly.~ On December 21,2000, President Clinton
signed the Act into law, requiring the Commission to impose third-adjacent channel
minimum distance separation requirements on LPFM stations, and to conduct
independent field tests and an experimental program to determine whether the
elimination of third-adjacent channel protection requirements would result in LPFM
stations causing harmhl interference to existing FM stations operating on third-adjacent
channels. On March 22,2001, the Commission adopted an order imposing third-adjacent
channel minimum distance separation requirements on LPFM stations consistent with the
third-adjacent channel minimum distance separation requirements currently in effect for
‘ D.C. Appropriations - FY 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-553, 6 632, 114 Stat. 2762,2762A-111 (2000).
2
See Creation of Low Power Radio Service, 15 FCC Rcd 19208 (2000).
I
full power commercial and NCE FM station^.^ Ln July 2001, the Commission selected
The Mitre Corporation ("Mitre") to conduct the required LPFM field tests and
experimental program, and to prepare a report containing the analyses required by the
Act.
11. THE MITRE STUDY AND REPORT
The scope of work for the LPFM field tests and experimental program required by
the Act and specified in the contract between the Commission and Mitre required Mitre
to:
Perform market research for the field tests and experimental program
0 Establish and manage the acquisition program for the field tests and experimental
program
0 Design the test plans and obtain the information required by the Act
0 Select and manage the field tests subcontractor
0 Prepare a final report on the field tests and experimental program to be submitted
to Congress
Due to budgetary constraints that became apparent at the conclusion of Mitre's

market research, the required LPFM field tests and experimental program were divided
into two phases. In Phase I, Mitre was required to take LPFM field strength
measurements and make high quality digital recordings, and to analyze the effect of third-
adjacent channel LPFM stations on the transition from analog to digital terrestrial radio.
Phase I1 of the LPFM field tests and experimental program would consist of audience
listener tests based on the Phase I digital recordings and an economic analysis of the
effect of third-adjacent channel LPFM stations on existing broadcasters.
Mitre completed Phase I of the LPFM field tests and experimental program and
delivered its final report to the Commission on June 2,2003. The Commission accepted
the Mitre Report and issued a Public Notice on July 11,2003, requesting public comment
on the Mitre r e ~ o r t . Originally,
~ comments were due on September 12,2003. However,
on August 8, 2003, two parties, National Public Radio ("NPR") and the International
Association of Audio Information Services (T4AIS"), jointly requested a 90-day
extension of time in which to prepare and submit comment^.^ On August 29,2003, the
Commission granted an extension of time until October 14,2003, for filing comments on
the Mitre report.6
See Creation ofLow Power Radio Service, 16 FCC Rcd 8026 (2001).
4
Public Notice, Comment Sought on The Mitre Corporation's Technical Report, "Experimental
Measurements of the Third-Adjacent Channel Impacts of Low Power FMStations," DA 03-2277 (rel. July
11,2003).
NFWIAAIS Motion for Further Extension of Time (filed Aug. 8,2003).
Order, DA 03-2767 (rel. Aug. 29,2003) (MM Docket No. 99-25).
I
The Mitre Report contains the following conclusions/recommendationsconcerning
LPFM stations and existing third-adjacent channel FM stations:
1. Reduction or elimination of existing third-adjacent channel LPFM minimum

distance separation requirements is possible without increasing the potential
for third-adjacent channel LPFM interference to existing stations.
2. Adoption of a more stringent third-adjacent channel LPFM emissions mask
would mitigate LPFM interference potential because most LPFM transmitters
achieve spurious emission suppression in excess of the current mask value.
3. Third-adjacent channel LPFM stations will have little or no effect on the
transition to terrestrial digital radio since third-adjacent channel LPFM
interference to digital receivers is unlikely to occur beyond 130 meters from
the LPFM transmitter.
4. Due to the lack of measurable interference produced by third-adjacent channel
LPFM stations during testing, the listener tests and economic analysis
scheduled for Phase I1 of the LPFM field tests and experimental program
should not be done.
111. ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED
Appendix A is a list of the twenty-four parties (including one untimely filer) that
submitted comments on the Mitre Report. Eighteen filers support elimination or
modification of the existing third-adjacent channel minimum distance separation
requirements for LPFM stations. Three support retention of the existing third-adjacent
channel minimum distance separation requirements. Ten individuals who favor
elimination of the current third-adjacent channel minimum distance separation
requirements reported that their local LPFM station is suffering co-channel interference
that could be eliminated if the station could change frequency to a third-adjacent channel.
They state that they value highly this station’s local community-oriented programming.
One supporter of the current distance separation restrictions contends that the additional
LPFM stations that could be authorized without third-adjacent channel protections could
have a negative cumulative interference impact on the FM service. Three parties support
retention of the existing third-adjacent channel minimum distance separation
requirements with respect to existing full-power FM stations providing Reading Services
for the Visually Impaired (RSVI) on FM sub-carriers, Four filers addressed the Mitre
Report recommendation to modify the third-adjacent channel emissions mask limits for
LPFM stations. Two of the four endorse and one opposes the Mitre proposal, and one
maintains that hrther study is required before a decision on the mask modification can be
made. No comments addressed the Mitre Report assessment of the effect of third-
adjacent channel LPFM stations on the transition to terrestrial digital radio.
3
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Existing third-adjacent minimum distance separation requirements between

LPFM stations and existing full-service FM stations and FM translator and booster
stations should be eliminated.
The Mitre Report states that, even in the worst case, no third-adjacent channel
interference between an LPFM station and an existing full-service FM station will exist
beyond a radius of 1.1 kilometers around the LPFM transmitter site. The Commission’s
technical studies similarly showed that LPFM stations do not pose a significant risk of
causing interference to existing full-service FM stations or FM translator and booster
stations operating on third-adjacent channels. If such interference were to occur, the
Commission would address it on a case-by-case basis using the third-adjacent channel
LFPM interference complaint and license modification procedures adopted in September
2000.7 Based on the Phase I testing results, the complaint and license modification
procedures should be sufficient to resolve any anomalous cases of third-adjacent channel
interference. Further, the Commission specifically requires an LPFM station to meet the
second-adjacent channel minimum distance separation requirement with respect to an FM
station providing radio reading services via subcarrier that is operating on a third-adjacent
channel. Based on these reasons, there appears to be no public interest reason to retain
third-adjacent minimum distance separation requirement for LPFM stations.’ Congress
should re-address this issue and modify the statute to eliminate the third-adjacent channel
distant separation requirements for LPFM stations.
2. Congress should re-evaluate the necessity of completing Phase I1 testing.
The results of Phase I testing call into question the necessity of completing
Phase 11. In Phase I, the Mitre field tests found that no 100-watt LPFM station
significantly degraded the reception of a full-service station at any distance greater than
126 meters from the LPFM transmitter. Also, with the exception of a single anomalous
result, no significant LPFM-related degradation to the reception of a full-service station
was identified at a distance greater than 333 meters from the LPFM transmitter, a test
result based on over 1,400 measurements. Mitre concluded that the expenditure of public
funds for listener tests and economic analysis would be unwarranted based on the de
minimis potential for actual third-adjacent channel LPFM interference to commercial and
NCE FM stations. We agree.
First, the Phase I testing showed a limited number of test points where
interference was detected. Spending additional money on listening tests would not
appear to add any substantive information because there was no significant interference
See 47 C.F.R. 5 73.810 and 5 73.827.
* See 47 C.F.R. 9 73.807(a)(2) and 5 73.807(b)(2).
4
detected. Next, the Commission’s experience with licensing LPFM stations shows there
has not been a great demand for licenses in rural areas. Thus, an adverse economic
impact on small market stations may not be realized. Additionally, even with
modification of the third-adjacent channel separations, there will not be many new LPFM
opportunities in most communities of any significant size. Further, nothing in the record
demonstrates that a limit on local radio competition is necessary to protect incumbent
broadcasters or that additional competition from noncommercial educational LPFM
stations would cause significant economic harm to full-power broadcasters. Finally, the
Commission estimates that an additional $800,000 would be required to complete Phase
I1 testing and analysis. In light of these reasons, we recommend that Congress re-assess
the need for listening tests and economic analyses.
Attachments:
Appendix A: List of Commentors on Mitre Report
Mitre Technical Report, Experimental Measurements of the Third-Adjacent-Channel
Impacts of Low-Power FM Stations (Volumes One and Two)
5
APPENDIX A
LIST OF COMMENTORS ON MITRE REPORT
1. Tim West
2. Gary W. Barnett
3. Fred E. and Ramona J. Morgan
4. Lois Crowe
5. Crystal McGarry
6. Fred Compton
7. David D. Petherbridge
8. John R. Smith
9. Will Satak
10. Richard Bennett
11. RFC Networks
12. Stephen G. Toner
13. Richard M. Wolcott
14. Paul Pfnister
15. JT Communications
16. Kyle Magrill & Barry Magrill
17. National Public Radio, Inc.
18. National Association of Broadcasters
19. Livingston Radio Company
20. Cox Radio, Inc.
21. Prometheus Radio Project; Media Access Project, National Lawyers Guild
Committee on Democratic Communications; Office of Communication, Inc.,
United Church of Christ; National Federation of Community Broadcasters; Future
of Music Coalition; and Free Press
22. Midwest Christian Media, Inc. and Three Sisters Wireless, Inc.
23. The Amherst Alliance
24. International Association of Audio Information Services (Late filing)
6
JOHN MCCAIN ARIZONA CHAIRMAN
TED STEVENS ALASKA
CONRAD BURNS MONTANA
ERNEST F HOLLIN
DANIEL K INOUYE
1
TRENT LOTT MISSISSIPPI
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TEXAS
OLYMPIA J SNOWE MAINE JOHN E BREAUX LOUISIANA . -* 4 -3 ’
S A M BROWNBACK KANSAS
GORDON SMITH OREGON
PETER G FITZGERALD ILLINOIS
JOHN ENSIGN NEVADA
BYRON L DORGAN NORTH C\AKOTA
RON WYDEN OREGON
BARBARA BOXER CALIFORNIA--***
BILL NELSON FLORIDA
*
* *’-- %itcif$tates senate
GEORGE ALLEN VIRGINIA
JOHN E SUNUNU NEW HAMPSHIRE
MARIA CANTWELL WASHINGTON
FRANK LAUTENBERG NEW JERSEY
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE,
AND TRANSPORTATION
JEANNE BUMPUS REPUBLICAN STAFF DIRECTOR A N D GENERAL COUNSEL
KEVIN D KAYES DEMOCRATIC STAFF DIRECTOR AND CHIEF COUNSEL
February 13,2004

Chairman
445 12” Street, sw
I have enclosed an inquiry that I received from Mr. William Carnett from Hereford, AZ on behalf
of the Amateur Radio Service which is encountering difficulties with private land use regulation of
amateur radio antennas.
When a matter such as this is raised by a petitioner, it is my policy to refer them to the
ap ropriate federal department or agency, regardless of whether the petitioner has any personal or
poEtical relationship with me. It is also my policy that I ask for no preferential treatment for this
petitioner or any single or select group of interests, nor do I advocate a specific outcome for this or any
other petitioner.
cf .r
I ask that this matter be handled in strict accordance with existing a enc rules, regulations, and
ethical guidelines. My sole interest is to ensure that this petitioner is treate fair y and equitably, and in a
manner that reflects appropriate and prompt service to citizen taxpayers.
I would appreciate a timely response to this petitioner addressing his concern, with a copy sent to
me for my information.
Let me reiterate that I am not advocating a specific result in this matter, and I trust that whatever
decision or course of action you may take will be made in the best interests of the country. Again, I seek
no preferential treatment for this petitioner, and request only that this petitioner be treated appropriately,
fairly, and in a timely manner.
Please send the copy tc the attention of Mark-Delich ,at the Senate Commerce Committee.
Sincerely,
f i C h a i John
m McCain
?
JMImd
Enclosure
Letter from William Carnett
www.senate.gov/-commerce
,
William G. Carnet
January 5,2004

Washington,D.C. 20515
SENT VIA FAX
Re: Congessional Assistame in FCC Matter
Dcar Senator McCain,
I
As a resident of Arizona and registered voter, 1 am writing u ask for your assistance in z
matter that is important to our Congressional District, as we as Arizona and the Nation.
In our Congressional District and Arizona, the Amat r Radio Service, provides
emergency communication where existing communicatio may be disrupted by flood,
brush and forest fire, earthquake, and other disasters. The merican National Red Cross,
Salvation Army, F'EMA and other groups have letters o agreement with our national
association, the American Radio Relay League (ARRL to cooperate when disaster
strikes. Both Congress and the FCC have repeatedly note the strong Federal interest in
promoting Amateur Radio communications (for example, please refer to P.L. 103-408
and P.L. 100-594.

ts are making the
ity offered by Amat growing numbercof
Because of c&n "boil urchase agreemcnts
gitimate license UT Radio operators
- are
e most unobtrur antenna, sometimes, evcn if
the antenna is completely hidden!
A couple of years ago the ARF& filed an Application 1 Review (RM-8763)with the
1
Federal Communications Commission requesting that 1 : FCC clarify its "reasonable

accommodation" policy rcgarding private land use gulation o f Amateur Radic
antennas. So far, the FCC has not acted favorably h .his matter. As one of you
constituenls who is an Amateur Radio licensee, I am questing your assistance and
intervention.

Hereford,Arizona 85615
520.803.6728
-- . .. - . . -. .... .- . . -. .. .- --. .. -. .
Here’s the reason we need your help: In 1985, the the interests uT town
land use authorities to maintain local zoning by re exercise ‘?reasonable
accommodalion” to requests h m Amatcur Radio home install some form of
antenna on their own property, thus acknowledging limit interest iu permitting
Amateur Radio licensees to set up antennas. 47 C.F.
The policy has been very successful ancl has steful yet effective
installations as towns and residents work tog
FCC has been reluctant to apply that same
The A R R L ’ s requests that the Cornmiss
repeatedly been denied.
The ARRL’s request is modest and does

only the homeowncr’s association make “masonable a
and not intrusive standard required of towns) for for Amateur Radio
homeowners in subdivisions. It &trudes far less on the au brity ofplanned Gommunities I
than do other Federal policies:governing tclecornmunica ns facilities, and recognizes
the legitimate concerns of homeowners associations.
Please contact m e if I can prohde morc information. Ah Steve Mansfield, the ARRL
Legislative Liaison can be an excellent resourcc for your re
Thank you for your consideration of this very importint icem to ‘our community and
state.
Respectfully,
William G.Carnett, D.O.

Amatcur Radio Call Sign: AH6FC/7
Hereford, Arizona 856 15
520.803.6728

Hereford, Arizona 856 15
520.803.6728
,.-- 8
I ,*i
*- " I .*
JOHN MCCAIN ARIZONA CHAIRMAN ! . .

TED STEVENS, ALASKA ERNEST F. HOLLINGS. SOUT~CAROLINA
CONRAD BURNS. MONTANA DANIEL K INOUYE. HAWAII
TRENT LOTT, MISSISSIPPI
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON. TEXAS
OLYMPIA J SNOWE, MAINE
SAM BROWNBACK, KANSAS
GORDON SMITH. OREGON
PETER G FITZGERALD ILLINOIS BARBARA BOXER CALIFORNIA"
JOHN ENSIGN NEVADA BILL NELSON FLORIDA '4,s-
GEORGE ALLEN VIRGINIA
JOHN E SUNUNU NEW HAMPSHIRE
MARIA CANTWELL WASHINGTON
FRANK LAUTENBERG NEW J E R ~ +
.
A- ~ - CohmVrrnEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE,
AND TRANSPORTATION
JEANNE BUMPUS, REPUBLICAN STAFF DIRECTOR AND GENERALCOUNSEL
KEVIN 0 KAYES, DEMOCRATIC STAFF DIRECTOR A N D CHIEF COUNSEL
February 13,2004

Chairman
445 lzthStreet, SW
Dear Chairman Powell.
I have enclosed an inquiry that received from Ir. Ken Jacobsen from Tempe, AZ who has
encountered problems attempting to port his wireless phone number.
When a matter such as this is raised by a petitioner, it is my policy to refer them to the appropriate
federal department or agency, regardless of whether the petitioner has any personal or political relationship
with me. It is also my policy that I ask for no preferential treatment for this petitioner or any single or select
group of interests, nor do I advocate a specific outcome for this or any other petitioner.
I ask that this matter be handled in strict accordance with existing agency rules, regulations, and
ethical guidelines. My sole interest is to ensure that this petitioner is treated fairly and equitably, and in a
I would appreciate a timely response to this petitioner addressing his concern, with a copy sent to
me for my information.
decision or course of action you may take will be made in the best interests of the country. Again, I seek no
preferential treatment for this petitioner, and request only that this petitioner be treated appropriately, fairly,
and in a timely manner.
Please send the copy to the attzntion of Mark Delich at the Senate Commerce Committee.
y pr(G Sincerely,
John McCain
Chairman
JM/mdEnclosure
Letter from Ken Jacobsen
www.senate.gov/-commerce
McCain. Senator (McCainl
From: ken jacobsen [ken@penart.com]

Sent: Thursday, December 11,2003 4:02 PM
To: McCain, Senator (McCain)
Subject: RE: Portingk cellphone, and Qwest's non-cornplaince
Hello,
I just emailed this to the FCC. It points out my failed attempt to port
my Qwest landline number to a Qwest cellphone. I believe Qwest is refusing
to follow FCC guidelines in order to make it impossible to port numbers away
from Qwest, even, in my case, from within Qwest.
I hope something can be done about this in the near future. I have no
doubt thousands of people are or will be having these same problems until
these companies comply with the law.
Thank you,
Ken Jacobsen
Hello,
I am a self employed artist and have a phone number in Minneapolis that
had been my primary business (as well as my home) number for 13 years, with
Qwest. When I moved to A2 I wanted to be able to keep that number via a
cellphone, since most of my work comes from Minneapolis. Qwest wouldn't
assign that number to a cellphone directly but allowed me to maintain it
separately as a "One Call Voice Mail" number, which rang my cellphone
whenever it was called. This has been the case for the past year, and it has
worked adequately, though it means I am paying for two phone numbers, a
non-existant "land line'' and the actual1 cellphone's. I've never used or
advertised the cellphone's actual assigned number in any way.
In light of the new law, I attempted to llportll
that number over to my
cellphone, thus saving on my phone bill and ending the need for an unused
phone number. Since November 28 I have spent nearly six hours on the phone
with Qwest in an unseccessful attempt to do this. In the process they
disconnected my phone number for five days. After that period of time I
discovered, after several hours on the phone, that, rather than having
ported my number, they had only cancelled my account for the celllphone's
number and nothing whatever was done to accomplish porting. When I was told,
after several more hours of attempts to port the number over several days,
that it would take at least another three days of ''this number is no longer
in servicel', I gave up and asked them to return to the original setup. By
this point I had no faith that the same procedure wouldn't happen again. I
was told by a Qwest representative that they did not foresee this process
taking any less time in the future.
I called Verizon to ask about switching to their service and I was told
that in any case Qwest takes at least seven days of "no longer in service"
to port to Verizon.
It is my understanding that the FCC intended porting to be a procedure
that takes 2 4 hours. I would like to point out that people who most need to
retain their old phone numbers, those who used it as a business number, are
the very people who are hurt most by excessive periods of time in which
callers are told that that number is "no longer in servicet1.There is no way
of knowing how many calls may have been lost in that situation, or the
damage that may be done to one's business.
I think it should be plain that this is a deliberate ploy by Qwest to
unfairly retain those who want to switch to another provider. Originally I
would have stayed with Qwest but it's clear to me that they not only don't
intend to make switches to other companies in anything like a timely manner,
but they are not prepared to make a switch from one Qwest number to another,
if it means the loss of a number. I don't have the time to spend another
five-six hours trying to port one Qwest number to another, nor do I want to
risk seven days of "no longer in service" messages being sent out to
potential clients. I have no choice but to stay with a company that not only
gives abysmal service but refuses to comply with FCC rules.
I understand that AT&T is making it just as difficult if not moreso to
port numbers away from their company.
The FCC is the only hope people like me have to see porting rights
enforced. PLEASE do something!
Thank you,
KEN JACOBSEN
720 E McKellips D127
Tempe AZ 85281
612 823 4662
480 945 0749
MAR 1 5 2008
Control No. 0400473MA

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Ken Jacobsen, regarding
the problems he is experiencing with attempting to port his Qwest landline number to his
Qwest cellular phone number.
On January 21, 2004, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed Qwest
Communications, Inc., to respond in writing concerning Mr. Jacobsen’s complaint, which
was previously submitted directly to the Commission by Mr. Jacobsen. Generally, a
company is afforded 30 days to respond to the complaint. Mr. Jacobsen should receive a
copy of the response that the company submits to the Commission.
Mr. Jacobsen 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. Jacobsen would need to include the complainant
tracking number 04-10080715 and the congressional tracking number indicated at the top of
this letter to facilitate a prompt response to his inquiry.
We appreciate your inquiry. If you have any further questions or require additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
% K. Dane Snowden
Chief
JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSELLSENATEOFFICEBUILDING
ARIZONA WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0303
(202) 224-2235
COMMl-EE O N COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 4450 SOUTH R U R A LROAD
COMMITTEE O N ARMED SERVICES

COMMITTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS
Wnited states senate SUITE 8-130
TEMPE,A 2 85282
1480) 897-6289
2400 EAST ARIZONA

BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 1 1 50
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
1602) 952-2410
W E S T PASEO REDONDO
February 12,2004 450
SUITE 200
TUCSON,A 2 85701
(520) 670-6334
TELEPHONE FOR HEARINGIMPAIRED

( 2 0 2 ) 224-7132
1602) 952-0170
Ms. Martha Johnston

Room 8-C432
Washington, DC 20554-000 1
Dear Ms. Johnston:
I wish to bring to your attention the matter concerning my constituent, John David Arnold,
Ph.D., who requests the status of the appeal filed with the Federal Communications Commission
regarding the loss of E-rate discounts provided by the Schools and Libraries Division of the
Universal Service Administrative Company. Please investigate, my constituent's claim, within
the existing rules, regulations and ethical guidelines, and provide me with the final decision.
MARK ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: GLORIA STEVENS

Suite 200
Sincerely,
r-3
P
I
I
'
IWtgs
i 'I. '
No
0
n
Enclosure(s)
RC RC
U U
Administration Offices
1840 E. Benson Highway Tucson, Arizona 85714
800.573.7737 520.294.6997 fax: 520.294.7738
email: charteradmin@ppep.org www.ppeptechs.org
Accredited through the Associationfor Performance-Based Accreditation

i
LEARNING CENTERS
February 5,2004
"Lito" Pena
12 East Western Avenue
Avondale, A2 85323
602.925.21 61
Manuel Bojorquez
203 Bisbee Road
Honorable John McCain
Bisbee, AZ 85603
520.432.5445
Alice 5. Paul
220 East Florence Boulevard RE: ERATE APPEAL TO FCC
Casa Grande. AZ 85222
520.836.6549
Coy Payne
670 North Arizona Avenue Dear Senator McCain:
Chandler, AZ 85225
480.857.1499
Raul H. Castro
As you know, we operate 13 PPEP TEC High Schools statewjde, servicing
530 12th Street at-risk students. Our efforts to reach out to the states' Hispanic, Native
Douglas, AZ 85607
520.364.4405 American, farmworker, and rural students has paid off as 1400 students
Cerar Chavez
have received a high school diploma. The key to our success has been
10455 West B Street
San Luis. AZ 85349
our use of computer technology to provide a self-paced curriculum. Our
520.627.8550 efforts were recently cited by a colleague of yours, Senator Mike Enzi,
Colin L. Powell who visited the PPEP TEC - Celestino Fernandez Learning Center in
41 16 Avenida Cochise. # F-H
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
South Tucson. (See attached Congressional Record citation)
520.458.8205
In order to pay for our computer technology, we use the E-rate discounts
Jose Yepez
115 North Columbia Avenue
provided by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal
Sornerton, AZ 85350
520 621 9648
Service Administrative Company (USAC). Last year, we were due to
receive an annual discount of $65,040 on our Internet connections.
Celestino Fernandez
1840 East Benson Highway However, because of a clerical error where only one month of service was
Tucson AZ 85714
520 889 8276
reported, we only received one month's discount of $5,420. This is a loss
of $59,620.
Jan Olson
8822 East Broadway
Tucson, AZ 85710
520 751 9330 We informed our SLD field representative, Mr. Noel O'Flannigan, of the
John David Arnold
error and were told that he could not make changes to our funding
4140WestInaRoad,#118&122 request. We submitted an appeal to USAC-SLD, which was subsequently
Tuaon. AZ 85741
520 519 8560 denied.
Victor Soltero
8230 East 22nd Street, # 100 105
Tucson, AZ 85710
Based on the denial of our request, we were then forced to appeal to the
520 290 9167 Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To date, the FCC states
Eugene Lopez that because of backlog, the status of our appeal is still in review.
658 Bisbee Avenue
WiIIcox. AZ 85643
520 384 2050
Gertha Brown-Hurd
School Board President
To lose $59,620 is devastating to any school district, even more so for
PPEP TEC High School because we service at-risk students in 13
communities statewide. Most of our schools are in rural communities.
We are requesting that your office inquire to the FCC regarding our
appeal. We have enclosed a copy of the documentation of the appeal we
submitted to the FCC for your review.
The students and faculty of all PPEP TEC High Schools will be most
appreciative of your assistance with this matter.
I John David Arnold, Ph.D.

1’
,/
CEO and Founder
Congressional Record of the U.S.Senate
Dated June 11,2001
S6044
The PRESIDING OFFICER, the Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. ENZl, Mr. President, we are debating education, and we are debating a new
direction in education.
States across the country have been making tremendous progress not only in
incorporating effective uses of technology in the classroom, but in preparing students to
pursue technical careers after graduation.
A good example of this is the PPEP TEC High School in Tucson, Arizona, which I
recently had a chance to visit. This school is part of a publicly financed statewide
system that provides an alternative educational program for students age 15 through 21
in grades 9-12. The school’s primary focus is on providing high academic standards
and technological training to the children of migrant and seasonal farmworkers in rural
Arizona and for at-risk students, high school dropouts, or students who work. Each
student is actively engaged in an individualized educational program that helps them
obtain a high school diploma, improve their job skills, and continue on the
postsecondary education.
Laptop computers and 1-800 numbers allow the children of migrant workers to
move frequently and still work with the same teachers. They submit their homework;
they get their grades by using the internet. Here is an effort to make sure that no child
is left behind.
Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming)

Chairman
Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
TRIBUTE TO PORTABLE PRACTICAL EDUCATION PREPARATION, INC. FOR

BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE FOR RURAL FARMWORKER AND HISPANIC
COMMUNITIES.
HON. ED PASTOR
OF ARIZONA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday,April 5, 2001
Mr. PASTOR. Mister Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Portable Practical Educational
Preparation, Inc. (PPEP), and its founder, Dr. John David Arnold, for bridging the digital divide in two
ways: 1) by bringing information technologies into under-served rural farmworker and Hispanic
communities, and 2) by providing the educational opportunity for at-risk and farmworker students to
obtain technology-based skills through PPEP’s 13charter high schools strategically placed in rural areas
and inner cities. Through these efforts, PPEP is not only removing barriers of educational and
economic inequity by successfully bringing the super information highway infrastructure to rural
communities, but also encouraging the use of that highway through education and training.
I applaud PPEP for its dedication to bringing information technologies to rural and small schools
in Arizona with the creation ofArizona Educational Network (AzEdNet). This secure network provides
an economical link between public and charter school sites and the Arizona Department of Education
for the state- required transfer of student data. The unique design of this network saves the taxpayers
of Arizona substantial funds while providing fast and secure bandwidth to remote rural areas. This
network provides online access to students while protecting them from online predators and
unwholesome sites by providing “best efforts” filtering software.
PPEP’s educational opportunities are made available through a school system of 13 charter schools.
To ensure academic excellence, PPEP has taken a leadership role in creating the Arizona Performance
Based Accreditation Program for charter schools. The Arizona Performance Based Accreditation
Program has been recognized by the State School Board Association, the Arizona Board of Regents,
and the National Office for Charter Schools. With its peer-review system for school accountability, is
now a national model for charter school accreditation. I n I998 PPEP was also instrumental in creating
the Arizona Regional Resource Center which provides technical support and online consultation for
charter schools. These developments have strengthened charter schools as an educational delivery
system and have improved the credibility of charter schools. Subsequently, the United States
Department of Education selected PPEP to operate the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) for
farmworkers through acharter high school. This is the first HEP in the nation funded through acharter
school.
Furthermore, PPEP has taken learning beyond the traditional classroom by using emerging
technologies to create the migrant farmworker Lap Top Project, “a virtual high school” with self-paced
curriculums that have provided the opportunity for some 6,000 rural, at-risk students to obtain
technology-based skills since 1996.
I salute this vision to carry rural people forward into the technical diversity of the 21“Century.
. b


Suite 200
A ” N : Gloria Stevens
RE: PPEP TEC High School

Tracking Number SLD 308245
Thank you for your letter of February 12,2004, regarding the appeal of PPEP
TEC High School (PPEP TEC) for funding under the schools and libraries universal
service mechanism (E-Rate). I recognize how important such E-Rate support is to
schools and libraries that want to provide access to telecommunications and information
technologies.
PPEP TEC’s appeal is logged into our appeals file as of May 23,2003. While I
cannot comment on the merits of the appeal while it is under review, I can assure you that
we will give full consideration to the arguments made in the appeal, and reach a decision
as quickly as possible. Once issued, a copy of the decision will be sent directly to PPEP
TEC.
Thank you for your interest in this program, and please contact me if you have
any additional questions at (202) 418-7400.
f
Narda ones
Deputy Chief
Telecommunications Access Policy Division
WASHINGTON. DC 20510-0303
ARIZONA
(202) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN
4450 SOUTH RURAL ROAD
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES Wnited senate SUITE 8-130
TEMPE, AZ 85282
(480) 897-6289
C O M M l n E E O N INDIAN AFFAIRS 2400 E A S TARIZONA

BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 11 50
PHOENIX, A Z 85016
(602) 952-2410
450 WEST PnsEo REDONOO

SUITE 200
TUCSON, A 2 85701
(520) 670-6334
TELEPHONEF O R HEARINGIMPAIRED
(202) 224-7132
February 19,2004
Director
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Edwin Nelson, who has encountered a
problem with keeping his antennas installed on the balcony of his living unit.
respond directly to Edwin Nelson.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
& *cLJohn McCain

JM/zrs
Enclosure
26 FEB 2004 RCUD

Edwin J.Nelson
2080 So. Irmwood Or: Apt.350
+ache .hctim, h . 8 5 2 2 0
Senator John Mc Cain

Washington, D.C.

I realize that you are a very busy man and receive many letters so I will keep this short and to the
Point.
About ten months ago, my wife and I sold our home and moved into an assisted living unit
Here in Apache Junction, Arizona. Before we moved in I informed the management that I was an
Amateur Radio operator and they told me that was no problem. We moved into a two bedroom
Apartment with an outside balcony. I installed two antennas on the balcony and did many tests
With the mainteoance department here to make sure tha? a y operatkg did not hterfere ~ t their h
Communication equipment.
An official kom Merrill Gardens headquarters in Seattle came to town and told the local management
To take down my antennas, which they did. Had I been told I could have installed my antennas
Without any damage to the building, as that was the excuse the Seattle official said was the reason
He had the antennas taken down.
Senator McCain if you or any of your staff have any ideas how I can get my antannas and continue
To enjoy my hobby of Amateur Radio I would appreciate hearing fiom you. I am sure you are familiar
With beloved Barry Goldwater and his many phone patches from servicemen overseas to their loved
Ones here in the states during the Vietnam crises. I served in the US Air Force as a radio technitian
In Italy and Romania during WW2. I am 80 and my wife is 75 and with our health problems it would
Be very difficult for us to move again.
Senator, thank you so much for your concern.
Respectfidly yours,
Cc:Merrill Gardens Management.

March 18,2004
In Reply Refer to:

0400583
Mr. Edwin J. Nelson

2080 South Ironwood Drive, Apt. 356
Apache Junction, Arizona 85220
Dear Mr. Nelson:
Thank you for your letter regarding the installation of an antenna for your amateur
station at your apartment, which Senator John McCain forwarded to us on February 19,
2004. Specifically, you state that prior to renting your apartment, the apartment
management company indicated that you could install an antenna for you amateur station
on the balcony of your apartment and that you did so. You also state that after the
antenna was installed, an official from the management company’s headquarters office
directed the local management staff to remove the antenna on the basis that it could cause
damage to the building, and that the antenna was removed. As a result of this action, you
request information concerning how you may obtain permission to re-install the antenna.
As an initial matter, while the Commission restricts actions by state or local

governmental entities that attempt to prohibit amateur radio operations, there is no similar
restriction on owners of private property such as an assisted living facility. In addition,
we note the terms and conditions under which you leased the apartment, including
representations from the apartment management company, are subject to state and local
laws concerning contracts and lease agreements, and that are not within the jurisdiction of
the Commission. Because the matter you inquiry about is subject to state and local laws,
it appears that the appropriate forum for you to challenge the actions of the apartment
management company is a local tribunal or other local forum.
Edwin J. Nelson Page 2
I trust this information is responsive to your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Scot Stone
Assistant Chief
Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division
cc: The Honorable John McCain

Washington, D.C. 205 10-0303
'3/25/04
I THU.. .17:09 FAX 2 0 2 326 3585 FEDERAL TRADE @I
001
I
L
Federal Trade Commission f3
To:
Facsimile Transmittal Sheet
4
Total number of page:
sent (induding this
cover sheet):
Sending Organization
From: Code:
0309
Congressional Relations Date:

Federal Trade Commission
Telephone: (202)326-21 95
Facsimile: (202)326-3585
Subject:
Note:
RECEIVED T I M E MAR, 25. 4:39PM P R I N T T I M E MAR, 254 4 : 4 1 P M

03/25/04 THU 17:lO FAX 2 0 2 3 2 6 3 5 8 5 FEDERAL TRADE @ 002
JOHN McCAlN
AIII2ONA
CM4lRMAN
COMMIYTEE ON COMMERCE.
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTAnoN
COMMllTEE O N ARMED SERVICES Snited Statps %mate
COMMITTEE ON INOIAN AFFAIRS
February 6,2004
Commissioner
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Dear Commissioner:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Robert Johnson who has encountered a
problem,
Beclluse the situation is under your jurisdiction, 1am respectfully rcferring this matter to you
for consideration. T f i l that this issue would be better addressed by you and request that you
respond directly to Robert Johnson.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John McCain
United Statcs Senator
JMluw
Enciostire
W W E O ON W<CVCLED P a R R
RECEIVED T I M E MAR, 25, 4:39PM P R I N T T I M E MAR, 25. 4:41PM

03/25/04 THU 17:lO FAX 2 0 2 3 2 6 3 5 8 5 FEDERAL TRADE @0I0 3
Robert 11- Johnson

432 W Calle de Caballos
Tempe, AZ 85284
Senator John McCain

4450 S Rural R o d
Suite R-130
Tempe, A2 85282
Re. AT &T
‘l’heHonorable Senator McCain:
I am a Chandler Firefighter, member OF IAFI: Local 493. You helped us with Northwest
Airline and we need your help again. Our Son Daniel Avery is in the la AD,2/6and did
you know that at Baghdad Airport MCT gives the soldiers FREE calls to home while AT
&T chargcs “an arm and a leg.”
My real complaint is that someone needs to look into AT &T’s penetration of the local
and long distance market here in AZ. We paid our bill, they misapplied it and THEN
even alter we disputed the bill, they turned our long distance off. Temp Crcdit Union is
in the process of getting us a copy of the cancelled check. My dad paid the disputed
amount. Now 1 want my money back and they are very mcooperative. Who can I
complain to at the FTC and on the statc level as wcll? My wife would love to tell the
story on king harassed by AT&T while our son has his life on the lint?in Baghdad!
I Thank you and God Bless we have you!
‘ Robert lohnson
Cc. Mr. David Dorman, CEO via Fax

Copies included.
RECEIVED T I M E MAR. 25, 4:39PM P R I N T T I M E MAR. 25, 4:41PM

03/25/04 THU 17:lO FAX 2 0 2 3 2 6 3 5 8 5 FEDERAL TRADE @0 I0 4
I Robert I-I. Johnson 111

432 W Calk de Caballos
~ Tempe,AZ 85284
480.598.9304
I Re. Billing Dispute - Local and b n g Distance / Shareholder
January 30,2004
Mr. David Dorman, CEO

AT&"
1 AT & T Way, Suite 412
Bedminster, NJ 07921
Dear Mr.Doman:
Your employees have topped Wednesday the 28fh!They cut offmy long
distance! AT&T solicited me to switch my local and long distance to them! We paid
$205.58 by check which cleared our credit union on January 14a. We continued to get
dunning letters and called and told everyone of our payment! On Jan. 28" a Manager
named Senna was told the check clearwl and it would take 5-7business days for our
credit Union to get the check and then T needed to mail it. BUT you cut me of€!
Your executive complaint area had no one to help me this morning and it could
take 2 business days for someone to call me.
My dad who worked for AT &T for 33 years paid the $205.58 by phone via his
credit card since he wanted to be involved.
I plan on complainingto the PTC, Senator John McGn and sending copics of all
of this to the board members. If I can make the meeting of shareholders I will.
Serma, an ATgtT Manager told me I do not understand non-American names, well my
wife is Mexican! I have Muslim,African, Asian neighbors. Let's not go the race way.
Our son is in Baghdad having mortars exploding over head so businesses like yours exist.
Once the Q05.58 is posted 1will pay our current charges by card by phone.
Once I have a copy of the cancelled check to show YOU misapplied it and have handled
this whole issue improperly we wish tu have h e service for the remainder of the year. I
also wish to be reimbursed for lost accounts today and for my cell phone usage as well.
The billing on the one account was to be $21,OOO, how can Someon6 fix that for me?
This is being faxed via a neighbor since I do not have long distance.
480.598.9304
Cell AT&T 602.467.8340
RECEIVED T I M E MAR. 25, 4 : 3 9 P M PRINT TIME MAR. 25, 4:41PM

03/25/04 THIJ 17:ll FAX 2 0 2 326 3 5 8 5 FEDERAL TRADE @IO05
Robert H.Johnson 111

432 W Cdle de Caballos
Tempe,AZ 85284
480.598.9304
-
Re. Billing Dispute Local awl Long Distance / Shareholder
January 28,2004
Mr. David Dorman, CEO

AT&T
295 N Maple Ave.
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1002
Dear Mr. Doman:

Let me start that I am a past employee. 1am a shareholder. My father retired from
AT&T after 33 years and is a shmholder. YOUoffa local and long distance service in
AZ. You cashed my check on January 14* and misapplied it and I am now gating
collection calls and letters.
Our son also struts his deployment today in Baghdad, znfantry! Why do 1tell you this,
because I was insulted by a manager (Sann) who told me I must not understand non-
American names! I have been to Basking Ridge, grew up in Union and my family is
from E m p e and they spoke impeccable English. But to be criticized about my
unders&nding ofnames is disgusting!
I am getting a copy of my cancelled check, h n t and back to prove YOU misapplied my
paynient. The continued calls are a violation of the FDCP Act, please have someone look
into it since you =e setting yourself up for a lawsuit, not by me,but it could be coming.
My account is in dispute through no error of mine.
I hope you can help me!
RECEIVED T I M E MAR, 25. 4:39PM P R I N T T I M E MAR. 25. 4:41PM

m
JON 8 2004
Mr. Robert Johnson

432 W. Calle de Caballos
Tempe, AZ 85284
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This letter is a follow up to our letter dated April 6, 2004, regarding your concerns
regarding a billing dispute you were having with AT&T.
On April 14, 2004, 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. Enclosed is a copy of the company’s response. In their response, AT&T
apologized for the poor customer service that you received and stated that your complaint was
resolved prior to receiving this complaint from the FCC. On March 11, 2004, AT&T added a
$25.00 bill credit for two months on your account. They also advised that they were able to
have the $205.58 payment reversed back to the credit card as you requested. Based on the
information provided, the Commission does not plan to take any further action with respect to
your complaint.
If you have any further questions or require additional information please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
t% K. Dane Snowden ‘I
Chief
Enclosure

Margaret R. Berry 412 Mt. Kernble Avenue
District Manager P.O. Box 1995
Morristown, NJ 07962
(908) 221-6400
April 26,2004

445 12th Street, SW
CYB - 523
Re: Robert Johnson

IC-04-BOO89761
Type (NOIC)
Notice of Informal Complaint dated April 14, 2004
Dear Analyst:
This is in response to the referenced Notice of Informal Complaint. In his letter to the Honorable
John McCain, US Senator, which was forwarded to the Commission, Mr. Johnson alleges AT&T
misapplied his payment. Mr. Johnson hrther alleges that he is dissatisfied with the poor customer
service he received fiom two AT&T employees that he spoke with.
AT&T’s investigation revealed that Mr. Johnson’s complaint was resolved prior to receiving the
FCC complaint. On January 30, Ms. Ramos spoke with Mr. Johnson and apologized for any
inconvenience this issue may have caused. Ms. Ramos advised Mr. Johnson that he would need to
provide proof of payment to AT&T in order for AT&T to investigate the payment claim.
Ms. Ramos advised Mr. Johnson, that since his father made payment of $205.00 over the phone
she would have the long distance restored. Mr. Johnson remained dissatisfied; however, he stated
that he would mail proof of payment to AT&T. On January 30, Ms. Ramos contacted the AT&T
Credit Management Center and spoke with Ms. Jerome. Ms. Jerome advised
Ms. Ramos that she placed a payment claim on the account and took the appropriate action to
restore the long distance service. On February 24, 2004 Mr. Johnson’s payment posted to the
account. Mr. Johnson’s check did not include an account number; therefore AT&T could not post
the payment to Mr. Johnson’s account. A copy of the check is included with this response.
On March 11, Mr. Johnson spoke with Ms. Ramos and stated that AT&T did not send him a letter
after his payment claim was resolved. Ms. Ramos explained to Mr. Johnson that he had provided
proof of payment and that the payment was located and applied to his account
February 24,2004.
IC-98-4753 1 -2- February 26, 1999
Ms. Ramos hrther explained to Mr. Johnson that AT&T would not have sent him a letter; as the
applied payment corrected the problem. Mr. Johnson stated that he received collections calls and
that he did not receive an apology. Ms. Ramos apologized to Mr. Johnson for any inconvenience
this issue may have caused. Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Ramos if she considered his issue resolved,
and Ms. Ramos stated that she did.
On March 11, Mr. Timmermans, an AT&T supervisor, spoke with Mr. Johnson, who stated that
Ms. Zimbro and Ms. Ramos gave him poor customer service. Mr. Timmermans apologized to Mr.
Johnson for the poor service. Mr. Timmermans added a $25.00 bill credit for two months on Mr.
Johnson’s account for customer satisfaction. Mr. Johnson was satisfied with the resolution.
On March 26, Mr. Chris Timmermans, spoke with Mrs. Johnson. Mr. Timmermans advised Mrs.
Johnson that he was able to have the $205.58 payment reversed back to the credit card as Mr.
Johnson requested. Mr. Timmermans advised Mrs. Johnson that the balance on the account was
$109.77 and that it was due on April 10,2004. Mrs. Johnson was satisfied with the resolution.
We trust this provides your office with the information required in this matter.
Sincerely,
Margaret R. Berry
District Manager
cc: Robert Johnson

Attachment (Check Payment)
Ida 582698
1’
APR 6 2004 Control No. 0400949/kah
Mr. Robert Johnson

432 W. Calle de Caballos
Tempe, AZ 85284
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for your letter addressed to Senator John McCain regarding a billing dispute
you are having with AT&T. Your letter has been forwarded to the Commission for our
review.
The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau has conducted a priority review of your
inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by you to AT&T and directed the
company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed AT&T to send you a
copy of the response that the company submits to the Commission. You may obtain
information regarding your 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). You
should mention your informal complaint number, 04-BOO89761, and the congressional tracking
number listed at the top of this letter to facilitate a prompt response to your inquiry.
The Commission seeks to inform consumers about their rights regarding common
carrier practices that may violate the Communications Act or other federal or state regulations.
Letters from consumers provide valuable information that is frequently used to develop or
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,
Tty K. Dane Snowden U

Chief
T
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004
The Honorable Joseph L. Liebennan

Ranking Member
Pursuant to Section 2 of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, please find
enclosed the Federal Communications Commission’s Report to Congress on improper payments.
Tim Peterson of the Commission’s Office of Managing Director at 202-418-1575 is

available to answer any questions that you might have concerning this report. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Ranking Member
U. S . House of Representatives
Tim Peterson of the Commission’s Office of Managing Director at 202-4 18-1575 is

Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Ranking Member

Sincerelv.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Ranking Member
3 1 1 Hart Senate Office Building
Dear Senator Byrd:

\
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Federa I Co mmunicat ions Co mmission
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004
The Honorable hchard B. Cheney

President
Dear President Cheney:
enclosed the Federal Communications Commission’s Report to Congress on improper payments,

Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 31,2004

Chairman

Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Chairwoman
Committee on Government Affairs

Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Fed era 1 C omrnu n ic at ion s Com mission
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Chairman

Sincerely,
\
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Ranking Member
2322 Raybum House Office Building

Sincerely,
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Chairman
S-146A The Capitol

Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Ranking Member

Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Chairman
United State Senate

Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Ranlung Member

Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice & the Judiciary

Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Chairman

Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 31,2004

Chairman

Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Ranlung Member
U. S . House of Representatives

Sincerely, n
\
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 31,2004

Chairman
Dear Chairman Wolf

-
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,‘2004
The Honorable C.W. (Bill) Young

Chairman

Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
March 3 1,2004

Speaker

Sincerely, A
-
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
445 12'h STREET, S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20554
March 31,2004
Report to Congress on Improper Payments
I. Introduction
In accordance with Section 2 of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 and
implementing guidance of the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) hereby submits this report that summarizes our
efforts to estimate and report on the amount of improper payments in each identifiable
program of the FCC. The report analyzes the programs of the FCC and its Reporting
components', the Universal Service Fund (USF), the Telecommunications Relay
Services Fund (TRS Fund), and North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANP
Administration) from an internal and external basis. By internal, we mean whether the
programs have appropriate internal controls in place to reduce the risk of improper
payments due to internal disbursement problems. By external, we mean whether the
programs are subject to fraud, waste, and abuse caused by external sources such as
program beneficiaries and service providers. The report indicates that all programs of the
FCC and its reporting components have been tested from a purely internal basis and
found not to have improper payments that would exceed 2.5% and $10 million. From an
external standpoint, however, due to reasons detailed in the report, the FCC is not yet in a
position currently to provide statistical conclusions concerning the rate of improper
payments in the USF Schools and Libraries and High Cost Support Programs. We detail
herein our efforts to audit these programs and to eliminate any potential cause of
improper payments due to external sources.
11. Program Inventory
We have analyzed the FCC and its Reporting Components and performed a program
inventory. As the result of our review, we have concluded that the FCC has eight
programs that must be analyzed for improper payments. These programs are detailed as
follows:
' For a discussion of the components that must be included in a federal reporting entity, see Federal
Accounting Standards Advisory Board, Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts No. 2, Entity
and Display (1 995).
A. Universal Service Fund (Five Programs)
The USF is a fund established by the FCC to implement the Congressional mandates
contained in Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. In section
254 of the Act, Congress instructed the Commission to establish support mechanisms
with the goal of ensuring the delivery of affordable telecommunications service to all
Americans, including consumers in high-cost areas, low-income consumers, eligible
schools and libraries, and rural health care providers? Section 254(d) of the Act requires
that “[elvery telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications
services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific,
predictable, and sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve and
advance universal ~ervice.”~This section also allows the Commission to require other
providers of interstate telecommunications to contribute “if the public interest so
requires.,,“
The Commission has designated the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)
as the entity responsible for administering the USF and its support mechanisms, including
billing contributors, collecting contributions to the universal service support mechanisms,
and disbursing universal service support funds. Presently, there are five distinct
programs within the USF which must be tested for improper payments. These are briefly
summarized as follows:
1. Schools and Libraries Program - This program, sometimes referred to as the

“E-rate Program” provides up to $2.25 billion per year so that schools and
libraries receive discounts on telecommunications services, access to the Internet,
and internal connections.
2. High Cost Support Program - This program currently provides Over $3 billion
of support to eligible telecommunications carriers who serve high cost areas,
typically rural areas.
3. Low Income Program - This program currently provides over $600 million to
support telecommunications carriers that provide low rates for local service to low
income individuals.
47 U.S.C. 0 254.
47 U.S.C. Q 254(d). See also 47 U.S.C.5 254(b)(4), ( 5 ) (Commission policy on universal service
shall be based, in part, on the principles that contributions should be equitable and nondiscriminatory, and
support mechanisms should be specific, predictable, and sufficient). The Commission adopted the
additional principle that federal support mechanisms should be competitively neutral, neither unfairly
advantaging nor disadvantaging particular service providers or technologies. Universal Service Order, 12
FCC Rcd at 8801-03, paras. 46-51.
47 U.S.C. Q 254(d).
2
4. Rural Health Care Program -This program currently provides over $ 3 0
million to rural health care providers so that they in effect pay the same rate for
telecommunications services and Internet access as urban health care providers.
5. USF Administrative Functions - These hnctions include normal payroll

functions and disbursements not directly associated with one of the four programs
noted above and amount to approximately $9.7 million.
B. Telecommunications Relay Service Fund
TRS is a telephone transmission service that allows people with hearing or speech
disabilities to access the telephone system. TRS facilities are equipped with special
equipment and staffed by communications assistants (CAS) who relay conversations
between people who use text telephones (TTYs) or other assistive devices and people
who use voice telephones. The TRS Fund is a shared funding mechanism for recovering
the costs involved in providing interstate TRS.’ All carriers providing interstate
telecommunications service are required to contribute a portion of their gross interstate
revenues to the TRS Fund.6 TRS providers receive payments from the Fund designed to
comp.ensatethem for the reasonable costs incurred in providing interstate TRS service.’
When the TRS Fund was established, the Commission appointed NECA to be the TRS
Fund Administrator for an interim two-year term beginning July 26, 1993 and ending
July 25, 1995.* NECA was subsequently reappointed for two four-year terms, the last
term ending on July 25,2003.’ This arrangement has been extended on a month-to-month
basis until the conclusion of a procurement process. The TRS Fund Administrator’s
responsibilities include collecting contributions from carriers, distributing funds to TRS
providers, and filing proposed payment formulas and revenue requirements with the
Commission.
It is anticipated that, for its fiscal year ending June 30, 2004, the TRS Fund will pay out
over $100 million in payments to eligible TRS providers.
47 C.F.R. 5 64.604(~)(4)(ii). Presently, on an interim basis, some intrastate TRS calls are also
covered by the Interstate TRS Fund.
Id. Q 64.604(~)(4)(iii)(A)-(B).
’ Id. Q 64.604(~)(4Xiii)(E).
See Telecommunications Relay Services, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC
Docket No. 90-571, Third Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5300,5300-01 (1993) (ThirdReport and Order).
See Appointment of the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund Administrator and
Composition of the TRS Advisory Council, CC Docket 90-571, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC
Rcd 10553 (1999); Appointment of the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund Administrator and
Composition of the TRS Advisory Council, CC Docket 90-571, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC
Rcd 7223 (1995).
3
C. Numbering Administration
In February 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 amending the
Act. Section 251(e) of the Act requires the Commission to create or designate one or
more impartial entities to administer telecommunications numbering and to make
numbers available on an equitable basis.” Section 251(e)(l) further states that the
Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the NANP that
pertain to the United States, but that nothing in section 251(e) shall preclude the
Commission from delegating to State commissions or other entities all or any portion of
such jurisdiction.’’ Section 25 l(e)(2) provides that the cost of establishing
telecommunications numbering administration arrangements shall be borne by all
telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis.
To date, the Commission has implemented its section 25 1(e) numbering administration
obligations by selecting a North American Numbering Plan Administrator (“NANPA”), a
Thousands-Block Number Pooling Administrator (“Pooling Administrator”), and a
Billing and Collection Agent (“B&C Agent”). The NANPA, presently NeuStar Inc.,
maintains the administrative number databases and processes applications for numbers.
The Pooling Administrator, also NeuStar, Inc., administers thousands-block number
pools by assigning, managing, forecasting, reporting, and processing data that will allow
service providers in areas designated for thousands-block number pooling to receive
telephone numbers in blocks of 1,000. The B&C Agent, currently NBANC, calculates,
assesses, bills, and collects payments for numbering administration functions and
distributes funds to the NANPA and the Pooling Administrator. The Commission is in the
process of soliciting bids for a contract for the B & C Agent. On February 26, 2003, the
current arrangement with NBANC was extended on a month-to-month basis until the
conclusion of a procurement process.
D. FCC’s Disbursement Systems

A final program to be reported on is the FCC’s own disbursement systems. This includes
disbursements made in the ordinary course of business as well as payroll distributions.
111. Identification of Program Risk

A. Overall Discussion of our Identification and Testing Process
The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) defines an improper payment as
“any payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount
(including overpayments and underpayments) under statutory, contractual,
administrative, or other legally applicable requirements; and includes any payment to an
~~
lo 47 U.S.C. 0 251(e).
’’ 47 U.S.C. 8 25 l(e)( 1).
4
ineligible recipient, any payment for services not received, and any payment that does not
account for credit for applicable discounts.”12 This broad definition has caused the FCC
to review our programs from an internal and external basis. By internal review we mean
whether the programs have followed internal control procedures so that overpayments,
double payments, and underpayments are eliminated or minimized. In other words,
internal review focuses solely on program disbursement. By external review, we have
reviewed our programs to determine whether the reason for the improper payment was
due to sources external to the programs and not directly the result of a breakdown or error
in internal controls. External sources of improper payments include fraud, waste, and
abuse perpetrated by program recipients and/or service providers as well as
misunderstanding or erroneous interpretation of program rules by program recipients
and/or service providers.
B. Internal Review
1. Summary of Ongoing Review
Before summarizing our specific review of improper payments, we would like to note the
level of ongoing review associated with each of our programs.
All USF programs are audited annually by independent auditors hired by the Universal
Service Administrative Company. As with any external financial audit, USAC’s auditor
reviews internal controls and may make recommendations to USAC in instances when
controls must be improved. In addition, the FCC requires USAC to undergo a separate
and annual agreed-upon procedures engagement that reviews internal controls at USAC
to determine whether USAC is administering the universal service support mechanisms
to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.13 Also, because the USF is a reporting component of
the FCC and included in the FCC’s consolidated financial statements, USF internal
controls are reviewed by the FCC’s external auditor and its Ofice of Inspector General in
conjunction with the financial statement audit. Finally, USAC has an internal audit group
that reports to the Audit Committee of USAC’s Board of Directors. The internal audit
group audits beneficiaries, recommends recoveries, reviews internal controls,
recommends changes in internal controls when necessary, and works in coordination with
the FCC’s Office of Inspector General as required. The totality of these reviews causes
USAC to monitor its internal controls on a regular basis to ensure that improper payments
are eliminated or minimized.
In addition, the USAC internal audit division (USAC IAD) performed an audit of the
USF Schools and Libraries Program disbursement data. Specifically, USAC IAD
examined the review and approval of transactions (from the issuance of the Funding
Commitment Decision Letter to the actual disbursement of funds). USAC also
performed a high-level review of the invoicing payment system to test the adequacy and
’* Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, P.L. 107-300,§ 2(d)(2).

l3
See 47 C.F.R.5 54.717.
5
effectiveness of vital edit checks to gain reasonable assurance on the reliability of this
system. The scope represented a statistical analysis of Schools and Libraries invoices
submitted for payment for Funding Years 2000 and 2001. The results of the analysis did
not note any audit findings or any erroneously disbursed amounts.
The TRS Fund and NANP Administration are also subject to several audit initiatives.
The TRS Fund and the Billing and Collections Agent for NANP Administration receive
an annuahexternal audit that involves reviews of the internal controls of the TRS Fund
Administrator and NANP Administration. Like the USF, the TRS Fund and NANP
Administration are also reporting components included in the financial statements of the
FCC. As part of the annual FCC audit, the TRS Fund and NANP Administration are
subject to review by the FCC’s external auditor and the FCC’s Office of Inspector
General. Finally, the TRS Fund Administrator has an internal audit staff that reviews
controls from time to time.
In addition to the reviews noted above, NANP Administration disbursements are mostly
made pursuant to contracts that have been competitively bid. Any non-recurring
disbursements must be reviewed and approved by the Commission in advance of
disbursement. All of these reviews insulate the NANP Administration program from
most risks associated with both internal and external improper payments.
The scope of the FCC’s consolidated financial statement audit includes a consideration of
disbursement systems and relating internal control of the FCC and its Reporting
Components. The FCC ’s auditors and the Office of Inspector General’s consideration
include any tests, as needed, to meet audit requirements. When appropriate, the auditor
makes recommendations for improvements. The FCC’s systems are subject to review by
the Office of Inspector General as well.
One final note with respect to internal reviews, the FCC’s balance sheet was audited in
FY 1999 and every year thereafter the FCC has had all of its financial statements audited.
Although the FCC has received comments from its auditors concerning internal controls,
these comments do not indicate that either the FCC’s or any of its Reporting
Components’ experience material problems due to overpayments or underpayments.
This is some indication that the FCC and its Reporting Components have had and
continue to have adequate and effective internal controls in place that reduce the risk of
improper payments due to internal causes.
2. Summary of Specifik Review
In order to make certain risk assessments as required by the IPIA, each of the FCC’s
programs were tested. The IPIA and OMB implementing guidance require agencies to
identifl programs and activities where the risk of erroneous payment is significant,
defined as annual erroneous payments exceeding both 2.5% of program payments and
$10 million. All USF programs were tested by USAC’s external auditor, the TRS Fund
was tested by the internal auditors of the TRS Fund Administrator, NANP Administration
was tested by the Billing and Collections Agent’s external auditor, and the FCC’s
disbursement systems were tested by its external audit firm. In each instance the auditors
and internal auditors selected a sample of transactions for FY2003 in order to make
6
statistical conclusions based on a 90% confidence level with 5% precision. The results of
testing are as follows:
Error Rate
USF Schools and Libraries Program 2.5%
USF High Cost Program ( 2.5%
USF Low Income Program ( 2.5%
USF Rural Health Care Program ( 2.5%
USF Administrative Functions ( 2.5%

TRS Fund ( 2.5%
NANP Administration ( 2.5%
FCC’s Disbursement System ( 2.5%
The above results are statistical evidence that the error rate for improper payments as the
result of internal actions is not exceptionally high and that the FCC and its Reporting
Components have adequate and effective internal controls in place to reduce the risk of
improper payments. But for the external risk associated with some of the FCC’s
programs, the FCC could conclude that none of the FCC’s specifically identifiable
programs have improper payments that exceed the threshold of 2.5% of program
payments and $10 million based on the specific testing described above
C. External Review - Programs Not Susceptible to Significant

Erroneous Payments
1. NANP Administration
Due to the fact that most of the disbursements are made to winners of competitive
bidding processes and that all other disbursements are reviewed and approved by the
Wireline Competition Bureau, there is almost no risk of improper payments from either
an internal or external standpoint. This further reduces the potential for improper
payments. Finally, the NANP Administration program only amounts to a fund of almost
$10 million. As a result, we have determined that NANP Administration is not a
program with estimated improper payments of 2.5% of program payments and $10
million.
7
2. FCC Disbursement Systems
The majority of disbursements (in excess of 60%) made by the FCC are payroll
distributions. The greatest risk of an external problem in payroll would be the fictitious
employee situation. Our testing of overall disbursement systems included testing to
determine whether there were any fictitious payees. That testing found no errors and
from a statistical standpoint it can be said that we are 90% confident with a precision of
5% that the error rate for external problems would be less than 2.5%.
A large portion of the balance of FCC disbursements are in the nature of rent and contract
payments. Rent is paid primarily to the General Services Administration. Most of the
other contract payments have been subjected to the competitive bidding process and to
further audits in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations. In addition, the FCC
has existing internal controls to monitor contractor performance and payment.
As a result, we do not believe that the FCC Disbursement Systems are subject to internal
and external risks that would cause the improper payments to exceed 2.5% of program
payments and $10 million. Accordingly, we have determined that the FCC’s
disbursement system is not a high risk program for the purposes of the IPIA.
3. USF Rural Health Care Program
Rural Health Care Providers that participate in the Rural Health Care Program are subject
to random compliance audits to ensure compliance with the certification requirements set
forth in FCC regulations [47 C.F.R. 3 54.619(c)] and with other applicable program
regulations. Such audits test whether the rural health care provider was eligible to
receive support, whether the rates charged comply with applicable tariffs, contracts and
regulations, and whether the services were installed and used for purposes allowed under
Federal Communications Commission’s rules.
Audit tests are conducted to achieve the following objectives:
0 To determine that appropriate control procedures and processes are

developed and implemented to ensure compliance with support
mechanism requirements;
0 A process is established to select the most cost effective alternative
when contracting with a telecommunications carrier, and in situations
where other than the most cost effective service provider was selected,
sufficient reasons were documented; and
0 To verify the existence and usage of the supported services.
The 2002 USAC audit plan included conducting audits at 18 beneficiaries out of a total of
almost 750. The beneficiaries audited were chosen at random primarily in the states
receiving the most rural health care support. The purpose of the audits was to provide a
8
general impression of program compliance; the audits were not designed to allow
statistical conclusions concerning compliance. Only one beneficiary audit resulted in an
audit finding. This finding involved errors in the completion of the Form 467 regarding
the start and stop dates of service as well as a duplicate submission. As a result of the
low error rate in audit reports and the emphasis on focusing audit resources on the
Schools’ and Libraries’ program, no Rural Health Care audits were conducted in 2003.
Although the level of past audit work does not allow us to make statistical conclusions
with respect to the error rate of improper payments due to external sources in the USF
Rural Health Care Program, the findings to date do not provide any evidence that the
level of improper payments exceeds 2.5% of program payments and $10 million. It
should be noted that total program expenditures in FY 2003 were $30 million.
Nevertheless, the FCC and USAC will remain vigilant and will continue to monitor the
USF Rural Health Care Program on both an internal and external basis. We anticipate
that USAC will continue to perform audits of beneficiaries of the USF Rural Health Care
Program. For the next several years, however, most audit resources will be applied to the
USF Schools and Libraries and High Cost Programs due to the need to develop more
information about those programs.
4. USF Low Income Program
Carriers that receive support under the USF Low Income Program are subject to audit
pursuant to 47 C.F.R. $ 54.707. The general objective of these audits is to determine that
the accountinghilling records used to complete the Lifeline and Linkup Worksheet (FCC
Form 497) and any other documentation used to calculate support is in compliance with
FCC rules.
0 Determine whether the carrier complies with eligibility requirements;

0 Determine whether the number of subscribers reported and support
provided for are accurate; and
0 Verify evidence of advertisement of the availability of low income support
in a manner designed to reach those likely to qualify for those discounts
for the period during which the carrier received the support for discounts.
Failure of a carrier with respect to any of these audited issues could result in an improper
payment fiom the USF Low Income Program.
In 2003, the USAC internal audit division completed ten audits. The purpose of the
audits was to provide a general impression of program compliance; the audits were not
designed to allow statistical conclusions concerning compliance. The audits noted a
minimal amount of exceptions for which USAC will seek recovery from the carriers
audited. Carriers did not retain a duplicate copy of the documentation used to calculate
Lifeline and Linkup customers for the periods under audit. Despite the fact that FCC
9
rules require carriers to maintain documentation support their Lifeline and Linkup
worksheets, many carriers had to re-produce the data to meet audit request.
Although the level of past audit work does not allow us to make statistical conclusions
with respect to the error rate of improper payments due to external sources in the USF
Low Income Program, the findings to date do not provide any evidence that the level of
improper payments exceeds 2.5% of program payments and $10 million. Nevertheless,
the FCC and USAC will remain vigilant and will continue to monitor the USF Low
Income Program on both an internal and external basis. We anticipate that USAC will
continue to perform audits of carriers receiving USF Low Income Program support. For
the next several years, however, most audit resources will be applied to the USF Schools
and Libraries and High Cost Programs due to the need to develop more information about
those programs.
5. USF Administrative Functions
The amount of funds expended for USF Administrative Functions is relatively low, $9.7
million, in comparison to the other USF programs. The majority of disbursements made
by the USF Administration Functions are payroll distributions. The greatest risk of an
external problem in payroll would be the fictitious employee situation. Our testing
included testing to determine whether there were any fictitious payees. That testing
found no errors and from a statistical standpoint it can be said that we are 90% confident
wjth a precision of 5% that the error rate for external problems would be less than 2.5%.
A large portion of the balance of USF Administrative Functions disbursements are in the
nature of rent and contract payments. The USF has existing internal controls to monitor
disbursements.
As a result, we do not believe that the USF Administrative Functions are subject to
internal and external risks that would cause the improper payments to exceed 2.5% of
program payments and $10 million. Accordingly, we have determined that the USF
Administrative Functions is not a high risk program for the purposes of the IPIA.
6. TRSFund
Due in part to the fact that only 11 companies are TRS providers eligible to receive
reimbursement through the TRS Fund, the TRS Fund is generally considered a program
that does not entail risk of significant erroneous payments. There has been at least one
instance of potential fraud, waste, and abuse. On June 19,2002, the FCC issued an Order
to Show Cause and a Notice of Apparent Liability to Publix Network Corporation and
affiliates (Publix). Publix was accused of unlawfblly obtaining over $6 million in
payments from the TRS Fund by means of a scheme to create the appearance that Publix
was operating a legitimate telecommunications relay service. Despite this instance, we
do not believe that the level of fraud, waste, and abuse in the TRS Fund is pervasive and
would exceed 2.5% of program payments and $10 million.
In order to attack the problem of improper payments from external sources, the TRS
Fund Administrator has done or will do the following things:
10
0 Added staff to focus on data analysis and annual provider reviews;
0 Perform very detailed analysis of provider projected cost and demand data
submitted to develop provider reimbursement rates, fund size and carrier
contribution factor;
0 Review actual cost and demand data of at least 50% of companies providing relay
service;
0 Review new providers after one year of fimd reimbursement;
Randomly select providers, on a monthly basis, to submit detailed minute support

data and review of the data the data submitted;
0 Continue annual audit of fund by external auditors.
In short, the FCC and the TRS Fund Administrator will remain vigilant and will continue
to monitor the TRS Fund.
D. External Review - Programs under Risk Review

1. USF Schools and Libraries Program
Due to the large number of program recipients and a limited amount of audit resources,
the FCC and USAC have not audited to the extent that we would be in a position to make
a statistical conclusion concerning the error rate of improper payments as the result of
external causes in the USF Schools and Libraries Program. Out of an abundance of
caution and based on the audit reports to date, we are deploying significant resources to
assess the risk that the USF Schools and Libraries Program may be susceptible to
erroneous payments that exceeds the IPIA and OMB thresholds of 2.5% of program
payments and $10 million. In the paragraphs that follow, we outline some of the audits
and their findings. We also summarize some of the remedial procedures that have been
implemented to deal with the potential for improper payments due to external causes. As
we subject the program to more audit scrutiny, we intend to develop measures to estimate
the actual level of erroneous payments.
Schools, libraries, and service providers that participate in the Schools and Libraries
Programs are subject to compliance audits to ensure compliance with the certification
requirements set forth in FCC regulations [47C.F.R. 0 54.516(c)] and with other
applicable program regulations. Such audits test whether the applicants were eligible to
receive support, whether the services provided and for which discounts were paid were
eligible, whether the discounts paid were appropriate, and whether the services were
installed and used for purposes allowed under the rules.
11
To gain a detailed understanding of the applicant’s process for preparing

and reviewing schools and libraries support mechanism compliance;
To determine that eligibility requirements are met;
To ensure the basis by which the discount percentage was calculated is
proper;
To determine that the applicant has an approved service;
To determine that applicant has the resources necessary to make effective
use of E-rate discounts including the ability to pay the non-discounted cost
of services for which discount funding has been provided;
To determine that a contract for E-rate funded equipmentlserviceis
properly and timely executed;
To determine whether products/services obtained are used for the purpose
for which funding has been provided as certified on the applicant’s
application; and
To ensure payments to the applicant via the Billed Entity Applicant
Reimbursement (BEAR) Form 472 or to the service provider via Service
Provider Invoice (SPI) Form 474 are made in accordance with program
rules.
Audits of schools, libraries, and service providers who participate in the USF Schools and
Libraries Program are performed by USAC’s IAD, the FCC Office of Inspector General,
and outside auditors, currently KPMG. In 2003, 89 randomly selected audits were
finalized covering over $263,070,650 in disbursements and noting $3,023,646 in amounts
requiring recovery. The USAC IAD staff completed 27 of the 89 audits. USAC is
currently seeking recovery for the amount stated above.
In January 2003, KPMG LLP initiated an agreed-upon procedures review of 79

beneficiaries of the USF Schools and Libraries Program for Funding Year 2000, and as of
January 2004, 62 of the 79 audits have been completed. The FCC Office of Inspector
General (OIG) developed and both OIG and USAC approved the audit procedures. OIG
selected the sample, which encompassed a random cross section of beneficiaries. OIG
has contracted with the accounting firm of Grant Thornton to assist it in reviewing these
audit reports. The objective of this body of audits was to draw general inferences on
compliance with program rules by the beneficiaries of the USF Schools and Libraries
Program. The audit reports also included numerous findings of non-compliance with
USAC implementing procedures. The rules governing USAC’s administration of all
universal service programs are found in Part 54 of the Commission’s rules. Under
Commission staff oversight, USAC has implemented numerous policies and procedures
to administer the E-rate program. In some cases, the Commission has expressly
endorsed specific USAC operating procedures in Commission orders; in other cases, the
Commission has formally codified USAC procedures into its rules; in other cases USAC
procedures have not been formally adopted as rules by the FCC. The Commission has
12
sought comment in an open rulemaking docket on whether it should adopt rules or
procedures for recovery of funds disbursed in violation of one or more programmatic
procedures. It has also sought comment on whether to extend or modify its current
recovery procedures, and whether it should adopt rules or procedures to defer action on
any pending funding request when the beneficiary is subject to an outstanding recovery
action.l4
Since Funding Year 2000, USAC has made improvements to program forms, increased
outreach opportunities for applicants and service providers, strengthened internal
controls, and increased scrutiny of applications and invoices in a continuing effort to
assure compliance with program rules and to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. The
FCC and USAC will review carefully the findings in these latest audits. Additional
measures, such as further strengthened internal controls and application scrutiny, will be
implemented as necessary to reduce the likelihood of finher occurrences of the same
types of findings.
OfJice of Inspector General - On January 29, 2003, a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) was executed among the Office of Inspector General, USAC, and the Department
of the Interior (DOI) OIG. This MOU is for audits of schools and libraries h d e d by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and other universal service support beneficiaries under the audit
cognizance of DO1 OIG. Under the agreement, auditors from the Department of the
Interior will conduct audits of beneficiaries identified by USAC and the FCC OIG. In
addition to audits of schools and libraries, the agreement allows for the DO1 OIG to
consider requests for investigative support on a case-by-case basis. In February 2003,
OIG provided a 2-day training class for Department of the Interior auditors and provided
subsequent training to DO1 auditors and investigators during March 2003. Currently, two
of the eight FY 2003 audits initiated by DO1 have been reviewed and finalized.
OIG has had numerous meetings with representatives from the Department of Education
(DOE) Office of Inspector General to discuss areas of mutual interest including audits
and investigations of recipients of E-rate and federal education funding. In April 2003,
the DOE OIG initiated an audit of the use of federal education finding to purchase
equipment to make effective use of internal connections and Internet connectivity
h d i n g by E-rate at a large recipient. OIG provided support to this audit.
In March 2003, OIG signed a contract with a public accounting firm to provide audit
support services for USF oversight to the OIG. The first task order that OIG established
under this contract was for the performance of those procedures necessary to determine
the degree to which OIG can rely on the results of audit work performed under USAC’s
contract with a public accounting firm.The OIG review team is currently completing the
task to verify that work was performed in accordance with the AICPA and GAGAS
standards.
l4
Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, Third Report and Order and Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 03-323, - FCC Rcd-, paras. 81 & 84 (rel. Dec. 23,
2003).
13
In addition to conducting audits, OIG currently provides audit support to a number of
investigations of E-rate recipients and service providers. OIG’s level of involvement in
investigations ranges from tracking and monitoring cases that are being investigated by
state and local law enforcement to actively providing audit support to the FBI and
Department of Justice (DOJ) investigators in the form of reviewing documents,
conducting analyses, participating in interviews, analyzing evidence, and performing
audit procedures in support of the investigation. OIG is actively supporting twenty-four
(24) investigations and monitoring an additional fifteen (1 5) investigations. Allegations
being investigated in these cases include the following:
Procurement fraud - lack of a competitive process and bid rigging;

False Claims - Service Providers billing for goods and
services not provided;
False Statements by Applicants and Service Providers;
Ineligible items being funded; and
Beneficiaries not paying the local portion of the costs resulting in inflated costs
for goods and services to the program and potential kickback issues.
OIG also entered into a formal working relationship with the Governmental Fraud Unit of
the FBI. In addition, OIG established a working relationship with the Antitrust Division
of DOJ. The Antitrust Division has formed a task force to conduct USF investigations
comprised of attorneys in each of the Antitrust Division’s seven (7) field offices and the
National Criminal Office.
2. USF High Cost Support Program

The USF High Cost Support Program currently exceeds $3 billion. Out of an abundance
of caution and based on the audit reports to date, we are deploying significant resources
to assess the risk that the USF High Cost Support Program may be susceptible to
erroneous payments that exceed the IPIA and OMB of 2.5% of program payments and
$10 million. In the paragraphs that follow, we outline some of the past audits and their
findings. We also summarize some of the remedial procedures that have been
implemented to deal with the problem of improper payments due to external causes. It is
possible that, as we subject the program to more audit scrutiny, we may be able to
determine that the program does not present a risk of significant erroneous payments. As
we subject this program to more audit scrutiny, we intend to develop measures to
estimate the actual level of erroneous payments.
Carriers that receive support under the USF High Cost Support Program are subject to
audit pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 6 54.707. Such audits test whether the carriers were eligible
to receive support and to determine whether line counts and cost and expense data
reported by carriers are accurate and appropriate in accordance with their Eligible
Telecommunications Carrier designation. The beneficiary audits are now focusing on all
support mechanisms within the USF High Cost Support Program.
14
i
0 Determine whether the carrier complies with eligibility requirements;
Determine if the line counts reported are accurate (apply to High Cost
Loop, High Cost Model, Interstate Access, and Competitive Local
Exchange Carrier);
0 If applicable, perform a verification of the data provided on the Local
Switching form;
0 If applicable, perform a verification of the data submitted to obtain
Interstate Access Support (IAS); and
0 If applicable, perform a verification of the data submitted to obtain
Interstate Common Line Support (ICLS).
The USAC IAD has completed three High Cost beneficiary audits, and many of the
findings noted in these audits resulted with USAC seeking policy clarification from the
FCC on the issues of documentation requirements and wire center maps. None of the
beneficiary audits have resulted with USAC seeking recovery from the carriers because
of the necessary policy guidance.
The USAC IAD is also in the process of completing an operational audit of USF High
Cost Support Program contractors to ensure that procedures and controls are adequate
and performed in accordance with the FCC’s rules.
USAC’s FY 2004 audit plan include audits of at least 18 carriers receiving USF High
Cost Program support. USAC intends to randomly select carriers to be audited; the
selected carriers, however, should be representative of the entire population of carriers
receiving High Cost support. In addition, the FY 2004 audits of USF High Cost Program
recipients should provide a general impression of program compliance with all support
mechanisms within the USF High Cost Program. The FCC and USAC will review
carehlly the findings in these audits. Additional measures, such as strengthened internal
controls, will be implemented as necessary to reduce the likelihood of program non-
compliance.
IV. Causes of Improper Payments in USF Programs and Actions Taken to Reduce
Improper Payments
A. USF Schools and Libraries Program
1. Causes of Improper Payments
As the result of audits conducted up to the date of this report, the following are some of
the general causes of improper payments in the USF Schools and Libraries Program.
Although the auditors noted these audit findings, some are not specific rule violations but
instead represent non-compliance with USAC implementing procedures that have not
15
been formally adopted by the Commission. As noted above, the Commission has sought
comment in an open rulemaking docket on whether it should adopt rules or procedures
for recovery of funds disbursed in violation of one or more programmatic procedures. It
also has sought comment on whether to extend or modify its current recovery procedures,
and whether it should adopt rules or procedures to defer action on any YFnding funding
request when the beneficiary is subject to an outstanding recovery action.
Invoice Documentation and Payment: The auditors experienced

difficulty with obtaining invoices from applicants because other divisions
or units retained invoice copies. Also, when invoices were available they
often lacked sufficient detail for the auditor to conduct audit test work.
Some applicants did not have proper controls in place to reconcile
invoices, and as a result, they sometimes seek reimbursement for amounts
over the committed amounts although amounts over the committed
amount were not paid. Lastly, some applicants did not pay their required
share for goods and services.
Services: Services requested by schools and libraries were sometimes not

delivered or installed.
Technology Plan: Applicants often did not monitor progress toward

achieving the goals identified in its technology plan; the plan did not
contain all required parts as delineated on the Schools and Libraries
website; the plan was not approved andor approval letter was not made
available; the same entity developed and approved the plan; and the
Receipt of Service Confirmation Form (FCC Form 486) was submitted
before the date of approval of the plan letter.
Competitive Bidding: Some applicants did not retain or did not have
available copies of contracts, or applicants could not produce
documentation of the competitive bidding process used to select service
provider(s). In addition, some investigations that commenced as the result
of telephone calls to USAC’s Whistle Blower Hot Line have indicated
competitive bidding improprieties.
Other: Other noted problems include lack of support for discount

percentage claimed; discount percentage -was overstated; unapproved
methodology for calculating discount percentage; equipment was missing,
ineligible, or not operational; lack of contract copies; and the late payment
of the beneficiaries share of the cost of service net of the applicable
discount.
’’ Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, Third Report and Order and Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 03-323, - FCC Rcd-, paras. 81 & 84 (rel. Dec. 23,
2003).
16
2. Actions Taken to Reduce Improper Payments
In addition to regular reviews by the USAC Internal Audit Division, there have been two
large-scale reviews of USAC’s invoice review procedures. The first was the General
Accounting Office’s (GAO) audit of the USF Schools and Libraries Program application
and invoice review procedures (which focused primarily on application review). This
audit report was issued in December 2000. With regard to USAC’s invoice review
procedures, GAO found that there was a vulnerability to errors because USAC did not do
enough to verify how and where committed funds were actually being spent prior to
disbursing funds. USAC convened an internal task force to address the GAO findings
and implemented a number of recommendations resulting from the task force.
USAC initiated the second review of the USF Schools and Libraries Program invoice
review procedures, which was performed by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). In its
report (issued February 2001)’ PwC made a number of recommendations to strengthen
the invoice review and payment process. In response to those recommendations, USAC
instituted several new procedures, including the following:
0 USAC targets and reviews invoices that are at high risk for requesting
payment for ineligible goods and services to ensure that USAC does not
disburse funds for ineligible goods and services.
0 USAC implemented a variety of system enhancements that have streamlined

the invoice review process, and the system ensures that documentation is kept
in a single data system and Invoice Review Team members use a customer-
tracking tool that documents communications between the reviewer and the
party who submitted the invoice.
0 USAC revised the service check procedures to require that the customer
certify receipt of services and that the customer’s bill be obtained and
reviewed. This review includes verification of services delivered with the
services approved.
0 USAC increased the number of manual reviews that it performs: 65% of

dollars requested were subjected to manual reviews during 2002. The number
of service checks performed has also increased significantly.
0 USAC formalized the invoicing “on watch” procedures.
USAC has also instituted a number of other measures to ensure that disbursements are
made in compliance with program rules. In particular, USAC’s “Dunning Procedures”
are used when USAC receives a complaint that a service provider has not remitted Billed
Entity Applicant Reimbursement (BEAR) funds to the applicant. USAC’s “Good
Samaritan” procedures are used when a service provider refuses, or is unable, to sign a
BEAR Form. USAC has also instituted procedures to ensure that appropriate action can
17
be taken to protect BEAR funds from becoming part of any bankruptcy estate. Finally,
PIA procedures require that allegations made in whistleblower calls regarding invoicing
issues be referred to a team of specially trained investigators for resolution.
As a result of USAC’s experience in administering the program, USAC has also

identified additional criteria that are used to select Service Provider Invoice (SPI) or
BEAR for detailed review. These criteria focus on areas of high risk and, as a result,
subject these SPIs or BEARs to detailed reviews before authorizing funds to be paid.
Because internal connections services are considered to involve more risk than
telecommunications services and Internet access services, USAC uses sliding criteria to
identify the SPIs and BEARs that need to be targeted for review.
USAC will continue to review internal control procedures for the USF Schools and
Libraries Program. In the coming months, USAC will carefilly review the findings of
the KPMG beneficiary audits and implement changes to internal controls when
appropriate.
The FCC’s OIG actions to reduce improper payments have been previously summarized
above in the discussion of its audit efforts.
The FCC and USAC have recently met with the Department of Education to determine
ways of interagency cooperation designed to reduce improper payments. A topic of
discussion was how the agencies could share data with respect to high risk schools that
would lead to internal control tightening for the USF Schools and Libraries Program.
These discussions are in the very preliminary stages but it is hoped the agencies may
work together to help strengthen the program.
Finally, the FCC and USAC will work to establish an audit program of the USF Schools
and Libraries Program that will provide statistical conclusions concerning the error rate
due to external causes. Due to the level of audit work required and the fact that the FCC
and USAC have not fully analyzed the results of the most recent KPMG audits, it is
anticipated that this audit program will not be concluded by FY 2004. Work will be
initiated in FY 2004 and continue through FY 2005.
B. USF High Cost Support Program

1. Potential Causes of Improper Payments
The level of audit work completed as of the date of this Report does not provide
sufficientjustification for determining the causes of any improper payments. Among the
potential causes of improper payments are non-compliance of carriers with the eligibility
requirements of the program; improper submission of cost and line count data by carriers;
and lack of reviews, approvals, and data validation by program contractors.
2. Actions Taken to Reduce Improper Payments
18
The USAC Internal Audit Division will continue to monitor internal controls for the USF
High Cost Support Program. In addition, more audits of high cost beneficiaries will be
scheduled. As those audits are concluded, the FCC and USAC will be in a better position
to estimate the overall error rate in the USF High Cost Support Program. Internal
controls changes will be implemented when appropriate.
The FCC's Office of Inspector General is conducting survey work concerning the USF
High Cost Support Program in order to obtain information and an understanding of the
program. OIG's efforts will lead to the establishment of an audit plan designed to test the
program.
In addition, the Enforcement Bureau's Investigations and Hearings Division is
committing significant resources to determine carrier compliance with the requirements
of the FCC's rules pertaining to the Universal Service Fund, including the USF High Cost
Support program. The Division is currently auditing five carriers that receive support
from the USF High Cost Support Program. The audits will evaluate whether the carriers
are complying with the Commission's high cost rules and receiving the appropriate
amount of high cost support. The carriers subject to these audits were randomly selected
from a group of carriers that received high cost loop support. In the future, the Division
may pursue additional audits of other carriers, including carriers that are identified by the
FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau and USAC.
Finally, the FCC and USAC will work to establish an audit program of the USF High
Cost Support Program that will provide statistical conclusions concerning the error rate
due to external causes. Due to the level of audit work required, work will be initiated in
FY 2004 and will continue through FY 2005.
V. Information Systems and Infrastructure to Reduce Improper Payments
As noted earlier in this report, the FCC and its reporting components do not experience a
high rate of improper payments due to internal causes. As a result, we believe that the
FCC and reporting components possess information systems and infrastructure that are
sufficient, when combined with effective adequate internal control procedures, to reduce
improper payments that are the result of internal causes. It is the potential external causes
of improper payments in the USF Schools and Libraries and High Cost Support Program
that must be dealt with. We believe that no further information systems or infrastructure
are necessary to eliminate potential external causes; what is needed are deterrence efforts
that will result from such things as heightened audit efforts.
VI. Requested Budget Resources for Information Systems and Infrastructure
We have made no further requests in our budget submission for information systems and
infrastructure. In light of our answer in V. above, we do not believe these types of
19
resources are needed to reduce the FCC’s and its reporting components’ improper
payments.
VII. Description of Steps Taken to Ensure Accountability by the FCC’s Managers
The USF Schools and Libraries and High Cost Support Program have been the subject of
much public, congressional, and internal scrutiny. The Schools and Libraries Program
has been reviewed several times by the GAO, has been the topic of many congressional
hearings and document requests, and has been audited in many aspects by numerous
internal and external audits. The level of scrutiny has led the FCC and USAC to be
extremely aware of the programs and how the programs can be overseen and improved.
The efforts to improve the program do not come fiom one particular source; the efforts
are driven by the combined efforts of many organizations within the FCC. These include
those groups responsible for policymaking, internal audit, and accounting and finance.
More specific actions associated with each group are detailed as follows:
A. Wireline Competition Bureau

The Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) develops and recommends policy goals,
objectives, programs, and plans for the Commission on matters concerning wireline
telecommunications. WCB is also responsible for policy recommendations concerning
the Universal Service Fund and implementation of Section 254 of the Communications
Act of 1934. In addition, WCB, working with other Bureaus and Offices, provides
Commission oversight over funds used to support universal service and numbering
resources.
WCB oversees the administration of the universal service support mechanisms, including
the day-to-day operations of USAC. Although the FCC appointed USAC as permanent
administrator, the FCC remains the ultimate authority on all universal service issues and
USAC may act only in accordance with FCC rules and procedures. In this regard, WCB
staff has weekly, and often daily, contact with USAC regarding the operation of all four
support mechanisms. This oversight of USAC includes:
Addressing questions concerning bankruptcy by service providers and providing

input to the Office of General Counsel on bankruptcy settlement proposals.
Providing guidance on existing FCC precedent addressing eligibility of
applicants, service providers, and services.
Approving procedures for recovering erroneously disbursed or committed funds.
Addressing issues relating to the opening and closing of the funding cycle.
Overseeing training of enforcement officials on program procedures and
requirements.
Coordinating referral of enforcement actions against carriers who are refusing to
pay contributions and carriers who have been identified in beneficiary audits as
being non-compliant.
20
Reviewing and approving changes to FCC forms involving universal service.
Approving procedures for implementing FCC rule changes, e.g., Interstate
Common Line Support.
Obtaining information relating to investigations by USAC and its fraud
investigators.
In addition to ongoing oversight of USAC’s operations, WCB initiates and implements

FCC policies and procedures relating to universal service through rulemakings,
adjudications, and waiver petitions. For example, in connection with the administration
of the USF Schools and Libraries Program, the FCC recently released a Report and Order
addressing policy concerns in the USF Schools and Libraries Program and a Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking specifically seeking comment on its oversight functions.
This Further Notice solicited input from stakeholders (e.g., applicants, service providers,
state and local government officials, associations) to determine the best way to improve
such functions. We expect one or more orders adopting improved oversight procedures
will be released in FY 2004. WCB also will continue to handle all requests ‘forreview of
decisions issued by USAC.
During FY 2003, the Commission hosted a forum, facilitated by Commissioner Kathleen

Q. Abernathy, regarding the schools and libraries support mechanism. This forum
convened a group of school administrators, service providers, equipment vendors, and
other key parties to explore new means of ensuring that funds are disbursed in a fair,
efficient, and cost-efficient manner.
WCB also oversees the annual audit of USAC conducted pursuant to Part 54 of the
FCC’s rules (554.717). This audit is conducted annually by an independent auditor to
examine USAC’s operations and books of account to determine whether USAC is
properly administering the support mechanisms and has systems in place to prevent
waste, fraud, and abuse. USAC management develops the audit plan, which consists of
an Agreed-Upon-Procedures (AUP) audit and a financial statement audit. The AUP audit
addresses all of USAC’s internal procedures relating to billing, collection, and
disbursement of universal service fimds for all four support mechanisms. The financial
statement audit addresses USAC’s books of accounts, including for example, but not
limited to, administrative expenses and investment policy.
Prior to engaging an independent auditor, the FCC’s rules require that USAC submit a
draft audit plan to WCB for approval. Once the audit plan is approved, the auditor is
required to notify WCB of any revisions to the final audit plan or the scope of the audit.
The FCC’s rules also require that WCB receive a copy of the audit report prior to its
submission to USAC. WCB reviews the audit findings and workpapers and offers its
recommendations concerning the conduct of the audit or the audit finding to the auditor.
Any unresolved concerns that WCB has regarding the draft report will be reflected in the
final audit report. Once the final report is filed, WCB takes action to address any issues
identified in the report. The 2003 audit is currently in process and is being conducted by
21
the accounting firm of Deloitte and Touche. Consistent with FCC rules, a similar audit
will be conducted for the 2004 funding year.
WCB also reviews the audit reports prepared by USAC’s internal auditing division,
which recently increased its staff to 10 auditors. These audits include beneficiary and
contributor audits as well as operations and financial audits that are conducted in addition
to the Part 54 audit and the FCC financial statement audit (discussed below). For 2004,
USAC plans to conduct beneficiary audits for all four support mechanisms and other
internal audit work, e.g., a disbursement integrity audit to attest to the adequacy of the
overall disbursement process.
In addition, WCB works with other Bureaus and Offices to ensure proper oversight of the
universal service support mechanisms. For example, WCB has reviewed the Office of
Inspector General’s (OIG) most recent Semiannual Report to the Congress and is actively
considering the issues identified in that report. In addition, consistent with
recommendations in the audit report on the FCC’s Fiscal Year 2002 financial statements
and of the Commission’s Inspector General, the Commission recently adopted a Report
and Order that formalizes requirements that audits of the USF and USAC be conducted
using government auditing standards and that USAC maintain the USF in accordance
with government accounting standards.
Finally, USAC and WCB refer to the Commission’sEnforcement Bureau (EB) cases of
carriers that have failed to pay their USF contributions or that may have intentionally
filed inaccurate information. EB determines whether to initiate forfeiture proceedings
against these carriers for violations of the Communications Act and the Commission’s
rules. EB will continue to work with WCB and USAC to refine the enforcement referral
process.
B. Office of Managing Director

The Commission’s Office of Managing Director (OMD) is responsible for general
management of the financial operations of the Commission and its programs, including
preparation of the Commission’s annual financial report and all budgetary and Treasury
reporting. OMD is also tasked with primary responsibility for estimating and reporting
improper payments. OMD has taken, and in some instances will take, the following
actions to reduce improper payments:
0 Tested all programs from a purely internal aspect to make statistical conclusions
concerning the improper payments’ error rate in the population of all
disbursements;
0 Will include a section on compliance with the Improper Payments Information

Act of 2002 in the Management Discussion and Analysis section of the FCC’s
FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report;
22
Will report in the Financial section of the FCC’s FY 2004 Performance and
Accountability Report planned timeframes for correcting audit weaknesses and
any noncompliance;
Work with OIG, WCB, EB, and USAC on the development of a comprehensive
audit program of the USF Schools and Libraries and High Cost Support
Programs in order to make statistical conclusions concerning the error rate due
to external sources;
Included in the performance appraisals of SES personnel, evaluation of

effectiveness and efficiency of the individual’s performance. For FCC managers
involved in the oversight of the USF, these evaluations would relate to their
actions to instill effectiveness and efficiency in the USF and the FCC’s oversight
thereof.
In addition to these steps, OMD has taken a number of related steps in the past years to
increase the agency’s financial oversight of USF as it prepared the agency’s annual
financial statements. Steps which are occurring in 2004 to strengthen internal controls
over the Universal Service Fund, including the following:
Financial Reporting and Auditing - USAC on behalf of the USF provides

adequate monthly, quarterly, and annual financial information to the FCC for
inclusion in the FCC’s associated reports to Treasury and OMB.
Financial Accounting Activities - USAC has internalized accounting activities

which had previously been outsourced. In addition, as ordered by the
Commission, USAC is in the process of accounting for its financial transactions
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for federal agencies
and using the United States Standard General Ledger. This will be implemented
as of October 1,2004.
0 Financial Systems - Federal financial guidelines require integration of financial

systems. The FCC and USAC continue to work together to integrate financial
systems. USAC also plans to initiate plans this year to institute OMB A-130
guidelines concerning system security.
0 Financial Staffing -0MD coordinates monthly meetings with USAC, OMD,

WCB, OIG, and EB to ensure that the FCC continues to provide USAC with
every available resource to successfully complete its mission.
0 FCC Financial Reporting Integration - USAC has adopted the use of the FCC’s
FCC Registration number which the FCC uses to track financial transactions
agency-wide. This will greatly assists the FCC and USAC to identify vendors,
contributors, and debtors in order to coordinate the FCC’s and USAC’s debt
collection activities and greatly assist the consolidated implementation of DCIA.
23
C. Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Among many things, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) is
responsible for developing and recommending policies on matters concerning the TRS
Fund and administers a comprehensive policy for Commission oversight over the TRS
Fund. CGB also is responsible for reviewing projections from the TRS Fund
Administrator in order to approve the contribution factor for the TRS Fund.
In its oversight role for the TRS Fund, CGB has been aware of the new technologies,
such as video relay services, that provide telecommunications relay services in a more
robust and enhanced manner, but also more costly manner. CGB continues to work with
the TRS Fund Administrator to provide more robust services at a lower price per minute.
CGB reviews the annual submissions of the TRS Fund Administrator that recommends
TRS compensation rates in order to ensure that services are reimbursed at the appropriate
amount.
D. Enforcement Bureau
EB has overall responsibility for enforcing the Communications Act and the
Commission's rules, including those governing the FCC programs noted in this report.
EB has made USF an enforcement priority. Whether on its own initiative, or following
referral from USAC or WCB, EB has initiated forfeiture proceedings against carriers and
other entities for violations of the Act and the Commission's rules. EB has also initiated
revocation proceedings against at least two carriers accused of violating the rules
governing the TRS and USF programs. In the last twelve months, the Commission or the
Enforcement Bureau has issued proposed fines or consent decrees involving over $1 8
million in unpaid USF and TRS contributions. These enforcement actions have
contributed to recent increases in collections by USAC, and an overall decrease in the
quarterly contribution factor assessed by WCB. EB also has ongoing investigations
relating to the Schools and Libraries program and the Billed Entity Applicant
Reimbursement (BEAR) program. EB will continue to work with WCB, OMD, and
USAC to refine the enforcement process.
In addition, EB has several ongoing audits of carriers relating to USF. As noted above,
EB is auditing five carriers receiving support through the High Cost program. The audits
will evaluate whether the carriers are complying with the Commission's high cost rules
and receiving the appropriate amount of high cost support. The carriers in question were
selected through a combination of random selection and referral from WCB, USAC, and
other sources. EB also is conducting a general audit of compliance with the FCC's
revenue reporting requirements by long-distance resellers.
Finally, EB is responsible for investigating and auditing carriers regarding numbering
administration. EB currently has one such ongoing investigation, and plans to initiate
audits of several carriers in this area in the next six months.
24
E. Office of Inspector General
Although improper payments are a concern of OIG, OIG is not directly associated with
actions to reduce improper payments. OIG’s audit efforts, however, will continue to help
determine the causes and extent of improper payments. These efforts are important to
track and monitor performance and to determine the effectiveness of actions designed to
reduce improper payments.
25
JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSELLS E N A T EOFFICE BUILDING
ARIZONA WASHINGTON, D C 20510-0303
(202) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN
~~~OSOUTHRURALROAD
COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE,
Wnited States Senate

SUITE 6-130
SCIENCE, A N D TRANSPORTATION
T E M P E ,A Z 85282
COMMITTEE O N A R M E D SERVICES (480) 897-6289
COMMITTEE O N I N D I A N AFFAIRS 2400 EAST ARIZONA

BILTMORE CIRCLE
SUITE 1150
PHOENIX, A Z 85016
(602) 952-2410
450 W E S T P A S E O REDONUO
SUITE 200
TUCSON, A Z 85701
(520) 670-6334
March 24,2004 TELEPHONEF O R HEARING IMPAIRED

(202) 224-7132
(602) 952-0170
Ms. Martha Johnston

Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Johnston:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Maurice Coburn who requests the status
of his FCC Petition for Reconsideration for KVEZ-FM in Parker, Arizona.
respond directly to Mr. Coburn.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Mxnm
Enclosure
PRINTED ON RECYCLEU PAPER

1930 @%+s&te A m w Phone 92&865-9ooo
takeUavasuCkty. A2 -5 wmw.kv%2.com
March 1 9 , 2004
Won. John McCain

2 4 1 Russell Office Bldg.
Dear John---
As will be implicit in the attached Petition For Recon-
sideration filed by our Washington attorneys, we believe that
the Staff of the FCC has capriciously and improperly issued an
Order to shut down Radio Station KVEZ-FPI in Parker, arizona.
KVEZ-FM was originally licensed as an Indian broadcast
facility (Colorado River Indian Tribe) with a Federal grant
being given to Gilbert Leivas, a Member of CRLT, to launch its
broadcast activities. It was initially a Class A station with
i t s antenna at the top of the CRIT water tower and i t s principal
studio being a padded cell in the Tribal Jail. I assisted the
station initially by buying it a new Harris transmitter after
the original one blew up. After a few years of operating at a
loss, Gilbert Leivas sold t h e station to me. In the mean time
its transmitter had been moved to Black Peak,
A f t e r approval was granted by the FCC for KVEZ to become
a regional station, with a Class C-2 status, it became apparent
that we could no longer broadcast from Black Peak (a peak shared
by the BLM and the CRIT Tribe). Due to an alleged portion of
t h e peak being "sacred ground" the BLM signed a compact with the
Tribe that there would be no further expansion of broadcast ac-
tivities on Black Peak. The further history of our search f o r an
acceptable broadcast site is cited in the attached Petition.
Your assistance will be greatly appreciated in helping us to
preserve a n important communication link for the Colorado River
Area including both LaPaz and Mohave Counties.
Sincerely,
Maurice Coburn
Enclosed: Petition For Reconsideration
~
.- Maurice & Marlene i Coburn

7179 E. Belmont Ave,
Paradise Valley, A 2 8 5 2 5 3
phone 480-607-5353
March 19, 2004
MEMO TO FILE
Maurice and Marlene Coburn, the owners 02 P&EZ-FM through

.Eagle Broadcasting Group, have both been active in civic and
' political affairs.
Marlene organized and w a s President of t h e largest Repub-
lican Women.'s Club in the State of Arizona, the London Bridge
Republican Women's Club. She has been both a State and National
Officer of the Republican Womens Federation. She was t h e local
Campaign Manager for J o h n McCain i n Lake Havasu City when he first
ran f o r t h e U n i t e d States Senate. She remains a Precinct Commit-
tee Person in Paradise Valley and is an officer o f - t h e Paradise
Republican Women's Club,
Maury Coburn was both a Republican Precinct Committeeman and
served as Mohave Connty Republican Chairman. As.a y o u t h , Maurice
was Chairman of the Cook County Young Republican Organization in
Illinois and served on the Staff of Governor Ogilvie.
30th Marlene and Maurice have b e e n active in many civic atld
community benefit organizations. They have helped raise funds for
campaigns and candidates,
As a radiolami-communitytelevision broadcaster, iviaurice has
broadcast countless school and community events at a loss i n order
to serve the communities where t h e y were located---Parker, Lake
Havasu City, Xinqaan, and Mohave Valley.
,
2022939911
26229381111 T-046 P.OQ3/008 F-10 5
E0228388 t i T-046 P .OOS/D&S 1-105
4
2022839811
T-048 P.007/008 P-t05
6
202293881t
7
2022939811
Fml H.Br5wn
Its mmeys
Dated; March 19,2004
A p r i l 21, 2004
IN REPLY REFER TO:
CN-0400988
Mr. Maurice Coburn

7 179 East Belmont Avenue
Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253
Dear Mr. Coburn:
Senator John McCain has requested the Commission’s assistance to respond to your
inquiry regarding the status of a petition for reconsideration filed by Eagle Broadcasting Group,
Ltd. (“Eagle”), licensee of station KVEZ(FM), Parker, Arizona. I appreciate the opportunity to
respond.
As you are aware, the Communications Act provides that “if a broadcast station fails to
transmit broadcast signals for any consecutive 12-month period, then the station license granted
for the operation of that broadcast station expires at the end of that period, notwithstanding any
provision, term or condition of the license to the contrary.” On February 17,2004, the staff of
the Commission’s Media Bureau concluded that Eagle had not resumed authorized operations
because it was broadcasting from a site that had not been authorized by the Commission.
Therefore, as required by the Act, the staff determined that Eagle had forfeited its license for
failure to operate. As noted in your correspondence, Eagle filed a petition requesting that the
staff reconsider its decision.
Please be assured that Eagle’s petition will be reviewed carefully and a decision will be
issued as expeditiously as possible. For updates regarding the status of this matter, you may
telephone the Media Bureau’s contact representative at 202-4 18-2730.
I hope that this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of
further assistance.
Sincerely,
!
Roy J. Stewart
Media Bureau
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
May 24,2004

Chairman
Enclosed is the Federal Communications Commission’s Management Report on

Inspector General Audit and U.S. General Accounting Office Reports for the six-month period
ending March 3 1,2004. This report is required by Section 5 of the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended.
At the end of this period, final action is pending on 2 1 audit reports for which a
management decision was made more than one year ago (see Enclosure 1). In addition, final
action is pending on six audit reports with disallowed costs (see Enclosure 2). There are no audit
reports recommending that funds be put to better use (see Enclosure 3).
The Commission remains committed to identifying and eliminating all practices or

conditions that could lead to waste, fraud, resource abuse or mismanagement.
Sincerelv.
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN May 24,2004

Chairwoman

Inspector General Audit and US.General Accounting Office Reports for the six-month period
1978, as amended.
At the end of this period, final action is pending on 21 audit reports for which a

Sincerely,
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Dear Chairman Bums:

1978, as amended.
reports recommending that fbnds be put to better use (see Enclosure 3).

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
Dear Senator By-rd:

1978, as amended.
reports recommending that funds be put to better use (see Enclosure 3 ) .

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Chairman

1978, as amended.

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member

ending March 3 1, 2004. This report is required by Section 5 of the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended.

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
S-146A The Capitol

ending March 3 I, 2004. This report is required by Section 5 of the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended.

Michael K. Powell
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member

1978, as amended.

conditions that could lead to waste, fi-aud, resource abuse or mismanagement.
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member

1978, as amended.
reports recommending that hnds be put to better use (see Enclosure 3).

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member

ending March 3 1 ,2004. This report is required by Section 5 of the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended.

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Chairman

1978, as amended.

Enclosures
W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.

Ranking Member

1978, as amended.

conditions that could lead to waste, fiaud, resource abuse or mismanagement.
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Chairman

1978, as amended.

;
Sincere1y,
Michael K. Powell \
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Chairman

1978, as amended.

Sincerely,
1 Michael K. Powell
\
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member

1978, as amended.

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Dear Chairman Wolf:

lnspector General Audit and U.S. General Accounting Office Reports for the six-month period
1978, as amended.

conditions that could lead to waste, fiaud, resource abuse or mismanagement.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAlRMAN May 24,2004

Chairman

1978, as amended.

Enclosures
Washing ton, D.C.
Ms. Linda M. Springer

Controller
Office of Federal Financial Management
Office of Management & Budget
725 17thStreet, NW
Dear Ms. Springer:

1978, as amended.
reports recommending that funds be put t o better use (see Enclosure 3).

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable David M. Walker

Comptroller General
U S . General Accounting Office
441 G Street, NW, Rm. 7100
Dear Mr. Walker:

1978, as amended.

Enclosures
Enclosure 1
MANAGEMENT REPORT ON INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT AND GAO REPORTS AND

EXPLANATION OF REASONS FINAL ACTION HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN
(For the Six-Month Period Ending March 31, 2004)
Name of report more than one year Date Dollar value Dollar value of
old for which a management report of disallowed recommendations that
decision has been made but no final issued costs funds be put to better
action taken use (and agreed to by
management)
1. Audit Report on the Auction 9/28/1999 N/A N/A
Physical Security at the Portals Site
(Audit Report No. 99-11)
2. Report on Follow-up Audit on 3/4/2003 N/A N/A
Auction Physical Security at the
Portals Site (Audit Report No. 02-
AUD-03-11)
Explanation for nos. 1 and 2: The remaining open recommendations in the original and follow-
up reports concern addition of or changes in perimeter lighting for the Commission headquarters
building. The Commission had to conduct lengthy negotiations with the General Services
Administration and Republic Properties (the owner of the FCC headquarters building) on a matter
related to the lighting issues, and obtain the required approvals and permits from the District of
Columbia. Installation of perimeter lighting has been completed, and activation of the lighting is
expected in mid-May. Funding for lighting in the headquarters building courtyard and adjacent
alley has been approved and the owner of the building is awaiting authorization from GSA before
proceeding with installation.
3. Final Reports Related to Non- 12/23/1999 N/A N/A

Tax Delinquent Debt
Explanation for no. 3: The majority of recommendations have been implemented. The
remaining open recommendations concern asset sales, gathering borrower credit information, and
procedures for return of defaulted licenses. Completion of action on these issues will depend on
the outcome of the bankruptcy of NextWave Telecom Inc., and on whether the Commission will
re-institute its auctions loan program.
N/A= Not Applicable
1
Enclosure 1
4. Report on Special Review of 3/28/2000 N/A N/A

Auctions Security (Assignment No.
00-AUD-01-21)
Explanation for no. 4: All but one of the recommendations that were handed down as a part of
the Special Review of Auctions Security have been implemented. The remaining open
recommendation is related to certification and accreditation activities of the FCC major
applications and general support system. Efforts are ongoing to update or complete all
certification and accreditation, and the Commission anticipates that corrective action will be
completed by September 2004.
5. Report on Audit of Computer 6/21/2000 N/A N/A

Controls at the FCC National Call
Center (Audit Report No. 00-AUD-
01-12)
Computer Controls at the FCC
Consumer Center (Audit Report No.
01-AUD-07-30)
Explanation for nos. 5 and 6: Many of the open recommendations in the Follow-up Audit on
Computer Controls at the FCC Consumer Center are similar to open recommendations from the
June 2000 Audit of Computer Controls at the FCC National Call Center. The remaining
recommendations apply to systems that are currently being upgraded. This upgrade process is
tied to a Commission-wide effort to refresh our current technology. This is a major, multi-year
effort. In addition, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has requested additional evidence be
provided to support the resolution of the recommendations. FCC efforts are ongoing to obtain
clarification from the OIG and to provide the requested documentation. The Commission is also
moving steadily to resolve all other remaining areas of concern. The Commission anticipates
accreditation and completion of corrective actions for the NCC by September 2004.
7. Federal Communications 7/7/2000 N/A N/A

Commission Fiscal Year 1999
Annual Financial Report (Audit
Report No. 00-AUD-01-01)
N/A= Not Applicable
2
Enclosure 1

Explanation for nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10: Most of the open recommendations in the FY 2002 Annual
Financial Report are similar to open recommendations from the FY 1999, 2000, and 2001
Financial Reports. Open recommendations fall into two broad categories: (1) financial
management issues, and (2) computer security or information technology issues.
In the financial management area corrective action was completed on October 1, 2003, for
weaknesses related to cost accounting and loan processing. A determination has also been made
and issued as a Commission Order that will be effective October 1, 2004, regarding the
applicability of federal financial regulations to the Universal Service Fund. These actions will
close a significant portion of the financial management-related recommendations that remain
open. Long term efforts to implement the Commission’s Revenue and Accounting Management
Information System (RAMIS) are ongoing and should resolve the remaining financial
weaknesses.
In the area of computer security and information technology completion of corrective action on
open recommendations is dependent on completion of the Commission’s FCC Computer Security
Program Plan, and on certification and accreditation of FCC major applications and general
support systems. The FCC Computer Security Program Plan is currently in draft form and will be
forwarded to FCC management for approval. In addition, efforts are ongoing to complete
certification and accreditation activities, and the Commission anticipates their completion by
September 2004.
11. Report on Audit of Web 6/13/2001 N/A N/A

Presence Security (Audit Report No.
00-AUD-01-10)
Explanation for no. 11: The majority of the corrective actions established for the Audit of Web
Presence Security have been implemented. The OIG has requested additional evidence be
provided to support the resolution of the recommendations. FCC efforts are ongoing to obtain
clarification from the OIG and to provide the requested documentation. In addition, the
remaining recommendations are dependent upon the completion of the Commission’s Continuity
of Operations Plan (COOP). The Commission anticipates resolution of the remaining corrective
actions by September 2004.
N/A= Not Applicable
3
Enclosure 1
12. Audit Report on Verification of 8/28/2001 $25,248 N/A

Global Management Systems, Inc.
Costs Incurred under Contract No.
2700-FCC-97-C-0014 (Changed to
C-9800016) (Audit Report No. 01-
AUD-04-11)
Explanation for no. 12: Although the Commission has continued to communicate with this
company regarding the money it owes the Commission, the company has not responded. The
Commission now plans to place the company's name on a government-wide list to prevent the
company from obtaining any further work with the federal government until the debt to the
Commission is paid.
13. Telecommunications: 10/16/2001 N/A N/A

Characteristics and Competitiveness
of the Internet Backbone Market
(GAO-02-16)
Explanation for no. 13: In its report issued in October 2001, GAO recommended that the
Commission adopt a process for evaluating its data collection needs regarding the Internet
backbone market and the potential effects of convergence of communications services. Shortly
after GAO issued its report, the Commission agreed that it would consider the GAO
recommendation in the context of its section 706 proceedings. Section 706 of the
Communications Act directs the Commission to examine the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capabilities on a regular basis. The Commission initiated its fourth section
706 inquiry on March 11, 2004. In the Notice of Inquiry, the Commission sought comment on
the matter raised by GAO. Comments are due in May 2004, and, by law, the Commission must
adopt its report no later than September 11, 2004.
14. Report on Government 11/29/2001 N/A N/A

Information Security Reform Act
Evaluation – Findings and
Recommendations (Audit Report No.
01-AUD-11-43)
15. FY 2002 Government 1/6/2003 N/A N/A
Evaluation – Findings and
Recommendations (Report No. 02-
AUD-02-06)
N/A= Not Applicable
4
Enclosure 1
Explanation for nos. 14 and 15: Many of the open recommendations in the Fiscal Year (FY)
2002 Government Information Security Reform Act (GISRA) Evaluation are similar to open
recommendations from the FY 2001 GISRA Evaluation. Open recommendations are related to
certification and accreditation activities of FCC major applications and general support systems.
Efforts are ongoing to complete certification and accreditation activities, and the Commission
anticipates their completion by September 2004.
16. Report on Workplace Violence 1/15/2002 N/A N/A

Prevention at the FCC: Risk
Assessment (Report No. 01-AUD-06-
23)
Explanation for no. 16: The Commission has completed action on some of this report’s
recommendations, and has decided to re-evaluate the decision to seek external expertise to
benchmark proposed FCC procedures against best practices. Training on workplace violence for
supervisors, managers and contracting officer’s technical representatives is moving forward. In
addition, several issues must be resolved before all corrective actions can be completed. These
issues include funding for certain physical security improvements, lessor access privileges to the
headquarters building, conflicts between building security and accessibility for the disabled, and
the transition to a new contract for guard services at the headquarters building which will be
effective May 15, 2004.

Employee Use of FCC Travel Cards
(Report No. IG-01-AUD-10-41)
Explanation for no. 17: Due to the complexity of the changes in the Commission’s travel and
travel card policies it has taken longer than expected to complete the necessary revisions to the
FCC Travel Manual. The Commission expects to have this project completed by September 30,
2004.
18. Telecommunications: Better 9/30/2002 N/A N/A

Coordination and Enhanced
Accountability Needed to Improve
Spectrum Management (GAO-02-
906)
N/A= Not Applicable
5
Enclosure 1
Explanation for no. 18: This report included a recommendation that, following the 2003 World
Radio Communication Conference (WRC-03), the Department of State, the Department of
Commerce, and the Federal Communications Commission should jointly review the adequacy of
the process used to develop and promote the U.S. position at the Conference, and prepare a report
containing any needed recommendations for making improvements. Since the 2003 WRC was
just concluded in July 2003, the Commission could not address this recommendation until
recently. On October 17, 2003, the Commission held a public forum to examine the methods and
practices it used to prepare for WRC-03 and seek input to analyze and report on ways to improve
its preparatory process for WRC-07. The three agencies primarily involved in U.S. participation
in WRCs recognize that there is a direct correlation between the extent of advance preparation
before the WRC, and the degree of success achieved at the WRC. Thus, the FCC and its
Executive Branch counterparts have jointly reviewed the adequacy of the processes used to
develop and promote the U.S. objectives at WRC-2003, as recommended by GAO. In addition,
FCC and NTIA have produced separate reports that will allow our agencies to take advantage of
the expertise developed in the past WRC preparatory activities. On a related issue, in August
2003 the Commission and the National Telecommunications Information Administration
(Department of Commerce) announced a plan for expeditiously implementing the international
spectrum allocation decisions of the WRC-03, which has been successful.
19. Telecommunications: Additional 11/8/2002 N/A N/A

Federal Efforts Could Help Advance
Digital Television Transition (GAO-
03-7)
Explanation for no. 19: The Commission is continuing its efforts to respond to the
recommendations in this GAO report. GAO's recommendation to raise public awareness about
the transition to digital television continues to be an ongoing effort by the Commission, within
the limits of its resources and expertise. The Commission has chosen to address GAO's
remaining recommendations about mandating digital cable-ready television sets and setting a date
certain for switching carriage rights from analog to digital signals through rule making
proceedings and industry negotiations. Although progress is being made on these issues
(including FCC adoption of an Order in 2003 on cable-ready sets for one-way video services),
completion of final action on these matters has taken longer than a year due to the complexity and
contentiousness of the issues involved.
20. Telecommunications: 1/31/2003 N/A N/A

Comprehensive Review of U.S.
Spectrum Management with Broad
Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed
(GAO-03-277)
N/A= Not Applicable
6
Enclosure 1
Explanation for no. 20: Since the GAO report was issued, there have been considerable efforts
to further review the need for changes to spectrum management policies, both at the FCC and in
the Executive Branch. Also, more specifically, the FCC has implemented many of the
recommendations for spectrum reform provided by the FCC’s Spectrum Policy Task Force in its
November 2002 report to the Commission.
Last June, President Bush issued an Executive Memorandum directing a comprehensive review
of spectrum management policies related to commercial, as well as federal spectrum users. The
Federal Communications Commission, as an independent agency, is an observer in this inquiry
and has had representation in its capacity as observer throughout the process. The Executive
Memorandum provides that reports with recommendations resulting from the year-long review
will be released by June 2004.
Efforts at spectrum reform continue at the FCC. For example, the FCC initiated a proceeding
seeking comment on the use of cognitive – or smart – radio technology, a technology that can
translate between different types of radio formats, and that enables more intensive and flexible
use of the radio spectrum. The FCC has also increased the flexibility available to licensees to
lease spectrum through secondary markets. In addition, in its report, one of the chief
recommendations of the Spectrum Policy Task Force was to adopt spectrum policies that would
enable more use of geographic white spaces, or unused spectrum channels in particular areas.
The FCC recently adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on permitting
unlicensed devices to operate in the unused channels in spectrum allocated for television
broadcasting. These proposed rules would enable the spectrum to be used more efficiently. Also,
on an ongoing basis, the FCC’s Spectrum Policy Task Force has continued to consider and
review issues related to spectrum policy reform. The FCC’s efforts in the area of spectrum
reform have focused on these and other comprehensive initiatives.
21. Report on Follow-up Special 3/7/2003 N/A N/A

Review of Web Page Accessibility
(Report No. 02-AUD-02-05)
Explanation for no. 21: The International Bureau began the redesign of the International Bureau
Filing System in October 2003, using a phased approach. Phase 1, consisting of a new home
page, account management module, and the 312EZ interactive filing form, will go into production
on June 23, 2004. Subsequent phases will be implemented over the next three fiscal years. As
each phase is completed and implemented, the corresponding web pages will be Section 508
compliant.
N/A= Not Applicable
7
Enclosure 2
MANAGEMENT REPORT ON FINAL ACTION ON AUDITS WITH

DISALLOWED COSTS
Number of Disallowed
Audit Reports Costs
A. Audit reports with management decisions

on which final action had not been taken
at the beginning of the period 1 $25,248
B. Audit reports on which management

decisions were made during the period 5 $2,302,846
C. Total audit reports pending final action

during period (Total A + B) 6 $2,328,094
D. Audit reports on which final action was

taken during the period
1. Recoveries
(A) Collections and offsets 0 $0
(B) Property 0 $0
(C) Other 0 $0
2. Write-offs 0 $0
3. Total 1 + 2 0 $0
E. Audit reports needing final action at

the end of the period (C - D.3.) 6 $2,328,094
Enclosure 3
MANAGEMENT REPORT ON FINAL ACTION ON AUDITS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS

TO PUT FUNDS TO BETTER USE
Number of Funds To Be Put

Audit Reports To Better Use
A. Audit reports with management

decisions on which final action
had not been taken at the
beginning of the period 0 $0

decisions were made during the
period 0 $0
C. Total audit reports pending final

action during period (Total A + B) 0 $0
D. Audit reports on which final action

was taken during the period
1. Value of recommendations
implemented (completed) 0 $0
2. Value of recommendations that

management concluded should not
or could not be implemented or
completed 0 $0
3. Total (1 + 2) 0 $0

the end of the period (C - D.3.) 0 $0
JOHN McCAIN. ARIZONA. C W R M A N
TED STEWNS. ALASKA ERNEST F. UOLUNCS. SOUM CAROLINA
CONRAD BURNS. MONTANA DANIEL KOINOWE. HAWAII
'TENT L O T . MlSSlS$lPPl JOUN D. m x m L L E n IV. WEWWAOINIA
KAY BAILEY MWCWISON. TEWA5 JOHN F. KERRY. MASs*mUSEllS
DLVMmA A. S N O W . MAINE JOUN a. FIREAUX. LOUISUN*
S A M DROWNBACK. KANSAS YVI~ONL. WRGAN. WPTH DAKOTA
POROON SMIIII. OlEOON RON WYDEN. OREGON
m n G. FITZGERALD. ILLINOIS 8AREAl'lA BOXER, CALIFORNIA
JOHN ENSIGN, NEVADA BILL NELSON, FLORIDA
CCORBE ALLEN. VIRGINIA MARIA CANTWELL. WASHINGTON COMMIllEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, 0
JOHN E. PUNUNU. NEW NAMPSUIRE PRANK LAUTENDERO, NEW JERSEY N
AND TRANSPORTATION
JLANNl BUMPUS. REPlJBLlwlr STAFF UIRCIXOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL
$WIN0. U Y E S . DEMOCRATIC STAFF DIRCCTDR AN0 CUlEF GOUN3CL
h
=E
0
N
May 19,2004
The Honorable Michael Powell

Chairman
445 12th St., sw
As you know, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

has closely examined the issue of escalating cable rates in recent hearings. Cable rates
have increased more than 50% since 1996 - almost three times the rate of inflation.
These hearings have reinforced my concern that consumers lack options that would help
them control the rising cost of cable and satellite television. When it comes to purchasing
cable channels beyond the basic tier today, consumers have virtually no choice but to pay
for a large package of expanded basic channels even if they watch only a couple of the
channels. I am writing to ask you to explore all available options within your authority to
promote B la carte cable and satellite offerings as soon as possible where such offerings
would benefit consumers.
Cable executives appeared before the Commerce Committee last year and
proclaimed the merits of A la carte pricing options, particularly with respect to certain
expensive sports programming. Charles D o h , the Chairman o f Cablevision, testified
that new digital technology gives cable operators the capability to offer consumers more
nuanced choices: ". , .this new technology gives our customers greater choice, the power
to create the menu they want on the television screens in their homes. Cablevision, as a
policy, wants its customers to be ablc to pick and choose among its services, selecting
what appeals to them, rejecting what does not, determining for themselves how much
they will spend, just as they do every day in the supermarket or the shopping mall.
Unfortunately, our customers' shopping carts face a littered road ahead, debris left over
from our industry's long technological and legislative history. Unwanted programming is
being forced into the home, partjcularly sports programming."
Likewise, James Robbins, President and CEO of Cox Communications, in the

same hearing, stated that "if operators had the flexibility to sell these networks, sports
channels or others, on an optional tier, consumers would gain a significant opportunity to
manage their cable expenditures. Likewise, programmers would be motivated to keep
their prices reasonable to remain on expanded basic cable lineups.”
Moreover, the Committee recently heard testimony regarding the availability of ii

la carte pricing for digital cable consumers in Canada. I urge the Commission to probe
the options available to Canadian consumers and examine why such options are not
available to American consumers.
A la carte pricing would enable consumers to pay for only those channels they
want to watch. It would undoubtedly benefit those consumers who watch only three or
four cable channels or who may be on a limited budget. It may also have the effect of
disciplining cable rates overall. Finally, it would allow parents to reject channels that
they find objectionable without being required to pay for the very same programming,
The cable industry regularly touts the value its expanded basic tier delivers to
consumers noting that it “costs less than taking a family of four to a movie or
professional sporting event.” I do not believe that the cable industry should be forced to
eliminate their current pricing plans. If the expanded basic package is such a great value,
then few consumers will choose an A la carte option when offered, and the cable
industry’s predictions about the negative effect of such options on some cable networks
should prove baseless. If, on the other hand, consumers reject the expanded basic
package in sizeable numbers, then it would demonstrate that today’s one-size-fits-all,
take-it-or-leave-it packages are not such a great value.
Notwithstanding the comments of the industry’s own executives, the use of B la

carte pricing in Canada, and the potential benefits to consumers, the cable industry
continues to fight every effort to provide choice to consumers. Unfortunately, we will
never know the true effect of an la carte pricing option as long as thc industry refuses to
allow it. That is why I urge you to use any existing authority you have to promote, or to
create incentives to promote, M A la carte pricing option, in conjunction with whatever
tiers cable and satellite companies already offer. I believe that some cable and satellite
companies may be willing to offer consumers more choice if they had the ability to do so.
I urge you to explore the Commission’s options for creating the right environment to
allow this to happen.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
cc: Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy
' 'OLrFICE:
, ' FAXNO:
. PAGE 1 OF:
..
EROM;.
..
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
June 16,2004

Chairman
Thank you for your May 19,2004 letter urging the Commission to promote la carte
cable and direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) television offerings. I appreciate your longstanding
concern about many issues relating to cable and DBS industry practices in marketing
programming services to consumers. I agree that Commission policy should promote consumer
choice and options whenever possible.
The Communications Act and the Commission’s rules generally provide cable and
satellite television providers broad discretion when selecting and marketing programming
services. With a few important exceptions, such as the mandatory carriage of local television
broadcast stations and the tier buy-through requirements, the Commission does not have explicit
authority to require cable and satellite providers to carry specific programming services, or to
market their programming in a particular manner. At the same time, I am not aware of any
provision of law or Commission rule that would prohibit cable and satellite operators from
offering most or all of their programming services on an h la carte basis.
The Commission’s Media Bureau has begun work on a comprehensive Report to

Congress concerning the provision of 2 la carte services on cable television and DBS systems.
The Bureau’s Report will examine a broad range of technical, economic, and legal issues
associated with the ability of multichannel video programming distributors to provide h la carte
services to consumers. I am enclosing a copy of the Bureau’s Public Notice for your
information. To inform this Report, the Bureau plans to convene a forum this summer to explore
first-hand the advantages and disadvantages of an a la carte scheme, including its potential
implications for the prevalent economic model in the pay television industry, as well as its
possible effect on retail prices in the video programming market.
The 2 la carte proceeding and forum will provide important information and perspective
on a number of issues identified in your correspondence. These activities should assist the
Commission in evaluating the options that might be available to policymakers to encourage more
alternative marketing practices in the cable and DBS industries.
- . . - - - _ I _ - . - - - II -.._ I .... . I
- .... . I
Page 2-The Honorable John McCain-June 16,2004
I appreciate your continuing interest in these important matters, and I look forward to
working with you and other Members of Congress as our analysis of these issues progresses.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the 6 la carte
proceeding and forum, or if I can be of assistance with any other matter.
v
Sincerely,
\
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
I
I
JOHN M U A I N . ARIZONA. WARMAN
I
TED STNCNS. ALASKA
CONRAD BURNS MONTANA
ERNE6TF. HOLLINGS.SOUTH CAROLINA
OANIELK. INOUVE. UAWAII
cD&’. 5 . W ‘
TRhNT lOR, MISSISSIPPI
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISOH. TEXAS
OLYMPIA J. SNOW. MAINE
JOHN 0. RDEK€FEW IY. WEST VIRGINIA
JDMU F. KERRY. MC&SACHUSE~~S
JOHN B B M A U X . LOUISIANA
a-r
SAM BROWNOACK. W A S
GORIWN SMm, OREQON
PETER G. FITIGERALD. ILLINOIS
JOHN ENSIGN. NNW.4
DVRON L. DORGAN. NORTH DAKOTA
RON WDEN. OREGON
EAMIAUA 00XaR CALIFORNIA
0lU-&ON. 6.DRIDA
Unitd statu Senate
GEORGL: ALLEN. VIRGINIA MAUIA C l r N l M U . WhSHINGTON COMMITEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE.
JOHN 6. SUNUNU. NEW MAMISHlf(E FRANK ULI‘ENBERG. NEW JERSEV
AND TRANSPORTATION
JFANNE BUMPUS REWBUChN STAFF OlRECToR M D CINERIlL COUNSEL
KBVIN D. KAY&, DEMOCRAnC STAFF DIRECTOR AMI CHIEF COUNSEL WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6125
June 1,2004

Chairman
445 121hStreet, S.W.
Washington,DC 20554
,4-‘
2 JUN 2004RCUD
Recent reports suggest that the Federal Communications Commission may soon
act on a proposal to eliminate eligibility restrictions on licensees of Instructional
Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”). I am writing to express my concern that this action
may have a significant detrimental effect on educational institutions and nonprofit
organizations that currently use this spectrum for important educational purposes.
Education is a critical component of an individual’s quest for personal success

and fulfillment. It also plays a pivotal role in the success of our nation economically,
intellectually, civically, and morally. Arktotls wrote, “All who have meditated in the art
of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the
education of the youth.” His words still hold true today.
I have received an outpouring of concern from educational institutions around the

country about the FCC’s potential actions with respect to ‘ITFS. These parties detail the
many valuable uses of ITFS spectrum to advance educational pursuits. They express
grave concern that eliminating eligibility requirements on these licensees will ultimately
result in the elimination of the use ofthis spectrum for educational purposes.
I appreciate your valiant e€forts to ensure that our nation’s spectrum resources are
put to their best use for the benefit of all Americans. In fulfilling this charge, you must
make difficult decisions that affect the interests of existing and hture licensees. In
balancing the benefits of maintaining existing rules with the potential value that may be
derived fiom changing those rules, I urge you to consider the effect such changes may
have on promoting education.
I note that this letter rcflects my own concerns on this important question of
public policy, It is not written on behalf o f any party seeking favorable disposition of my
8
matter in any party to any proceeding before the Commission. Please treat this letter in
compliance with all applicable substantive and procedural rules.
Sincerely,
Chairman
cc: Commissioner Kathleen Abcmathy

washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN June 22,2004

Chairman
Thank you for your June 1,2004 letter expressing concerns about the Commission’s
proposal to eliminate eligibility restrictions in the Instructional Television Fixed Service
(“ITFS”).
The Commission initiated a comprehensive examination of our rules and policies

governing ITFS, the Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”), and the Multichannel
Multipoint Distribution Service (“MMDS”) in the 2500-2690 MHz band. The services and
the potential uses for the spectrum allotted to these licensees have changed significantly in
recent years. Through this proceeding, we sought to take a fundamental restructuring of the
band that will provide both existing ITFS and MDS licensees greater flexibility, and promote
competition, innovation, and investment in wireless broadband services and educational
services. Additionally, the Commission seeks to foster the development of innovative
service offerings to consumers as well as educational, medical and other institutions, and
eliminate obsolete and unnecessary regulatory barriers. This proceeding presents an
opportunity to enhance the provision of broadband services to consumers in urban, suburban,
and rural areas, and to improve opportunities for distance learning and telemedicine services.
On June 10,2004, the Commission adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice
of Proposed Rule Making that, among other actions, retains the existing ITFS eligibility
requirements. Therefore, only educational institutions and non-profit educational
organizations may hold ITFS licenses. This Order offers more choices to educational
institutions, authorizing licensees to choose to continue delivering high-powered educational
television, develop new instructional uses over the ITFS spectrum, or lease excess capacity to
commercial operators to fund alternative educational delivery methods. In addition, this
Order gives ITFS and the newly named Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”) licensees new
options for developing and deploying innovative technologies, including low-power, mobile
wireless broadband technologies. These systems will provide a competitive alternative to
cable modem and DSL service, and will transform the marketplace by expanding broadband
rural areas and decreasing the price of current broadband services.
Page 2-The Honorable John McCain-June 22,2004
I am enclosing a copy of the Commission’s News Release for your information. I

appreciate your letting me know of your interest in this important matter. Please let me know
if you have any further questions or concerns.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Federal Communications Commission News Media Information 202 I418-0500
445 1 2 ' ~Street, S.W. Internet: http:llwww.fcc.gov
TTY: 1-888-835-5322
This Is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action.
See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974).
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEWS MEDIA CONTACTS:

June 10,2004 Chelsea Fallon at (202) 4 18-799 1
Lauren Patrich at (202) 4 18-7944
FCC PROMOTES THE DEPLOYMENT OF WIRELESS BROADBAND SERVICES

BY CREATING NEW RULES FOR THE 2495-2690 MHz BAND
WHILE PROTECTING EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
Washington, D.C. - As part of its ongoing efforts to promote the deployment of wireless
broadband services, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today adopted a Report and Order
(Order) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) that transforms the rules governing
the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS)' and Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) in the
2495-2690 MHz band. These rules provide greater flexibility and a more functional band plan for
licensees.
The rules for this band were initially established in 1963 but have evolved significantly since that
time. In October 2002, three organizations representing MDS and ITFS providers - the Wireless
Communications Association International, the National ITFS Association, and the Catholic Television
Network (collectively, the Coalition) - submitted a proposal to the FCC requesting that it substantially
change the rules governing this band. In April 2003, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
seeking comment on the Coalition proposal and on other ways to foster efficient and effective use of this
spectrum.
In today's Order, the FCC takes a number of important steps to restructure the 2495-2690 MHz
band and facilitate more efficient use of the spectrum. First, the Order creates a new band plan for 2495-
2690 MHz, as shown in the attached diagram, which eliminates the use of interleaved channels by MDS
and ITFS licensees and creates distinct band segments for high power operations, such as one-way video
transmission, and low power operations, such as two-way fixed and mobile broadband applications. By
grouping high and low power users into separate portions of the band, the new band plan reduces the
likelihood of interference caused by incompatible uses and creates incentives for the development of low-
power, cellularized broadband operations, which were inhibited by the prior band plan. In order to reflect
these new opportunities for providing broadband service, today's Order renames the MDS service the
Broadband Radio Service (BRS), while maintaining the ITFS label for ITFS licenses and operations.
The Order also expands the original MDS-ITFS band by adding to it five megahertz of additional
spectrum from below 2500 MHz, which increases the total size of the band to 194 megahertz. This will
provide room for the future relocation of MDS Channels 1 and 2, which are presently located in the 2.1
GHz band.
' "MDS" refers herein to both Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
Service (MMDS) licenses.
The Order retains the existing eligibility rules for ITFS spectrum. Therefore, ITFS licenses in the
new band plan will continue to be subject to existing rules that limit eligibility for licensing to qualified
educational institutions. The Order also allows ITFS licensees to lease spectrum to BRS providers,
provided they comply with existing educational content requirements, and grandfathers all existing MDS-
ITFS leases. ln addition, the Order lifts all non-statutory eligibility restrictions on BRS spectrum,
including those applicable to cable operators. However, the cable/BRS cross-ownership restriction
prohibiting cable operators from providing multichannel video programming distribution (MVPD)
services using BRS licenses, which is mandated by statute, will remain in effect.
The Order establishes simpler and more flexible rules for licensees, including geographic area
licensing and the ability to employ the technology of their choice. In addition, the new rules allow for
spectrum leasing under the FCC’s secondary market rules, but grandfather all existing leasing
arrangements between MDS and ITFS licensees.
Finally, today’s Order establishes a mechanism for transition from the existing band
configuration to the new band plan. BRS and ITFS providers will have a three-year period during which
they may propose transition plans for relocating existing facilities of all other licensees within the same
Major Economic Area (MEA) to new spectrum assignments in the revised band plan. Plan proponents
must notify all licensees in the MEA and file their plans with the Commission. This will trigger a 90-day
Transition Planning Period during which licensees negotiate and coordinate their transition with other
licensees in the MEA. Transitions to the new band plan must be completed within 18 months of the
conclusion of negotiations. In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on alternative
transition options for markets in which no transition plan is proposed within the initial three-year period.
Among other options, the Further Notice seeks comment on whether to accomplish the transition in such
markets by offering existing licensees tradable instruments that they can use to bid for spectrum at
auction.
The FCC will continue to actively monitor the state of deployment in the 2495-2690 MHz band
and directs the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to report on the state of the transition and
deployment in the band.
Today’s actions will enable BRS and ITFS providers to use the 2495-2690 MHz spectrum in a
more technologically and economically efficient manner. The new, more flexible rules will facilitate the
growth of new and innovative wireless technologies and services, including wireless broadband services
that have the potential to compete with cable and DSL broadband providers and to extend broadband
service to rural and underserved areas. The rules adopted today also preserve operations of existing
licensees, including educational institutions offering instructional television programming to their
students.
Action by the Commission, June 10,2004, by Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FCC 04- 135). Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, Martin, and Adelstein.
Separate statements issued by Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, Martin, and
Adelstein.
- FCC -
FCC Contact: Genevieve Ross, (202) 418- 1305, email: Genevieve.Ross@fcc.gov.
WT Docket No. 03-66
2
CURRENT AND NEW BAND PLANS
AT 2495-2690 MHz
CURRENT PLAN
2500 MHz 2690 MHz
ADOPTED PLAN
2496
(4) 16.5 MHz Blocks

consisting of (3) 5.5-MHz channels each
2690 MHz
GUARD BANDS
W
MDS CHANNELS 1 & 2
(202) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN
4450 SOUTH R U R A LR O A D
SUITE 8-130
TEMPE,A 2 85282

BILTMORE CIRCLE
SUITE 1150
PHOENIX, A 2 85016
(602) 952-2410

SUITE 200
TUCSON, A Z 85701
(520) 670-6334
TELEPHONE FOR HEARINGI M P A I R E D

(202) 224-7132
B
( 6 2 ) 952-0170
May 26,2004
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Jack Warner who has encountered a
problem with receiving unsolicited faxes.
Because the situation is under your jurisdiction, I am respectfilly referring this matter to you
respond directly to Jack.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
@ *cL
John McCain
Mztm
Enclosure
3 JUN 2004 RCVD
. __I_ I-_-__
l__l_ I ~ "--~. . .
.e ,
. .
, ,
,
, . . . . . . . -.I._ -. .. -., - ... ,___
... -. ........ ...... .. -_". . . . . . . ............. -.-.. ..._ ... _.
1 1 ..
; Ii
........ __..--_.-._-.I- c- ....

j
I
!
__- .-_ .................. _I__._._ . . . . . . . _-. .... - ...
,. . . .._^_^._ 1 . .!
, I
. . . . _. .. .... - ... .~ .................
. .
1 .
. . 8 .
I - 1
5/12/2004 8:12 07 PM I <- 1 602 840-5263 -Y Page 1

I
w m m - I
&$:
I
1
I
- Symbol:
Rating:
Targetprice:
DTEV
Strong Buy
$4.65
I Researching stocks that are going to be big winners! 1I
Fax Removal Number: (800) 658-8137
,
"--
I I_
I _ _-- - I *- -."----..--- _. *-
*_.I 7--" ..--*-. .--_
-). .- .-_11__1 ""
__L--.--._-- "I _"
, Stock Symbol: DTEV: ?his stock receives our highest rating of: ~
, Rating: Strong Buy, ; 1 0 out of 10. . 8
1 Current Price: $1.25 1 For more information visit:

' 6 Month Target Price: $5.65 I http:/hvww-.da taevo1ution.com
I .l_l_l.__.l-l...l-__ I_
Data Evolution Holdings, Inc. (DTEV)

Award- winning, convertible handheld personal computer, Clio@, and other niche-
oriented computer products.
Dear Readers: consist of the award-winning, convertible handheld
personal computer, Clio@, and other niche-oriented
The Market has been producing amazing returns as computer products.
o f late. TASR i s up over 6000% and MAGS is u p
over 400%. These returns are possible when DTEV focuses on specific niche markets for their
getting in on the right stock at the right time. software products and services, such as healthcare,
Read OR whv we feel (TKHL) could be the next big financial services, education, government services,
one ..... I
sales automation, and other forms-based, "point of"
data collection intensive industries.
TASR 4R3RQ03-4RIa 0 0 4
120,
I .
100 1 , I
I '
The award-winning SwingTop* pivoting arm and
180" screen rotation gives users the freedom t o
change configurations as conditions and work
functions dictate. Choose notebook, tablet or
20
I .-.-y I I
presentation rnodes with keyboard, touchscreen or
0 handwriting input.
~ R I R C I ~ ~imnoa3 itmoo4 ~ i o n 0 0 4
Clio@is an ideal platform for developing customized
The oossibilities are enormous when oositioniaq applications for healtlicare, financial services,
yourself in the riatit stock a t the riaht time. 1 insurance and retail merchandising, Built-in and
third party tools support development for real-time
Which brings us to our focus stock of the m r ...... data access, thin client, and wireless connectivity.
Microsoft Visual Basic@Runtime and MFC are
Our Focus Stock Of the Year 2004 is,* . . preloaded.
Final Word
Datu Evolution Holdings, Lnc! (DTEV), through ;ts W e are happy t o present this rare opportunity
wholly-owned subsidiary, Data Evolution Corporation,
develops proprietary computer software and I
t o our readers first. DTEV curries a l o out of
10 rating, which is our highest rating for
-
manufactures computer hardware for mobile data I potent&/ returns. When you have stocks like
capture solutions. The Company's software products OSIP going up 40 points in one day, anything
and services, grouped under t h e trade name is possible in this market! Do not miss this
mCapture: PowerSys(TM), are specifically designed t o one..... Happy trading to all!
help organizations capture and manipulate data
efficiently and accurately. Our hardware products 1
1 WSW is not a registered financial advisory. The information Dresei d, bv WSW is not an offer to bw or sell securities. WSW
accumulates then distributes opinions, comments and inforrnqtionfroin based on other p b l i c sour&. Penny stocks are considered
to be highly speculative and may be unsuitable For all but vert aggressive investors. WSW rnay hold positions in companies
mentioned and may buy or sell a: any time. This Profile OF DTW was a paid advertisement by a third party to WSW. This third party
has compensated WSW fifty thousand free trading slwres. Paid advertisements by an affiliated public relations group or third party,
do not necessarily reflect the vews of WSW. Target prices rnay fluctuate, please always consult a registered Financial advisor before
makina any decisions, This report is for entertainment and advettislna purposes only and should not be used as investment advice.
To have y o w name removed froin our database please call our toll free service at: (800) 668-8137
I t
I 1
I
I
- -_ - - 1
t ' 1
5/13/20048 07 06 AM <- 1 602 840-5263-> Page 1

i
- 1
EVERYONECAMAFFORD
Our plans are among the most comprehensive and competitive health plans available!
We offer alternatives to expensive, traditional health insurance for individuals, families and ths self-
employed We offer "Total Protection" by combining a high deductible comprehensive health insurance
plan with supplemental "gap" health plans. This results in surprisingly affordable rates and significantly
reduced out of pocket expenses.
I I I \
(BENEATPLIINS: I SINGLE I COUPLE I HIRIIILY
Is Possible!
1 I I
$S,OOC$OO LIFETIME, CO-PAY DR. VISITS, WELLNEES. IN/OUT PATIENT BENEFITS
'BENEFITPLANS; I SIWQLE
SILWER PLAN
BRSlC IICCIBEHT PLAH $17.50
BOLD PLAN I ( i
I
$35.00 I $47.50 I
ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE I
PLATINUM PLUS
INCLUDES SILVER AND GOLD
PUNS PLUS PPO MEDICAL
~
$37.50 $51.50 $67.50
\ PLAN I
1
S w h n s d a l duns me uuaraieed i m e : there we no redric ISfor p e d # ng conditions, owpations hcbbiesor spats
cosrpaiioi: pion i o idgii dedwlble IioalL iiiruronca plans.
Call 800-854-2101 Today!

Muior Medial Max are ofrered by werd d the Ieodiiy lop rated iiOtional I M U I Q ~ corners.
I~~ Your anual ratswill vary based oil your Ilecrith Iris%ry, mud age at hnie d applicorion,
bendits dededand residmid i p mde. Ma M w l Plonsoe fully undamlta and you mu9 qwlifr based an your own personal hwlth history. Plrosemllfao fra d o m rjiotr.
I
CALLTou FREEAT 1-800-658-8 133.

To BE REMOVEDFROMc)uR DATABASE,
I
5/13/2004 4 39.11 PM Page 'I
I
t-
I ' ' I
I
Moms and Dads:

"Our children come to the office every day!''
I I
Part-time: Up to $500 - $1,500 a month Free Vacations

Full-time: Up to $2,500 - $8,500 a month * Health Benefits
Step-by-step Home Training provided Early Retirement
i I
I
Cor a FREE Information Book, call

1-800-417-3739
or visit our website at
www.reachwealth.com
To SE REMOVEDPROM Ow DATA~~SE,
CALLTou FREEAT 1-800-390- 1403.
I
I 1
._.~. . .." .. . P
1 1 "
5/19/2004 3 25 28 PM Page 1
Ark about our "Wealth Wder loan"

Want to save SlO0,OOO in interest over the life of your Loam
How about building $50,000 dollan of equity o w the next 5 years?
loan programs for every need: MI doc, stated, no doc loan,.
8001417-1504 la UXrn.I"
C E U l
F
I
To BE REMOVEDFROM OURD~TABAJE,
CALLTOLL FREEAT 1 -800-658-8133.
5/20/2004 11 21 44 AM
- 1
I
I '
ARE YOU MAKING CR/T/CAf

ACCO UNTING MISTAKES?
Our Newest Location*
Phoenix, AZ 85053
SPONSORED BY: m*k%
America's Largest QuickBooks Trainer
'The setnnar locahon is not affiliated with QBEasy
I I I
1
Learn QuickBooks"Today[
Introductory Class
QuickBooksfR' Learn the 7 most common mlstakes made
DATE June I O , 2004 with QuickBooks" and how to avoid them
Learn the 3 time-saving methods needed
TIME. 9 am -1 m
to set up new clients 8, customers
PRICE. '97pp ($7 each add.)
Learn the 5 steps of using QuickBooksib
CLASS #. 86063-6-723 to increase Your CASH FLOW1
Put an end to your bookkeeping nightmares with this Our trainers use the software everyday in
fast-paced and informative training seminar. their own business -they know it1
Sign Up M a y ! I
WE ACCEPT
800-709-0772
OpTGIJt InStflJCtions: Wo arc strongly ai(n1nst sonding linsolicltod hxcs to thosc who do not wish tn rmohrc our s p o c l ~hmndnsrs.
l YOU may
navi? nptod in to oiw or innro nf niir affilintoa mqimting to hn notifind of nny spncinl offors wn inay rim froin tiinn to timo. Wa also hnvn nttaincd
lhe services or an indeperidenl3rd ptirty Lo overlook list nlenagenlenl and reilloval services. Please a c w p l our apolcgies il yoti have been sen1
this lax ir) error, We honor ell removal feciuwk. To Bc Rcrnovcd From Our Dutabasc, Call Toll FIcw 800-668-81 34
,
- ..
. .. %-
WLWLUV~ I ~ 3 .r~
i v i4 .I-602-&@z
.
I
ATTENTION: HOMEOWNERS
9 COIysdLlDATE DEBT
Take Advantage of the Lowest lnferest Raks Available Today!

We have Only#lS m;//,on do/'u~available to lend.
1
I
Banhmptry No Problem!
Bad Credit Is OK!
Forecloswe No Problem!
Employed OK!
I
I
1.25 % - NOPOINTS*
Instunt Phone Approvul!
*Based on APR 4.880%. 30 year loan amortization.

*"Subject to final lender approval and appraisal revtew.
To BE REMOVED FROM OURDATABASE,

CALLTOLL FREEAT 1-800-658-8133,
I t i
4/27/2004 6 47 39 PM , <- 1 602 840-5263-> Page 1
I
4 --'
I
HEALTH INSURANCE
EWERYONECAHAFFORD
Our plans are among the most comprehensive and competitive health plans available!
V k offer alternatives to expensive, traditional health insurance for individuals, families and the self-
employed We offer "Total Protection" by combining a high deductible comprehensive health insurance
plan with supplemental "gap" health plans. This results in surprisingly affordable rates and significantly
reduced out of pocket expenses. I
f I I I \
(BEHEFITPIAHS I SINGLE I COUPLE I WMILY
ICOMPREHENSIVE
MAJOR ROIOICRL PLAN8
tp!iY#E$ Is Possible!
$5,000,000 LIFETIME, CO-PAY DR. VISITS, WELLUESS. IN/oUT PATIENT BENEFITS

/ I I I \
'BENEFITPLANS I ' SIWQLE I COUPLE I FAMILY

"luER
BRSlC IICCIBEMI PUH $17.50 $27.50 $87.50
GOLO PLAN I
ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE ,
PLATINUM PLUS 1 '
INCLUDES SILVER AND GOLD

PLANS PLUS - PPO MEDICAL 193MII $57.50 I $67.50 I
II
PUN
\
II t
I I
II
SJppltmdal plonroe g u a r d e d i s m ; !hue are no redridim for pe-utlrtinp mditions, owpotions hobbiuor rpab
lhlrli on excdlmn bendlis plai all by lrself or ora conipailoii plan re high &xbxIlbie IieaitiiIIiarraiicoplo!lr.
I
Call 800=854-2101Today! ' I

Mqor Wml Raw ore off wed by wwd d thc leadiilg top rated iiatianal i&ance miners Your actual ioieswiiI vorl based an your Iledlh iiiaory, oaud age ot nnie d appiicoliM:,
bniefitr sdeded ond residentid ~p wda war
Modal Plonr ora fully boxd on pui own pasono1 healthhidow. Pleasecdl fa o free olrtom quote.
ten ond you mud q~dif~
1
! I
To BE REMOVEDFROM d,DATFSE, CALLTOLLFREEAT 1-800-658-8 133.

1 I
I i !
.
... . .. ~ . 1I ., - . ..! . .. I I
ARE YOU MAKING CRITICAL
ACCOUNTING MISTAKES9 I ! I
I
Our Newest Location"

SPONSORED BY: @B&ii
America's Largest QuickEooks Trainer
rw
'The semnar locatron is riot affiliated with QB-Edsy
E Raintree Dr
Learn!QuickBooks@Today!
QuickBooks" Introductory Class j * Learn the 7 most comman mistakes made
GATE May 20, 2004 I with QuickBooks" and how to avold them
Learn the 3 time-saving methods needed
TIME 9 a m - I pm to set up new client9 t customers
PRICE' '97pp &each add.) 1 I tI
Learn the 5 steps of using QuckBooksL

CLASS # 86260-6-489 ,i to increase your CASH FLOW1
Put an end to your bookkeeping nightmares with this Our trainers use the software everyday in
fast-pacedand informative training seminar 1 their own business -they know it1
OpralJt InSflJdions: Wo arc! strongly ngnlnst sonding iinsnlicltad tnxcs to thosc who do not wish to rwoivo our spoclfll hrnndwsts You may
hflvo optnd In to onr nr mnrn olnrir RffllintOR roqiiosting tn bo nntlfinrl of nnyspociai nffora wo inay run frnrn tlinn to timn bo alsn havn attainnd
Llie services or an independent 3rd party lo overlook lis1 managemenl dnd reiriovdl services. Please accepl our ap~l~gies I r you have been sent
!his lax In error We honor dll relriwal requests. To Ec Rcmovud From Our Database, Call Toll FICX 800-668-81 34
I
"... - . "I.^I. .. .... ..
I . . . ~
I
Corporate Travel Promothas
0UR.BEST VALUE CRUISE PACKAGE IS BACK!

9 Night Flarida 6 Bahamas Vaeatiom Special
Firs) 160 talters OwlyS

Yea Jyasi Ace Naw!
. - .- .~ . , - . .. ... __.
.. . .
YOUR VACATION INCLUDES...

~
~
-
4 Days / 3 Nights hotel accommodations In Orlando, FL near all major attractions SON119 VACAV8BQ
2 Days /2 Nights hotel accommodations in Daytono Beach, FL - By Reserving Today, You MI1
Also Receive a Vatation
2 Days /2 Nights All-lntlusive Cruise tothe Bahamas
To los refJlrS
2 Days /2 Nights hotel accommodations in Ft. Louderdale, FL
Pwh Ydorto
E
II
v)
m
z
ij
-
TO BEREMOVEDFROMOUR DATABASE,
C U TOLLFREE AT 1-800-658-8 133.
0
R- .
@ I
'0
I
5/4ROC)4 4128: 12 .PM .
I I Page I
z
Take Advantage of the rOwesi Interest Rarfes Available Today!

We have OnlyS15 mi//,iondollarrs available to lend.
I
I
Bankruptcy No Problem!
Bud Credit Is OK!
1 Foredoswe
No Problem!
Se/Mmployed OK! I
1 1I
1.25 %I NO POINTS"
--
Instunt Phone Approval!
*Based o n APR 4.380% 30 year loan amortization

""'Subject to final lender approval and appraisal review.
To BE REMOVEDFROM OURDATABASE,
CALLTOLL FREEAT 1-800-658-8133,
I
?
5/6/2004 3.59.37PM <- 1 602 840-5263->.
I
Page 1 ,
I ’
.
- I
I
i
L
SAVEiMONEY...
REFINANCE NOW!
BEFORE RATES GO BACK UP!!!
Credit Card Lates OK!

Mortgage Lates OK!
Challenged Credit OK!
Credt Score 475 arid UP!
Cash Out To 100%
No Tiicoiiie/No Asset
Get Out OfDebt Now!
“RWS 11ava17bccri this low in 40 ycars!!!

Rcfin,uicc iiow, coiisolidatc dcbls, aid
lower your payments”
I EVEN TF YOU‘VE BEEN TURNED

DOWN, CALL US NOW. .. 800-961-3103
CALLTou FREEAT 1-800-658-6 133.
To BE REMOVEDFROMOUI DATABASE,
I
4
Mr. Jack Warner

51 19 N 4lStStreet
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Mr. Warner:
over unsolicited faxes being sent to your fax machine even though you are registered with the
National Do-Not-Call list. Your letter has been forwarded to the Commission for our review.
Although the Commission does not adjudicate individual complaints of this type, we do closely
monitor such complaints to determine whether independent enforcement action is warranted.
The Commission has rules concerning unsolicited telephone marketing calls and
unsolicited advertisements to facsimile machines in accordance with the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). These rules require entities that make telephone solicitations to
maintain “do-not-call” lists. 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. The Commission has issued numerous
citations against violators of the TCPA and the Commission’s telemarketing rules. These
enforcement actions can eventually result in monetary penalties of up to $11,000 per violation.
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, and the actions consumers
can take to reduce the number of solicitation calls placed to their homes. The FCC will not be
resolving individual complaints, and cannot award monetary or other damages directly to
consumers, but consumers should still report violations of the telemarketing rules. You 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.
We invite you to visit the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau’s Internet web site
at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb for additional information. In addition, you may wish to view the
Enforcement Bureau’s web site at http://www .fcc.g;ov/eb/tcd/working;.html for recent
Commission TCPA enforcement actions. 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). The Commission has available an e-mail service
Mr. Jack Warner Page 2
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”).
questions.
Sincerely ,
TqXK.%
Dane.Snowden
L J $
Chief
Enclosures

Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar

Chairman
Committee on Foreign Relations
Dear Chairman Lugar:
Enclosed is a Report submitted by the Federal Communications Commission in

accordance with Section 646 of the Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of
International Telecommunications Act. Pub. L. No. 106-180. 114 Stat. 48 (2000) (“ORBIT
Act”).
The Report describes: (1) Commission action required by or related to the ORBIT Act;
(2) the status of INTELSAT and Inmarsat privatizing; and (3) the views of industry on
privatization as received by the Commission in response to a Public Notice that sought comment
for this Report.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. My staff and I are available to
discuss any specific questions that may arise in relation to the enclosed document.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Dear Chairman Bums:

International Telecommunications Act. Pub. L, No. 106-180. 114 Stat. 48 (2000) (“ORBIT
Act”).
for this Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member

Act”).
for this Report.
Enc1osure
..
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Ranking Member
Committee on Foreign Relations
Dear Senator Biden:

Act”).
for this Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
Enclosed is a Report submitted by L e Federa Communldations Commission in

International Telecommunications Act. Pub. L. No. 106-180. 114 Stat. 48 (2000) ("ORBIT
Act").
for this Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
June 15,2004
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde

Chairman
Committee on International Relations
Dear Chairman Hyde:

Act”).
for this Report.
Enclosure
... .. ... . - . ~. . .. .~ * I
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Tom Lantos

Ranking Member
Committee on International Relations
B-360 Rayburn House Office Building
Dear Congressman Lantos:

Act”).
for this Report.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
.,
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member

Act”).
for this Report.
Enclosure
c -
Sinc
Michael K. Powell
. I
Washington, D.C.
CHAiRMAN
June 15,2004

Chairman

Act”).
for this Report.
Sincer
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Federal Communications Comrnission
Washington, D.C.

Chairman

Act”).
for this Report.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
... -- . I
Washington, D.C.

Chairman

Act”).
privatization as received by the Cornmission in response to a Public Notice that sought comment
for this Report.
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member

Act”).
for this Report.
Sincerely,
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
JWNMCWN, ARUONA, CWAIRMIN
T U SWVCNS. ALASKA I I N d r ' s . UOLLINQS. SOUTH CIROUNr.
COIUAO BURNS. MONTANA DANIILK.lNOUYE. HAWAII
TMM L O T , MIS8lS3HV'l JOHN 0. ROCSEFULIW W , WEST W C I N l l
KAV 0 A U V WVTCWION, TWnS JOHN F. KRRW. MLXSACNVbSYr6
DLVMPlA 1. SNOWI, MIlm JOHN L IRlAUX, LWISIANA
SnM onowirw UANSAS OYRON L DORdAU. UORW OAKOrA
G(IHD0N SYI'IH, OnCCfiN I O N W I D t N . OREGON
PETER G. FITzQCPALD. ILLINOIF I A R U U A BOXER CALImhNIA
JOHN ENSIGN,NEVIDP I l L L NILSON. FLOWA
o a o w ILLIN, VIRGINIA w n 1 4CAHIWIL~ WAWNOTON COMMIlTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE,
J O N E. SUNUNU. "v MAMPSWIRE F n u l K LAUTENE€OG. NEW J I R S W
AN0
.- TRANSPORTATION
WASHINOTON,DC 20620-6126
June 7,2004
Viu-fu:(202) 418
Mr. Kenneth Fcrree

Chief, Media Bureau
4 4 5 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC, 20554
Dear Mr. Ferret:

On Wednesday, June 9,2004, at 9:30 a.m. in SR-253,the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation will hold a Full Committee hearing on completing the
transition from analog to digital television. As Chairman of the Committee, I invite you to
testify.
At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony on various policy proposals to
complete the transition and the how the reclaimed spectrum from analog television con be used
to benefit the public. The Committee asks that you focus your testimony on the your views on
how to complete the transition and any other matters that may be of interest to the Committee.
While your full statement will be made part of the record, we ask that, in your oral testimony,
you limit your remarks to five minutes, highlighting or summarizing the most important points.
Enclosed you will find a copy of the Rules of Procedure for witnesses testifying before
the Commerce Committee. Please read and follow these Rules carefully.
If you have any questions, please contact Bill Bailey of the Republican staff at 202-224-
5 184, or James Assey of the Democratic staff at 202-224-9340. I appreciate your efforts to
provide this information to the Committee and the Senate.
WdlE:P '1 'Nnf 3Wll lNIbid
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE O N CO- CE.SCIENCE. AND TRANSPORTATION

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR WITNESSES
The Committee requires witnesses to abide by tho following rules, Please keep in mind
these rules are designed to: (1) ensure your testimony is inserted in the formal printed hearing
record; (2) enablc thc Committee to be of service to the public by posting your testimony to the
Committee's web site (www.senate.gov/-commerce/);and (3) cut costs associated with printing.
Exceptions to any of the these rules may be made by the Chairman or the presiding Committee
Member. Your assistance and testimony are greatly appreciated,
Pre-hearing:
OralTes t i m w
Each witness will have 5 minutes to present his or her oral remarks.
a mctroaic Sub- ion of Testimony
Your prepared statement and all supplemental material for inclusion in the
formal hearing record musr be transmitted to the Committee in electronic
form 3 business &ys mior to the h e a m to the following two e-mail accounts:
(1) docs@commerce.senrte.gov; and (2) Mark-Delicb@commerce.senate.gov.
9 Hard-CoRYS 'ssion of Testimon
In addition to p 3 d i n g your staternen?in electronic format, please provide
J 25 conip of your written testimony to the Full Committee:
-3coDies should be delivered to SH-428of the Hart Senate
Office Building, 3 b u s i w davS Dnor to the- ,along
with 2 copies of a one-page summary of your testimony; and
-100 code8 should be delivered to the Hearing Clerk in SR-254of the Russell
Senate Office Building, bv noon on the day before the hearm
Post-bearing;
HeariIIg Trpascr iu P a m and Port - h e a r b 0uf!-
-
If you wish to review the bearing transcript pages of your oral testimony, please
contact the Majority Staff at (202) 224-5184 no later than two weeks fiom the
date of the hearing, Urnn Your reauest, you will be provided a draft of the
transcript pages that include your remarks. You are requested to provide the
Committee with any necessary corrections for accuracy, including any necessary
typographical and/or minimal grammatical corrections provided they do not
change the context of your original testimony. Revisions should be printed and
marked in contrasting color and returned to the Majority staff of the Committee.
In addition, you will be expected to respond to post-hearing questions, if posed.
Please return cottccted aanscdnts m d resapElsas to uost-heannn aucstions no later
than two weeks aher feceiut of these m aterialq. If the Committee does not receive
your material within this time frame,the Committee reserves the right to assume
there are no corrections, plcmental material, or post-bearing responses,and the
formal hearing record e printed accordingly.
. * v IVICCAIN 241 RUSSELLS E N
ARIZONA WASHINGTON,
(202) 2
4450 SOUTH
SUITE t
TEMPE. A;
(480) 897
2400 EASTA
BILTMORE c
SUITE 11:
PHOENIX, A 2 I
(6021 952-2.
450 WESTPASEOR
SUITE Zoo
TUCSON. A2 85;
(520) 670-633.
June 9,2004 FOR H E A R t N G
1202) 224-7132
( 6 0 2 ) 952-017
Director
Cons~merand Governmental Affairs Bureau
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director
Attn: Kevin Navas

4450 S. Rural Road
Suite B-130
Tempe, AZ 85282
The response YOU provide will be most appreciated and will be forwarded to my constituent,
look fornard to your reply at your earliest convenience.
wzkn
EncIosure
P R W " D ON RECYCLEDPAPER
Ray W. Justus [rwjustus@cox.net]
,,it: Wednesday, May 19,2004 10:33 PM
To: Do Not Call Registry; President George W. Bush; Kyl, info (Kyl); McCain, Senator (McCi
Congressman Ed Pastor; Congressman J, D. Hayworth; Congressman Jeff Flake; Congi
Kolbe; Congressman John Shadegg; Congressman Raljl Grialva; Congressman Rick Rc
Congressman Trent Franks
Subject: Do Not Call Complaint
Importance: High
,i
7
We are continuing to receive unsolicited call from MCI. This is the second time I have
registered a complaint for their calls. On two occasions I have answered their calls an
them to stop calling us. As you can see from the increasing size of the list below, the:
intend to stop. I know they are not legitimate calls because they never leave a message.
is a list of all calls we have received since April 1, 2 0 0 4 . Please help us get rid of t
telephone stalkers!
Registered Number: ( 9 7 3 ) 4 3 7 - 2 1 2 5
Times of calls:
0 4 / 0 1 / 0 4 0 6 : 0 5 PM
0 4 / 2 7 / 0 4 0 6 : 1 9 PM
0 4 / 2 8 / 0 4 0 4 : 1 5 PM
0 5 / 0 4 / 0 4 0 6 : 1 6 PM
0 5 / 0 6 / 0 4 0 6 : 1 5 PM
0 5 / 1 1 / 0 4 0 3 : 1 7 PM
05/15/04 0 9 : 1 1 AM
05/19/04 0 5 : 1 5 PM
Times of calls:
0 4 / 0 1 / 0 4 0 7 : 0 9 PM
0 4 / 2 8 / 0 4 0 5 : 2 5 PM
0 4 / 2 8 / 0 4 0 6 : 3 7 PM ;
0 4 / 2 9 / 0 4 0 6 : 3 3 PM 5=
.
T
I
I
I
0 5 / 0 3 / 0 4 0 6 : 2 1 PM
0 5 / 0 5 / 0 4 0 6 : 2 7 PM
0 5 / 0 7 / 0 4 0 6 : 0 9 PM
0 5 / 1 0 / 0 4 06:lO PM
0 5 / 1 1 / 0 4 06:Ol PM
0 5 / 1 2 / 0 4 0 6 : 2 3 PM
0 5 / 1 8 / 0 4 0 4 : 1 5 PM
Times of calls:
0 5 / 1 4 / 0 4 0 2 : 4 1 PM
0 5 / 1 9 / 0 4 0 3 : 4 9 PM
0 5 / 1 9 / 0 4 0 6 5 2 PM
Ray W. Justus
1 3 3 1 West Folley Street
Chandler, AZ 8 5 2 2 4 - 7 5 1 1
Home: ( 4 8 0 ) 9 6 3 - 4 8 1 1
Work: ( 6 0 2 ) 6 3 1 - 6 1 5 7
mailto: rwjustus@cox.net
14
JUL 6 Control No. 0401862/kah

4450 S. Rural Road, Suite B-130
Tempe, AZ 85282
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ray Justus, regarding his
receiving telemarketing calls from MCI even though he has requested his name and number be
placed on the company’s Do-Not-Call list.
inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Mr. Justus to MCI and directed
the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed MCI to send Mr.
Justus a copy of the response that the company submits to the Commission. Mr. Justus 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). Mr. Justus should mention his informal complaint number, 04-B0102446,
and the congressional tracking number listed at the top of this letter to facilitate a prompt
response to his inquiry.
Sincerely,
Chief
SEP 7 2004
Control No. 04018621kah

Tempe, AZ 85282
This letter is a follow up to our letter dated July 6, 2004, regarding your constituent,
Mr. Ray Justus’ concerns regarding his receiving telemarketing calls from MCI even though he
has requested his name and number be placed on the company’s Do-Not-Call list.
On July 14, 2004, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed MCI to
information. Enclosed is a copy of the company’s response. In their response MCI states that
Mr. Justus’ account was active with MCI from July 23, 1990 to June 15, 2004. Companies
are allowed to call those with whom they have established business relationships or with whom
they have had a business relationship within the last 18 months. However, based on Mr.
Justus’ request, MCI added his telephone number to their internal do-not-call list on July 13,
2004. Based on the information provided, the Commission does not plan to take any further
action with respect to Mr. Justus’ complaint.
Sincerely,
4\-k K. Dane Snowden V

Chief
Enclosure
1’ -
Carole Bailey
Complaint Management
1133 Nineteenth Street, NW
MCI:
August 16,2004
Below is the letter of response sent to the customer and represents actions taken for the
complaint filled with the Federal Communications Commission. If the Commission has
additional questions regarding the resolution below, please contact me at 1-800-205-4226.
Carole Bailey
July 28,2004
Ray Justus
1331 West Folley Street
Chandler, AZ 85224
RE: RayJustus
04-B 1012446
Notice of Informal Complaint dated July 14, 2004
Dear Mr. Justus,
This letter is in response to the complaint 04-B1012446 filed with the Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) regarding solicitation calls from MCI. Below you will find the research and
actions taken by MCI to resolve your complaint.
In your complaint you state that you are receiving calls from MCI and you would like the calls to
stop.
I assure you that MCI complies with all Telephone Consumer Protection Act guidelines. MCI
records show that account 6M301429 for telephone number 480-963-481 1 was active with MCI
from July 23, 1990 to June 15, 2004. Companies are allowed to call those with whom they
have established business relationships or with whom they have had a business relationship
within the last 18 months.
Due to your request, I have added your telephone number, 480-963-481 1, to MCI’s Internal Do
Not Call list on July 13, 2004. This will ensure you do not receive solicitation calls from MCI for
five years regardless of past business relationship. Should you move, change your name,
disconnect or reconnect your local service, you will need to contact MCI at 800-444-3333 to
inform us of the change so we can maintain your don’t call request.
1’ .
Page 2
Thank you for writing MCI concerning this matter. If you have any additional questions
regarding this issue, please call MCI at 800-624-0533, ext. 5466.
Sincerely,
DeAnn Wilford
MCI Agency Relations
Cc: Federal Communications Commission
- 1 1'
WASHINGTON,DC 20510-0303
ARIZONA
(202) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN 4450 SOUTHRURALROAD

United state5 Senate

SUITE 6-130
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION TEMPE,A Z 85282
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 2400 E A S TARIZONA

BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 11 50
PHOENIX,A Z 85016
(602) 952-2410
450 WESTPASEO REDONDO

SUITE 200
TUCSON,AZ 85701
June 16, 2004 ( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
TELEPHONEFOR HEARINGI M P A I R E D
(2021 224-7132
Michael Powell
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Besty Breault who has encountered a
problem with SBA Communications and a cell tower in Bisbee, AZ.
Because the situation is under your jurisdiction, I am respectfully referring this matter to you
respond directly to Besty Breault, P. 0. Box 568, Bisbee, AZ 85603-0568.
Thank you
Sincerely,
JWiP
Enclosure( s)
TUESDAY
EVf
I August 27,2002
VOl. 105.No. 78
Bisbee, Az
Sier;:
Vista
Herald
50C
1. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING

4n-7 .
e -
1: -
I work at
listens to
N nightis ,
Spencer I
‘
stopped.
- I - -. .
’ .
-
SIERRAVISTA The man
xhind aplannedcitizens’bor-
;m-~afml~xn7sine-Ihis vision
TFZGZdEh@gid for sons death Lllti I ’IIUIILIL-UIU
brought hi with severe head in-
juries, Burns said. Due to the
OU.” *V<ld
hild abuse allegations, facing the additionalcharge of extent of the hjuries, the child
3ill Burns, spokesmanfor first-degreemurdec” was immediately flown to the
ierra Vista Police Depart- Burns said the appropriate University Medical Center’s
paperwork to add the murder trauma unit in Tucson.
an safely say what we’re charge is expected to be com- He was trqited in the trauma
ng at is shaken baby syn- pleted at the justice court in unit, but succumbed to the in-
e,” Burns said. “The au- Sierra Vista this afternoon. juries and died at approxi-
7 will probably confirm Police were calld to Sierra mately 11:40 a.m. Mondax An
After the autopsy thl i Vista Regional Health Center
ling, Freiberger will be just before 1a.m. Sundaywhen See DEATH,Page A8
,
m
lower .
A view
work at ‘
5
I
from night is +
I
t
i
I
MARK LNY.HERALD/RMEW
eautiful view of the
3 on the Charleston
iple of turtles swim-
who are from Mesa,
. ’ -
above stopped
I
I ’
risit Cochise County. BY CATHY MURPHY

HERALDIREVIEW
BISBEE - Noise and lights

late at night from the commu-
nications tower construction
Site in Spring Canyon sparked
numerous complaints from
neighbors and prompted city
officialsto take action.
’Bisbee Mayor Dan Beau-
champ and councilmen John
Charley and Dgnnis Nelson
_.met with Rutherford.rndr.e . . .’ .
.,,~t.rtraeqpffi&@,.wbasreed to
, stop wbrking crews on double
shifts. Rutherfdrd Industries
is the project contractor.
“The telephone at the police
station has been ringing off
the hook for a week with com-
plaints about the late con-
struction hours,” said Bisbee
police Sgt. Howard Gardner.
Gardner said he a@ went up
to the construction site and
spoke with the contractor who
is buildingthe tower for SBA.
“Normally the crews work 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. But the foreman
said because of all the com-
plaints (to the plan to build the
tower), the last tower was not
completed and the entire net-
work was held up, which is -
why the crew was working at
night.” Gardner said of what
he was told.
In a press release issued by
(1 if 7 R 1 ~ i i i r ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 p“
q nTj ~~ P
M NUTES O F THE WORK SESSION DECEMBER 4,2001
Councilmember Nelson questioned whether o r not it made a difference if the too c r was located on a
hilltop o r in a valley. Jerry Bradden, Alamosa PCS,said that a cell tower on te 8 of a hill could cover
more distance where possibly two o r more towers would be needed in a valley. 1Ee said that a cell lower
at tbe Spring Caayoo sitc could cover the whole valley.
Councilmember Nelson inquired if a company that builds lattice towers could CQ le in and also ask for a
Special Use Permit. Mr. Bradden answered that other companies would probrl*lycelocate on the same
tower. Msyor Beauchamp asked if he vt 9s correct is stating that space on the cell tower would br sold to
third parties once the cell tower was in >lace. Mr. Bradden said that SBA woald sell space on th cell
.8
tower, not AIarmsa PCS. Mayor Beauc m o p also commented that one of the major reasons for I b t
having another cell tower in tbe area is tisbce's population. Mr. Bradden said that he did not e iect
huge income production from the Bisbec area. The cell tower would cover the general area anu m m e c t
to the other sites, said Mr. Bra Iden.
Councilmember White asked v hether a "line of sight" was preferred in the placement of towers. Mr.
Bradden said that it was good to have a line of sight but that it was not totally necessary as the "nature
of the arc" was that it would bounce off walls and other structures and the signal could be handed off
from tower to tower in that mariner. Councilmember White inquired if Bucky O'Neill Hill had been
\
considered as a tower site. Mr. .Ark answered they had spoken briefly with Phelps Uodge about the hill
but an access road could not be made to this site. Mr. Kirk rdded that the 1Iiggins Hill site had
presented severe environmental problems and was abandoned.
Councilmember Nelson asked if radio reception would be available and improve if the cell tower was
built. Mr. B n d e n said that tbere wouldn't be any interference nor would there be a problem with
having a carrier on the tower.
Councilmember Nelson inquired if SUA was aware that a bond would have to be posted when the
building permit application was subi itted. Mr. Kirk said that he was aware of that as SBA has had
to do that in other locations in the cointy.
Councilmember Nelson questioned the need for any special electrical needs for the tower. Mr. Kirk
stated that he was not aware of any special needs.
Mayor 'Ieauchamp asked if there would be noise emitting from the tower system. He said that he had
visited the tower in the San Jose area and the equipment sounded like a fan. Mr. Kirk said that the
tower would not make any noise but that the equipment on the ground, an air conditioning unit for
cooling, would sound like a cooling fan in the back of a computer.
Councilmember Nelson inquired how city sales tax would be charged for use of the tower. Mr. Kirk
said that he did not know about any sales tax charged to SBA. Councilmembcr Nelson said that perhaps
he should ask Sprint about sales tax. Mayor Beaucbamp stated that he was interested in property taxes
at this location.
d o t be based on possible nvironmental o r health hazards.

6
2
Janw&D, 2002
Julia Smock, Esq.
Asst, Attorney General
P.O.Box 6140
Glendale, AZ 85312-6140
Re: City of Bisbee Design Review Board Meetitig of 11/20/01

D m A Is. Smock:
Pursuant t9 your request I am enclosing the following itenls pertaining to possible violations of
open meeting laws by City of Bisbee Design Review Board at a Special Meeting held on 1 1/20/01 "relating
to painling of a Cell Tower in Spring Canyon":
1. Public Notice dated 11/16/01of Special Meeting of Design Review Board.

2. Tape recording of Special Meeting of Design Review Board on 1 1/20/01.
3. Letter dated 12/12/01by Sandy Upson read and present to Bisbee City Council
on 1/1/02.
A. City of Bisbee Special Use Permit Application (with violations highlighted).
5. City of Bisbee Design Review Board Application, Procedures and Items Required for
Applying for Design Review Board Approval (withviolations highhghted).
6. City of Biske Ordinance 00-20Amending Zoning Code Re: Wireless Communication

Facilif'es. SBA, Inc. has not provided an inventory of alternate sites for locating cell
tower hi historic district.
7. Minutes of 12/04/01 City Council Meeting approving issuing Special Use Permit to SBA,
Inc.
8. Records Request dated 12/20/01for Speical Use Permit. Permit was not made available
at this time. We were told the Permit would not be available until after the 12/18/01City
Council Meeting at which time Council approved Minutes of the 1U04/01 meeting.
John Kelliher is the attorney for the City of Bisbee at 118 Arizona Street, Bisbee, Az 85603 (520)
432-6000.
I look forward to discussing this matter with you alter you have had an opportunity to review the
enclosed materials. This is a very complicated matter and I llave selected only portions of the
documentation I felt apropriate to send at this time. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Bisbee,Az 85603
Phone: (520)432-1899
" .'
cc: John Kcllihcr, Esq.

July 20,2004
Mrs. Betsy Breault

P.O. Box 568
Bisbee, AZ 85603-0568
Dear Ms. Breault:
Senator John McCain has asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
reply to your letter to him of June 11,2004. In that letter, you express concern over
many issues related to a SBA Communications and Sprint wireless/cellular facility
located near your property in Bisbee, Arizona. Many of your concerns, such as
compliance with city ordinances and aesthetic blending, do not fall under the jurisdiction
of the FCC and are not addressed in this letter. These issues should be handled with your
local authorities. The FCC does have jurisdiction over radiofrequency (RF)emissions as
they relate to health and safety, which you also state is an area of concern. We will
address these concerns below.
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 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
fiom Cellular 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.
(EEE) 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 response to your inquiry concerning environmental assessments (EA’S), if a
transmitting antenna is regulated by the FCC, it must comply with the FCC’s RF safety
guidelines.
Furthermore, the FCC requires that certain transmitting sources be routinely evaluated for
their impact on the environment due to possible human exposure to RF energy. These
requirements are detailed in Part 1 of the FCC’s Rules and Regulations [47 CFR
9 l.l307(b)]. Applicants for construction of a facility or license may be required to
submit evidence of compliance with the guidelines before approval can be granted.
Routine evaluation for RF exposure is required for transmitters, facilities or operations

that are included in the categories listed in Table 1 of Section l.l307(b) of the FCC’s
rules. This requirement applies to some, but not necessary u11, transmitters, facilities or
operations that are authorized under our rules. If a transmitter operates using relatively
high power, and there is a possibility that workers or the public could have access to the
transmitter site, then routine evaluation is justified. Transmitters and facilities not
included in the specified categories are excluded from routine evaluation for RF
exposure. The Commission believes that such transmitting facilities generally pose little
or no risk for causing exposures in excess of the guidelines. However, as noted above, in
exceptional cases the Commission may, on its own merit or as the result of a petition,
require an Environmental Assessment (EA) of proposed transmitters or facilities even
though they are otherwise excluded from routine evaluation.
In the case of wireless communications antennas, the power levels used are generally
relatively low, and the transmitting antennas are normally located high enough above
ground so as not to create potentially harmful levels of exposure to nearby persons. As
discussed in the enclosed factsheet, measurements of field intensities made by the FCC
and others have shown that exposure levels in the vicinity of cellular and wireless
telecommunications towers and antennas are typically thousands of times below the FCC
safety limits and do not constitute a hazard to nearby residents. Therefore, an EA is
normally not justified.
As a result of your inquiry, we obtained a copy of the engineering report from

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. of Southport, Connecticut on behalf of SBA
Communications. Our analysis of the engineering data indicates that the RF emissions at
this site are well below the applicable limits for public exposure as detailed in Part 1 of
the FCC’s Rules and Regulations (47 CFR l.l307(b))and therefore should not pose a
health risk to humans. Therefore, there is no evidence of an environmental impact from
the emissions from this antenna to warrant preparation of an EA.
I hope that this information will be helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free
to contact me or Mr. Michael Crowe through the FCC's RF Safety Program at (202) 41 8-
2464. Further information is also available at our Internet Web site:
www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety.
A
%
4 k o n d J. Thomas
Chief
Office of Engineering and Technology

Enclosures (2)
JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSELL SENATEOFFICEBUILDING
ARIZONA WASHINGTON,DC 20510-0303
( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN
4450 SOUTH RURALROAD
United states Senate

SUITE 8-130
TEMPE,A Z 85282
COMMITTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS 2400 E A S TARIZONA
BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 11 50
PHOENIX, A Z 85016
July 9, 2004 (602)952-2410
450 W E S TPASEOREOONDO
SUIT€ 200
TUCSON, A Z 85701
( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
Ms. Martha Johnston
U E FOR HEARINGIMPAIRED
TELEPHOI
Director, Legislative Affairs (202) 224-7132
(602) 952-0170
Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Johnston:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, Emilio Soto, who has
encountered a problem with a homeowners association regulation restricting the use of his
television antenna. Please investigate my constituent's claim, within the existing rules,
regulations and ethical guidelines, and provide me with a copy of the final decision. MARK
ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: NICK MAITELLA

2400 Arizona Biltmore Circle
Suite 1150
Phoenix, Arizona 850 16
If you should have any questions in the meantime, you can reach my ofice at (602) 952-2410. I
Sincerely.
&%a
John McCain
Mxnm
119 JUL 2004 RCUD
Emilio Soto J
12751 West Edgemont Avenue

Avondale, Arizona 85323-7084
emil2548@cox.net
623-536-6185
July 6,2004
RE: Homeowners Association: The right to receive a television signal
Senator John McCain

2400 East Arizona Biltmore Circle, Suite 1150
Your Honor,
Recently, I received a letter from my homeowners association telling me to take down my

VHF/UHF television antenna. I have since removed the antenna, but I do not believe that their
demand is legal or should not be.
I purchased my home from Continental Homes (Developer). At that time I knew that the
subdivision had CC & R’s. I was asked if I wanted my home pre wired for television. I paid for
the pre wire installation. When I moved into my home I found that the coaxial connector in my
family room had a cable television service card attached to it. The cables leading out of the
house wall were in a cable box. The cable company had placed a seal on the box and cables I
paid for. I installed my C-Band satellite dish and connected the cable from the dish to my cables
leading into the house. I was ordered by the homeowners association that was in the control of
the developer to remove the satellite dish. It became apparent as to why the developer had
written the CC & R’s in such a way that I had to subscribe to cable service if I wanted to watch
TV.
Recently, I installed a VHFAJH!? antenna. I feel that every American has or should have the
right to receive TV signal if for no other reason than for the purpose of receiving news and
national emergency broadcast. I remember the morning of 9 11. It was scary. What is worse is
not having access to information concerning issues or activities around me. I live in the greatest
country in the world. I believe that if our forefathers had known about the technology that was
coming they would have added an additional amendment to the US Constitution. The US
Supreme Court has recently addressed issues on censorship Concerning the internet. Access to
Page 1 of 2
Emilio Soto
Avondale, Arizona 85323 -7084
emi12548@cox.net
623-536-6 185
information in whatever media should be the right of every American. I should be able to reside
anywhere within this country and have access to television. I have access to High Definition TV
technology. I should have not have to pay someone to receive a signal or an additional ten
dollars a month to receive a High Definition signal.
On June 2gth,2004, I mailed a letter to the Federal Communications Commission. I don’t know
if I sent my complaint to the right place. I requested to know if there was some law that
prohbited a homeowners association, or any entity from prohibiting someone from receiving a
TV signal. I asked if there was anything they could do to help.
I request that you help in anyway possible. If no legslation is in place, I request that you
consider enacting some legislation. Thank you.
Sincerely,
P. S. I have attached a copy of the letter I received from the homeowners association.
Page 2 of 2
Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners’ Association
P 0 Box 7751
Surprise, AZ 85374
Phone (623) 412-1678
Fax (623) 412-5883
June 16, 2004
Rancho Santa Fe Hoa, Inc.
Owner Id: 00-038-01
Property: 12751 W Edgemont Ave
Avondale A 2 85323
Emilio & Susan Soto
12751 W Edgemont Ave
Avondale A 2 85323
Re: TV -ANTENNAE
Dear Emilio & Susan Soto:
Letter 1
This is a Violation Letter 1 to ask you to address the following issue. You have chosen to live in a
community association and by doing so are able to live in a community that employs a full time staff to
protect your property investment. The entire community is monitored regularly for adherence to the
CC&Rs, rules, regulations and architectural guidelines of your community. All homeowners are asked to do
their part in protecting property investments by following these rules.
The following violation was noted and we are asking you to alleviate the situation.
June 15, 2004 1:30p.m.

TV antenna back on house.
The association requests that you bring your property into compliance within fourteen (14) calendar days to
avoid further action by the association. Thank you €or your cooperation in this matter.
Thank you in advance for your prompt compliance regarding this request and for making this community a
- wonderfu_lplace
--I__ - -to live. - __ -
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call our office immediately.
Sincerely,
Leisure Life Management
JUL 2 8 ~ Q . Q IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0402300

2400 Arizona Biltmore Circle
Suite 1150
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Emilio Soto of Avondale,
Arizona, concerning the Commission’s “Over-the-Air-ReceptionDevices” (“OTARD”) rules. I
appreciate the opportunity to respond.
The Commission’s OTARD rule was adopted pursuant to section 207 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The rule initially.addressed the installation of devices
designed to receive video programming. Among other things, the Commission’s rule prohibits
restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video
programming. These antennas include direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) services dishes that are
less than one meter (39”) in diameter (larger in Alaska), conventional TV antennas, and antennas
used to receive multichannel distribution service (“MMDS”), so-called “wireless” cable services.
The Commission subsequently amended its rule so that it applies to customer-end antennas that
are used to receive and transmit fixed wireless signals.
The Commission’s rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning,
land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners’ association rules or similar
restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has
an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. The rule generally prohibits restrictions that:
(1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; or (2) preclude reception of
an acceptable quality signal. Under this rule, in most cases, consumers will be able to install, use
and maintain an antenna on their property if they own and have exclusive use of the property on
which the antenna will be located or if they lease property that has an exclusive use area.
It also is important to note that the Commission’s rule does not preempt local restrictions
in every case. For example, the rule permits: (1) local restrictions that do not “impair” antenna
installation and signal reception (a requirement that antennas be placed in a rear yard rather then
a front yard whenever possible can be enforced); (2) local enforcement of safety rules even if
such rules impair reception (prohibitions on the placement of antennas on fire escapes, for
example, can be enforced); and (3) local enforcement of rules in certain historical districts
(restrictions necessary to maintain a unique historical environment can be enforced). The rule
The Honorable John McCain Page 2
also does not prohibit restrictions on devices installed outside of a tenant’s exclusive use area
such as beyond the balcony or patio of an apartment unit where the installation is in, on, or over
a common area or an area controlled by the landlord. Finally, a restriction necessary to prevent
damage to leased property may be reasonable. For example, tenants could be prohibited from
drilling holes through exterior walls or through the roof.
For your review and to provide Mr. Soto additional information, I have enclosed a Fact
Sheet which discusses the Commission’s over-the-air reception devices rule in more detail.
I trust that this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of
further assistance.
Chief, Office of Communications and

Industry Information
Media Bureau
Enclosure
241 RUSSELLSENATEOFFICEBUILDING
JOHN McCAlN WASHINGTON.DC 20510-0303
ARIZONA ( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SUITE 8-130
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Wnited statu senato TEMPE,AZ 85282
(480)897-6289
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 2400 EAST ARIZONA
BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 1150
PHOENIX,AZ 85016
( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410
450 W E S T PASEO REOONDO

SUITE 200
TUCSON, A 2 85701
( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
July 15, 2004 TELEPHONEFOR HEARINGIMPAIRED

(202) 224-7132
( 6 0 2 ) 952-0170
Director
445 12th Street, S'W
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituents, Jo Ann and William
Geeswin, who have encountered a problem with solicitations to their home and business.
Please investigate my constituent's claim, within the existing rules, regulations and ethical
guidelines, and provide me with a copy of the final decision. MARK ALL
CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Michelle Gramley

4450 S. Rural Road
Suite B-130
Tempe, AZ 85282
Sincerely,
John McCain
mmg
Enclosure

Jo Ann and WiLLiam Gesswein
I a e- . 1 i.,
11120 E. Gold Dust %ep& -1
I *
Office of Senator John McClain

2400 E. Arizona Biltmore Circle, #I
150
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Dear Staff:
We are being deluged with unsolicited faxes at all hours of the day and
night. Last night it was 2:OO when we were awakened. As local small business
owners, we receive the ads and solicitations in our personal names as well as
our company name. We have tried directly contacting the companies involved
asking to be removed from their lists to no avail. Last night's culprit merely hung
up on us when we contacted them this morning.
Each time we send the original fax received, plus an accompanying note
to the Complaints Division of the FCC in Washington, D.C. These mailings to the
FCC have been over the past six-month period and we never receive an
acknowledgement or any relief from the problem. Are they doing anything with
them?
We would like to ask you to suggest to them that some form of
acknowledgement be sent after receiving multiple notices. Are they doing
anything about these companies, is there any progress being made for us and for
others or are our efforts along with others being stuck away in some untended
file or waste basket? So far there is no indication that this office is moving to
correct the problem or is even receiving the offending material.
Thank you for any assistance you can provide to motivate this division to
improve-Their customer service and increase public awareness that this
procedure of marketing with unsolicited faxes is contrary to government
guidelines.
Sincere1y ,
The Clock Doctor, Inc. and Music Box Store

10610 N. 71"PIace
clockdr@clockdr.com
www.clockdr.com
AUG 5 2004
4450 S. Rural Road
Suite B-130
Tempe, AZ 85282
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituents, Jo Ann and William
Gesswein, regarding their concerns over unsolicited faxes being sent to their home and
business. Although the Commission does not adjudicate individual complaints of this type, we
do closely monitor such complaints to determine whether independent enforcement action is
warranted.
The Commission has rules concerning unsolicited telephone marketing calls and
unsolicited advertisements to facsimile machines in accordance with the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). These rules require entities that make telephone solicitations to
maintain “do-not-call” lists. 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. The Commission has issued numerous
citations against violators of the TCPA and the Commission’s telemarketing rules. These
enforcement actions can eventually result in monetary penalties of up to $11,000 per violation.
unsolicited telephone marketing transmissions to which they object, and the actions consumers
can take to reduce the number of solicitation calls placed to their homes. The FCC will not be
resolving individual complaints, and cannot award monetary or other damages directly to
consumers, but consumers should still report violations of the telemarketing rules. Mr. and
Mrs. Gesswein 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.
If Mr. and Mrs. Gesswein wish to send copies of the faxes they have received, they
may send their complaint to the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer
Inquiries and Complaints Division, 445 12” Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554. We ask
that they include the congressional tracking number listed at the top of this letter in any
subsequent correspondence so that we can quickly associate it.
We invite Mr. and Mrs. Gesswein to visit the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau’s Internet web site at http://www .fcc.gov/cgb for additional information. In addition,
they may wish to view the Enforcement Bureau’s web site at
http://www .fcc. gov/eb/tcd/working .html for recent Commission TCPA enforcement actions.
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). 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 should send an e-mail to subscribe@info.fcc.gov 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”).
questions.
Sincerely,
Chief
Enclosures
ARIZONA
(202) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN 4450 SOUTH R U R A L ROAD
Wnited Statu Senate

SUITE 8-130
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION TEMPE,A 2 85282

BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 1150
PHOENIX, A 2 85016
(602) 952-2410
450 WEST PASEO REDONDO

SUITE 200
TUCSON, A Z 85701
July 19, 2004 (520) 670-6334
TELEPHONEFOR HEARINGIMPAIRED
(202) 224-7132
(602) 952-01 70
Michael K. Powell
Chairman
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Chaiiman Powell:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Edwin England who has encountered a
problem with his phone bill from Frontier.
for consideration I feel that this issue would be better addressed by you and request that you
respond directly to Edwin Engl
Thank you
John McCain
JM/tjp
Enclosure(s)
--_----- - -_- -
I I__- * _.-l_-l ._-
=-
July 6, 2004
P.O. Box 1814
Taylor, A z . 85939
FRONTIER (A Citizens Communication Company) ???

P-0. Box 79163
Phoenix, Az. 85062-9163
To Whom It May Concern
I must say that I was quite dismayed to receive a telephone bill for
$82.58, which I cannot recall ever receiving any prior bills in this
outrageous amount.
Upon examination, I find that I am being billed $23.43 for a total of

8 (eight) minutes for long distance calls made to Pahrump, Nevada
(my former place of residence, to which, I note, you are still sending
my telephone bills to.) I had signed up with your company for long dis-
tance telephone service at a rate of 7C per minute weekdays and 5C per
minute on sundays and never authorized this 'USBI' to handle my long
distance calls. Therefore, I am deducting USBI billing charges of $23.43
from your bill and allowing 7C times 8 minutes, or 56C to your (Frontier)
charges.
Let me again advise you my address is P.O. Box 1814, Taylor, A z . 85939
(we do not get postal delivery service here in Taylor).
Further, I find your services have much higher rates than my former
telephone service provider, 'SBC' of Nevada, firstly your installation
charges of $60.00 payable in three installments of $20.00 each. whereas
SBC charges $15,00 that I paid for service in July of 2004 upon moving
to Pahrump, Nv. This, not to mention your monthly charges for a residence
one party rate is also higher as well. Now I notice you are increasing
your long distance charge an additional 99C beginning this month. You
may have now realized that by the time you receive this letter that I
have changed my long distance temew provider, A.T. & T., and I can only
wish I had the option of changing your regular residence service to
another company as well.
I am sending a copy of this letter with copies of my current phone bill

tapT.S. Senator John Mc Cain as I am sure he would like to advise the
FCC of my dilemma, which more than likely has caused other clients of
Frontier the same distress I have experienced and suffered due to your
abusive excess charges. Also, I would like to inform you that I have
lived, during my lifetime, in six other states in this great country
of ours (N.Y., N.J., N.C., CA., NV., and now AZ. and never before was
my phone service limited to only one exchange (536 in my particular case)
and all other exchanges in nearby neighborhood communities being deemed
long distance calls. What a "ripoff" as the saying goes.
-Herewithmy personal check in the amount of %59.71 which is less t h e

illegal charges you thought I would pay. Shame on you.
Telephone number 928-536-2704

fiontier
A C I t h ? n S C ~ C O W b l Y Page 1 of 4
P. 0. Box 3609
Kingman, AZ 864023609
O l e O g l O l MB 0309 oogl
EDWIN ENGLAND
3031 E BOND WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSIMSS
PAHRUMP NV 89061-9003
THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING
FRONTIER
FOR BILLINGINQUIRIES
Date of Bill JUN 18,2004 OR OTHER INFORMATION,
BillingNumber 928-536-2704
please call Customer Service at
Account Number 0050543940 7
In Service Date 051304 1-800-921-8101
BillingSummary
PREVIOUS BILL 60.97 See our "Customer Talk"
PAYMENTS Thru 06/16/04 60.97%. sectionfor important messages
ADJUSTMENTS Thru 06116/04 .oo that could impactyour service
AMOUNT PAST DUE .oo
CURRENT CHARGES Due By 07/05/04 82.58
Visit us at our Website:
www.frontieronline.com
Please make your check payable to FRONTIER and write your phone number on your c d k l <' =
-
-
Detach the coupon below and return it with your payment in the envelope provided. SEND PAYMENTS ONLY. Epi
DO NOT SEND CORRESPONDENCE WITH YOUR PAYMENT. Instead, for written inquiries, use the address
listed on the reverse of this sheet under thesection entitled "Questions About Your BilF. Thank vou.
d
fiontiere
A Citizens cammUR*rrtionrGwnpamy
umnt Amount Due
Billing Number
Account Numbe
In Service Date
JUL 05,2004
928-536-2704
0050543940 7
OS1304
P.0. Box 3609
Kingrnan, AZ 864023609 Total Amount Due 82.58
Amount Enclosed re.71
here for address change see
erse Side
W(1.VUT 4m
EDWIN ENGLAND FRONTIER (LC? I Tm'
3031 E BOND
PAHRUMP NV 89061-9003 PO BOX 79163
PHOENIX, AZ 85062-9163
11ll1ll1l1l11ll,l11lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllil,lllll
fiontier Page 3 of 4
Bill Date JUN 18,2004
Summary of Current Charges row OTHER CHARGES AND CREDITS 20.00

Quantity Service Description charges
Service from 06/16/04 to 07/16/04 FRONTIER CUSTOMER MESSAGE
SHOULD YOU HAMA QUESTIONABOUT YOUR TELEPHONESERVlCE OR BILLING. PLEASE
BASIC SERVICE
15.60 REQUESTAN €WANATION FROM THE COMPANY AT THE NUMBER SHOWN ON THE FRONT OF
1 RESIDENCE 1 PARTY FLAT RATE
1 TOUCH CALL SERVICE RESIDENCE -, .50 YOURBllL 1 F Y O U H A M N O T R E C U M D A S A T l S F A C T O R Y R E S P O N S E . A ~ ~
.37 REPRESENTAMWILL O(PWN TO YOU THE PRocrrmffE FOR OBTAlNINGREVIEW OF

911 F U " G FEE
1 PRIWRY RES FED SUE LN CHRG ? 6.50 YOUR COMPLAINTBY THE AGENCY WHICH REGUIATESPUBLIC UTIUMCOMPANIES
AZ CORFQRATION CONMlsSlON FEE .03

2 OTHER CHARGESAND CREDITS 20.00
FEDERAL UNIVERSALSW: FUND .57
FEDERAL EXCISE TAX -11
STATE TAX .90 Your InterlATA long distance carriersare':
CITY SALES TAX .32
COUNTY SALES TAX .08 FRONTIER LONG DISTANCE
TELECOM SERVICES EXCISE TAX
UNIVERSALSERVICE FUND
k ;1 Your IntralATA long distance carriersare?
RES U T l U M CONSUMER FEE .Ol
45.77 FRONTIER LONG DISTANCE -
TOTAL BASIC SERWCE i
-
If you ttave multipletelephone numbers, further information concerning long i
NON-BASICSERVKE
1 INSD WR MNT RES S V M W/MO CHR
TOTAL NON-BASlC SERWCE
.99
.99
distancecarrierassignmantsforthoseadditionallinesareonrecord
with your local business offce. --
if
-
0
-
0
TOTAL FRONTIERCHARGES 46.76

The following telephone numbers have changed their InterlATA
bngdistancecatTiers:
Telephone number Changed to:
-2----
-
EASC SERVICE FRONTIER LONG DISTANCE 92&536-2704 FRONTIER LONG DISTANCE f
-
LONG DISTANCECHARGES 5.75
AZ CORWRATIONCOM#SSION FEE .01 The following telephone numbers have changed their IntralATA
1 FRONTIER FREEDOMRED PRIMARY 4.95 long distance carriers:
FEDERAL EXCISE TAX .35 Telephonenumber Changedto:
STATE TAX .35
.. 928-536-2704 FRONTIER LONG DISTANCE
=
CITY SALES TAX
COUNTY SALES TAX
UNIVERSALFUND SUPPORT
.I3
.03
.82
-
=
-
-
;3=
12.39 e
TOTAL BAslc SERVICE
TOTAL FRONTIER LONG DISTANCECHARGES 12.39

FRONTIER LONG DISTANCE SUMMARY OF CURRENT CHARGES =
Toll char* inquiriescall 1-8OCb921-8101
-
BASE SERVICE USBl TOTAL 12.39
LONG DISTANCECHARGES 22.72
FEDERAL EXCISE TAX .68
STATE TAX .02
C I M SALES TAX .01
TOTAL BASIC SERVICE 23.43 FRONllER LON0 DISTANCE Red pfan
Direct DialedCalk
TOTAL USBl CHARGES 23.43 Line Date Time Citycalled AreaNumber CL RP Min Amount
Current Charges 82.58 105nl 0446P CRYSTALLK IL 815459-3710 S D 9.0 63 J c
205/230325PLASVEGAS Nv702582-09.(9 S N 1.0 .05 '
3omO0711PLASMGAs W 7028136412 S N 7.0 .35 -'
FRONTIER OTHER CHARGES AND CREDITS 405/31 0552PLASVEGAS Nv702431-5722 S D 1.0 .07 r
B W C SERWE 5 W 1 oM4PREHARDsDN TX 972680-0088 S D 25.0 1.75
05/13104 SERVICE CONNECTIONC W G E IS BEING 6061M0652ASHOWLOW "PZ928532-1552 S D 6.0 GL\ .54 LJ
BILLED ON A THREE MONTHPAYMENT PLAN. 706/030913ASHOWLOw AZ 928532-1552 S D 2.0 .18 c 'it*
SECOND INSTALLMENTDUE THIS MONTH. 20.00 8061030915ASI.K)\NLOW AZ928532-1552 S D 5.0 Au.45 --"
PREPAIDAMOUNT APPLIED TO THIS INSTALLhENT .OO 90M)41049AMONTIcELLO NY8457W-0992 S D 10.0 .70/C8'
CURRENT INSTALLMENTDUE 20.00 100M)40310P SHOWLOW Az 928532-1552 S D 1.0 .09 / - rc
11061060745PWHlTElAND IN 3175367106 S N 1.0 .05 - '2'
1206/090533P PAttRUMP Nv 775751-2851 S D 2.0 .14 L'i

Page 4 of 4
Bill Date JUN 18,2004
13061130237PMONI1CEUO NY 8457940992 S N 15.0 / .75

SUBTOTAL EXCLUDING TAX 6.75 -.
,
,
J
__ .
-.
-
USBl SUMMARY OF CURRENT CHARGES
Toll charge inquiriescall 1-888-238-8724

TOTAL (23.43
USBl Direct Dialed Calls

Line Date Time Citytylled kerrNumber CL Rp Min Amount
<\*L'?h 14W130136P PAHRUMP MI 775751-7888 S D 1.0 1.71

Billed on Behalf of W0RUXX)IU NETWORK SER
-dGp 15W19llllAPAHRUMP NV 775751-7888 S D 1.0 1.71
Billedon Behalf of WORLDCOM NETWORK SER
J~~ 16W19 113M PAHRUMP MI 775751-2900 S D 3.0 5.13
.,& Billed on Behalf of WORLDCOM NETWORK SER

17Wl01211PFLAosTAFF AZ 9282136447 S D
Billedon Behalf of WORLDcaM NETWORK SER
1.0 .35
18W19 1213P PAHRUMP NV 775751-7888 S D 2.0 3.42

Billed on Behalof WORIDCOM NETWORK SER
19 05/31 12oaA UNN S E N F S 0.0 10.40
B i n d on Behalf of WORLDCOM NETWORK SER
SUBTOTAL EXCLUDING TAX 22.72
* * * * * CUSTOMER T A L K * * * * *
lf Frontier Long DisEanoe is your carrier, important Terms and condins

related to your service may be found at
h H p ~ ~ r i f f s . c i t i r e n s c o m m u n i c a otri by ~ ~ ~ IC
~ .calling ~~
customer service number on pur bill.
Effective July 2004, a 99-cenl monthly 'Carrier Cwt Recovery Surcharge'

will apply to the following long distance plans offered by Frontier
Communications of America, Inc: Simple Rate, Simpla Rate Plus, Value Rate,
Freedom Red, Whita and Blue and Freedom Calling 300 and 600 (fmntier
choices and choices unlimitedplans excluded, as Well as Lifeline
customers). This surcharge will help FrontierCommunications d Ameiica
.
recover various costs,includingcosts the company incurs in the
adminisbalm o f the Un-l Setvice Fund, the national fund for
Telecommunications Relay Service,rquhlw filing axperses and compliance
items.
AUG 5 2004
Mr . Edwin England
P. 0. Box 1814
Taylor, AZ 85939
Dear Mr. England:
Thank you for your letter addressed to Senator John McCain regarding the difficulties
you are experiencing with WorldCom Network Services, Inc. (WNS), U.S. Billing (USBI) and
Frontier. Your letter has been forwarded to the Commission for our review.
inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by you to WNS and USBI and
directed the companies to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed WNS and
USBI to send you a copy of the response that they submit to the Commission. You may obtain
information regarding your complaint by writing to the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
20554, or by calling toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC (TTY users: 1-888-TELL-FCC). You
should mention your informal complaint number, 04-BO109093, and the congressional tracking
number listed at the top of this letter to facilitate a prompt response to your inquiry.
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 state public
utility commissions. The subject of your correspondence relating to Frontier indicates that it is
under the jurisdiction of the state of Arizona. Therefore, we have forwarded copies of your
correspondence to the Arizona Corporation Commission, 1200 W Washington Street, Phoenix,
AZ 85007-2996 for its review and appropriate action. You may call them toll free at 1-800-
222-7000, or visit their web site www.cc.state.az.us.
. . .
Mr . Edwin England Page 2
Sincerely,
>b K. Dane Snowden ''

Chief
cc: Arizona Corporation Commission

Senator John McCain
. .
NOV 2 9 2004
Mr . Edwin England
P.O. Box 1814
Taylor, AZ 85939
Dear Mr . England:
This letter is a follow up to our letter dated August 5, 2004, regarding your concerns
regarding the difficulties you were experiencing with WorldCom Network Services, Inc .
(MCI), U.S. Billing (USBI).
On August 18, 2004, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed MCI and
USBI to satisfy or answer the complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records and
other information. Enclosed are copies of the responses we received. In their responses both
companies state that adjustments were issued on September 15, 2004, to your local telephone
company for the disputed calls. Based on the information provided, the Commission does not
plan to take any further action with respect to your complaint.
Sincerely,
K. Dane Snowdeh'
Chief
Enclosures
" I 1' .
Warren Burris
1133 Nineteenth Street, NW
October 27, 2004
Below is the letter of response sent to the customer and represents actions taken for the
complaint filed with the Federal Communications Commission. If the Commission has
additional questions regarding the resolution below, please contact me at 1-800-205-
4226.
September 16, 2004
Edwin England
PO Box 1814
Taylor, AZ 85939
Reference: Edwin England

04-BO 109093
Notice of informal Complaint dated August 18, 2004
Dear Mr. England:
This letter is in response to the complaint you filed with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) regarding MCI. Please accept my sincere apologies for any
inconvenience this matter may have caused you. In your complaint, you dispute the rate
you received when placing long distance calls. Based on your concern, I reviewed MCI's
records.
MCI records show active call traffic from your telephone number on the open network
and the calls were billed at a random rate, as your telephone number was not with one or
our resellers. MCI did not request nor solicit this service. The calls from your telephone
number were directed to our network by your Local Telephone Company or via access
code dialing.
- 1 1' -
An adjustment in the amount of $1 16.46 plus tax and surcharges was issued on
September 15, 2004 to your Local Telephone Company for the disputed calls. This credit
re-rated the calls dated April 27, 2004 through May 19, 2004 to $0.05 per minute.
I appreciate the opportunity you provided me to address this matter and remain at your
service. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact me personally at
1-800-624-0533.
Sincerely,
Jody Ann Lippmann

Jody Ann Lippmann
MCI Agency Relations
CC: Federal Communications Commission
'- 1 1' -
September 16,2004

Consumer Information Bureau
Consumer Information Network Division
Gettysburg Consumer Center
1270 Fairfield Road
Gettysburg, PA 17325-7245 Via Electronic Mail
RE: Complaint of Mr. Edwin England - 04-BO1 09093

Bill Number: (928) 536-2704
Dated: 08118/2004
Dear Sir/Madam:
We are in receipt of the above referenced complaint. USBI is engaged in the business of aggregating
records for various telecommunications service providers and transmitting those records to the Local
Exchange Carriers. USBI is not itself a telecommunications company; nor does it provide any
telecommunications services of any kind. USBI has no involvement in the process of switching customers
from one carrier to another, or verifying those switches. Each long distance provider for which we perform
record processing services should provide records regarding services that are properly authorized and in
accordance with the appropriate regulations.
Mr. England disputes the charges submitted on behalf of Worldcom Network Service. As Worldcom
Network Service prefers to address their own regulatory matters, we would like to request that your office
serve them directly at the address below. Their response should provide more information regarding their
services and what may have occurred in this matter.
Please be advised that an adjustment of $106.19 plus tax was issued September 15, 2004. As the credit has
been sent directly to the complainant's local telephone company, please allow one to two billing cycles for
the credit to appear on the local telephone company bill.
Our records indicate an adjustment of $20.66 plus tax was also issued September 15, 2004 by way of a
check. Please allow 10 to 15 days for receipt of the check. We apologize for any inconvenience this matter
may have caused.
Worldcom Network Service

Attn: Karen Reidy
1133 19th Street NW
Sincerely,
Adolf Rodriguez
Regulatory Specialist
cc: Mr. Edwin England

Worldcom Network Service - Karen Reidy
7' - *. .
ARIZONA WASHINGTON,D C 20510-0303
1202) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN
4450 SOUTH RURAL ROAD
Wnited states Senate

SUITE 8-130
TEMPE, A Z 85282
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 1480) 897-6289
C O M M l n E E ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 2400 EAST ARIZONA

BILTMORE CIRCLE
SUITE 1150
PHOENIX, A Z 85016
( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410

SUITE 200
TUCSON,A 2 85701
( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
August 2,2004 TELEPHONEFOR HEARINGI M P A I R E D
( 2 0 2 ) 224-7132
(602) 952-0170
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, Morris Anglin, who has
encountered a problem with his cell phone plan agreement with T-Mobile.
CORRESPONDENCE TO:

4450 S. Rural Road
Suite B- 130
Tempe, AZ 85282
if you should have any questicns in the meantime, you can reach my office at (480) 897-6289. I
Sincerely,

Mzing
Enclosure

COMPLAINT AGAINST T-MOBILE CELL PHONE CO.
Senator John McCain O(& /yP __ - 1 I
C:zj
I
- 4 i I
4450 S . Rural Rd.

Tempe, Arizona
Since early June of 2004 I have had a cell phone account with T-Mobile Cell
Phone Co. At the time that I entered a contract with T-Mobile their policy was free time
:for everyone who was a customer from 9:OO P.M. until 7:OO A.M., two T-Mobtle
customers could talk as long as they wanted with free time for the length of the
conversation, unlimited wekend calls, and 35 cents per minute for over the allotted
anytime minites, of which I took the 300 minute program for $29.95 per month.
Sometime after I entered the program T-Mobile made some changes in their
policy and did not noti@ any of their customers of these changes. These changes resulted
in some horrific phone bills for all of the cutomers who came under these changes. I have
not as yet recieved a statement from T-Moobile, but I was in a store owned and operated
by T-Mobile in Fiesta Mall. I asked them to check on my minutes of cell phone use, and
it showed I had over 900 minutes charged to my cell phone over and above the 300 free
minutes. I will be 90 years old on September 8,2004 and I do not use a phone nearly that
much, so they are charging me for time when my cell phone is not in use.
The changes that T-Mobile made were to eliminate all free night time calls on
week nights, two T-Mobile customers must pay $6.99 per month and both of them have
to pay that fee to be eligible for free calls, weekend calls are limited to 500 minites, and
each minute over the alloted minutes on my program is billed at 40 cents a minute.
Because no customers were advised of these changes and T-Mobile put them into effect
with out notification, I believe this is an illegal operation performed knowingly by
T-Mobile officials and has resulted in some horrendos cell phone statements.
The Federal Communication Commission is the only agency that has supervisory
power over cell phone companies, and they have bedded down with those companies and
are fast asleep while these atrocities take place. They do not have cell phone companies
on thei agenda when a person tries to file a complaint. It is impossible to contact the FCC
by phone because of their ridiculousy long voice reply when a call goes through to their
office. After all the long talk it says to talk to an agent to press zero and when zero is
pressed the whole lengthy thing is repeated over and over again.
My cell phone has been my only phone service for the past two weeks as it has
taken Qwest phone Co two weeks to turn a switch in their office to activate my Qwest
phone service. I listened to FCCs voice message for 30 minutes at 40 cents a minute and
never was able to talk to anyone at FCC. This is a sad state of affairs when a government
agency cannot be reached to inform them of a scandal such as t h s is.
I hope that this will cause you to take some action to get the FCCs attention on
this matter and stop these cell phone companies from riding rough shod over their
customers. I personally delivered a letter to your Tempe office in late June about sending
our atheletes to Athens for the Olympics. I stated in that letter that if we send them to
Athens that some if not all of them will come back in a box and I have seen nothing in
that part of the world to make me change my opinion on that. There is no effort being
made from any angle to prevent that fiom happening, so I am not sure whether this letter
COMPLAINT AGAINST T-MOBILE CELL PHONE CO.
will get your attention or not. I hope so, as I know of no other way to get the attention of
the FCC.
I will greatly appreciate any thing you can do on this matter as it is a dis-service
to the American people to be subjected to such uncontrolled behemoths as all the cell
phone companies are. Car dealerships are the only thing in America that have more
complaints than cell phone companies do. The FCC needs to come alive and see what is
taking place right under their noses, while they feed comfortably at the public trough,
secure in their jobs, in their health insurance, and their retirement benefits. Hopefully you
can and will wake them up to reality. Thank you for any thing you can do on this matter.
ncerely,
723 E. 2nd ave. Apt 3 17A

m
AUG 2 1 2004
Control No. 0402585/aw

4450 S. Rural Road
Suite B-130
Tempe, AZ 85282
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Morris Anglin, regarding
the difficulties he is experiencing with the service and charges provided by T-Mobile.
The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau has conducted a priority review of
Mr. Anglin’s complaint. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by him to
T-Mobile and directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also
directed the company to send Mr. Anglin a copy of the response that it submits to the
Commission.
Mr. Anglin 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 1-888-225-5322. TTY users
may call 1-888-835-5322. Mr. Anglin would need to include the complainant tracking number
04-BO113252 and the Congressional tracking number indicated at the top of this letter to
facilitate a prompt response to his inquiry.
We appreciate your inquiry. If you have any further questions or require additional
Sincerely,
v’
yk K. Dane Snowden
Chief
1 1 1- -
m
OEC 1 0 2004
Control No. 0402585/kah/aw

4450 S. Rural Road
Suite B-130
Tempe, AZ 85282
This letter is a follow up to our letter dated August 27, 2004, regarding your
constituent, Mr . Morris Anglin's concerns regarding the difficulties he was experiencing with
the service and charges provided by T-Mobile.
On September 8, 2004, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed T-

Mobile 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, T-
Mobile states that they have confirmed with Mr. Anglin that customer service did credit the
disputed amount of $405.87. T-Mobile has disconnected Mr . Anglin's account effective
September 17, 2004 with no early termination fee. T-Mobile has also applied a courtesy credit
of $112.21 that has brought Mr. Anglin's current account balance to zero. T-Mobile also
states that they will credit the final balance in full once the final billing statement has generated
and that Mr. Anglin considers this matter resolved to his satisfaction. Based on the
Mr. Anglin's complaint.
Sincerely,
'I1. K. Dane Snowden\)

Chief
Enclosure
1 1' '
September 17,2004
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Martha E. Contee, Chief

Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
P.O.Box 1000445 12* Street, SW
Re: Morris Anglin

IC NO.04-BO113252
T-Mobile Account No. 358526342
Dear Ms. Contee:
T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) is in receipt of your letter dated September 8,2004 regarding Mr. Morris
Anglin’s above-referenced account.
T-Mobile has confirmed with Mr.Anglin that customer service did credit the disputed amount of $405.87.
Mr. Anglin stated his account should have been disconnected but the account indicated active with a
balance of $112.21, Mr. Anglin explained to T-Mobile that a local representative by the name of Fred had
guaranteed that his account would be disconnected. T-Mobile confirmed with Fred at a local indirect Wal-
Mart sales office that Mr. Anglin’s account should have been disconnected.
T-Mobile has disconnected Mr. Anglin’s account effective September 17,2004 with no early termination
fee. T-Mobile has also applied a courtesy credit of $1 12.21 that has brought Mr. Anglin’s current account
balance to zero. T-Mobile will credit the final balance in full once the final billing statement has generated.
Mr. Anglin considers this matter resolved to his satisfaction.
Based on the forgoing, we respectfidly request this complaint against T-Mobile be closed. Thank you for
your assistance with this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the
address listed below or at 1-877-290-6323 ext, 2226.
Very truly yours,
Executive Customer Relations
CC: Morris Anglin

723 E2nd Ave Apt 3 17A
Mesa, AZ 85204
T-Mobile USA, Inc.

P 0. Box 37380
Albuquerque, NM 871 76
* 1
Washington, D.C’.
I
CHAIRMAN September 30,2004 ‘ I

Chairman
Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation
Please find enclosed the Federal Communications Commission’s Auctions Expenditure

Report for fiscal year 2003. The material is submitted pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, as codified in Section 309Q)(8)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ’
which requires the submission of a “statement of each expenditure made for the purposes of
conducting competitive bidding under this subsection during such second preceding fiscal year.”
The attached report contains: (1) a three page overview of fiscal year 2003 auction
expenditures; and (2) a 29-page summary acquisition report for fiscal year 2003 expenditures by
Budget Object Classification Code.
My staff and I are available to discuss specific questions that may arise in relation to the
attached material. If you need additional data or would like to discuss the material, please feel
free to contact me, or your staff may contact Andrew S. Fishel, Managing Director, at 202-418-
1919.
Sincerely, fl
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C
4
CHAIRMAN September 30,2004 ‘ 4

Chairman
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
the Internet
Committee on Energy and Commerce I


1997, as codified in Section 309(j)(8)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
1919.
Sincerely, fl
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
I
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004 ‘ 1

Chairman
Subcommittee on Communications,
Transportation
Dear Chairman Bums:

1997, as codified in Section 3096)(8)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
which requires the submission of a “statement of each expenditure made for the purposes of ,
Bud get Object Classification Code.
1919.
Sincerely,
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
8
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004

President
Vice President of the United States
S-212 The Capitol Building e
Dear Mr. Vice President:

1919.
Sincerely,
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.
I
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004

Ranking Member
2322 Rayburn House Office Building I

1997, as codified in Section 309Q)(8)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
which requires the submission of a “statement of each expenditure made for the purposes of I
1919.
Sincerely, A
ichael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
8
CHAIRMAN September 30,2004
The Honorable Dennis J. Hastert

Speaker
Dear Mr. Speaker:

1997, as codified in Section 309Cj)(8)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
My staff and I are available to discuss specific questions that may arise in relation to the ,
1919.
Sincerely,
n
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
0
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004

Ranking Member
Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation I

Please find enclosed the Fekiral Commun,;ations Commission i Auctions Expenditure Report
for fiscal year 2003. The material is submitted pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as
codified in Section 309(j)(8)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which
requires the submission of a “statement of each expenditure made for the purposes of conducting
competitive bidding under this subsection during such second preceding fiscal year.’’
1919.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
. . . _ _ . . . . . . . . I ... . . . . .._.
Washington, D.d.
I
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004 I . ‘ I

Chairman
Committee on Energy and
Commerce

1997, as codified in Section 3096)(8)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, I
1919.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004 ‘ I

Ranking Member
the Internet

1997, as codified in Section 309Q)(8)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
1919.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
I CHAIRMAN

Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, State, and the Judiciary

expenditures; and (2) a 29-page summary acquisition report for fiscal year 2003 expenditures b y ,
1919.
Sincerely,
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
I
CHAIRMAN

Ranking Member
Committee on Commerce
Science and Transportation

1997, as codified in Section 3096)(8)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, I
1919.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
,
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004

Chairman
Dear Chairman Wolf:

which requires the submission of a “statement of each expenditure made for the purposes of ’
expenditures; and (2) a 29-page summary acquisition report for fiscal year 2003 expenditures by ’
1919.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C’.
I
CHAIRMAN

Ranking Member

Report for fiscal year 2003. The material is submitted pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act qf
conducting competitive bidding under this subsection during such second preceding fiscal ye&.”
expenditures; and ( 2 ) a 29-page summary acquisition report for fiscal year 2003 expenditures by
1919.
Sincerely, fl
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
I CHAIRMAN
‘ I

Chairman

Report for fiscal year 2003. The material is submitted pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act o,f
1919.
Enclosure
I I
The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Auction Expenditures
for
Fiscal Year 2003
FY 1994 – 2003 Expenses to Cash Receipts Breakdown
Cash Receipts
$14,406,548,992 (Deposited in U.S. Treasury General Fund)
96%
Expenses 1994-2002
$385,222,406
FY 03 - Auctions Direct 3%
Operating Expenses
$96,805,245
1%
Auctions Operating Cost - FY 2003
Document Control No. BOCC Description Vendor Total Expended
Personnel Compensation
1100 Personnel Compensation 22,430,676
11 TOTAL PERSONNEL COMPENSATION 22,430,676
Personnel Benefits
1200 Personnel Benefits 4,221,871
12 TOTAL PERSONNEL BENEFITS 4,221,871
Unemployment Compensation
1302 Unemployment Compensation
MO-2003-54-1302 13 TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION Pest G 9,380
2100 Travel and Transport of People

5th Annual Great Plains Regional Economic Development Summit (1 trip/1 person) Aberdeen, SD 1,138
Supercomm Convention 2003 (1 trip/8 people) Atlanta, GA 9,592
US Telecommunication Association 2002 Convention & Expo (1 trip/4 people) Boca Raton, FL 972
Financial Statement Audit Meeting (1 trip/1 person) Boston, MA 979
White Collar Crime Training Class Brunswick, GA 876
Attend Federal Executive Institute (1 trip/1 person) Charlottesville, VA 1,586
Financial Statement Audit Meeting (1 trip/1person) Chicago, II 1,417
Understanding Cultural Resources Management Training (1 trip/1 person) Dover, NJ 363
Attend Certified Information Systems Auditor review class at Virginia Tech. (1trip/4 people) Falls Church, VA 153
Staff to Gettysburg satellite facility for Team Building Training, Broadband meetings, mock Auctions, Universal
Licensing meetings, Electronic Filing meetings, and meetings to demonstrate ULS software features. (35 trips/19
people) Gettysburg, PA 2,657
Financial Statement training class (1 trip/2 people) Harrisburg, PA 126
Utilities Telecommunication Council Meetings (1trip/3people) Houston, TX 3,866
Attend Association of Public Safety Communications Conference(1trip7people) Indianapolis, IN 6,986
Historic preservation and communications tower meeting (1trip/1person) Las Cruces, NM 217
Reserve Economic Summit 2003, CTIA Conference, International Wireless Communications Expo 2003, Marketing
Outreach Trade Show (7 trips/17 people) Las Vegas, NV 15,964
Chase and Colon site review (1 trip/2 people) Manhattan, NY 3,400
National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers Conferences (1 trip/1 person) Minneapolis, MN 1,189
Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association Wireless Internet Association Conference (1 trip/11 people) New Orleans, LA 11,792
Financial Statement Audit of FCC (1 trip/2 people) Newark, NJ 1,584
Sybase Techware 2003, Inter-American Telecommunications Commission meeting (1 trip/4 people) Orlando, FL 3,179
National Association of Broadcasters Radio Show (1 trip/4 people) Philadelphia, PA 1,606
National Telecommunications Cooperative Association Expo 2003 (1 trip/2 people) Phoenix, AZ 1,923
Financial Statement Audit Meeting FCC (1 trip/ 2people) Pittsburgh, PA 1,180
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Winter Conference (1 trip/2 people) Portland, OR 1,480
Page 1 of 28
Broadband Wireless World Convention and Trade Show (1 trip/2 people) San Jose, CA 1,906
Depositions for In-Sync Case (1 trip/1 person) Santa Monica, CA 1,688
Upper Spectrum training (1 trip/22 people) Santa Rosa, CA 19,125
Conduct inventory deservation audit (1 trip/1 person) Seattle, WA 1,118
Auctions off-site storage visit (2 trips/1 person) Springfield, VA 22
National Exchange Carriers Conference and Trade Show (1 trip/2 people) San Antonio, TX 2,201
Speaker on ULS or Auctions at Small Business Conference (1 trip/2 people) St. Louis, MO 1,080
2003 Annual Assembly meeting and conference (1 trip/3 people) St. Petersburg, FL 4,420
Attendance by Gettysburg staff for managers meeting, Auction support training, Auction bidders seminar,
participation in Auctions case dealing with WTB bankruptcy, Auction 54 Bidders Seminar, Prepare for Auction 48
seminar. (45 trips/31 people) Washington, DC 35,934
2115 Local Travel Taxi and Parking Fees 173
2120 Foreign Travel

2120 CEPT CPG Project Teams 2 and 3 (ITU-WRC) (1trip/1person) Edinburgh, UK 652
International Telecommunication Union Task Group Meeting (1 trip/ 9 people) Geneva, SUI 14,736
World Radio Conference Preparatory Meeting - 2003 (1 trip/9 people) Geneva, SUI 20,902
Study Group 6 and Working Party Meeting (1 trip/2 people) Geneva, SUI 3,213
International Telecommunication Union Working Party 8A-9B Meeting (1 trip /3 people) Geneva, SUI 3,044
Radiocommunications Assembly Meeting (1 trip/ 1 person) Geneva, SUI 1,624
Attend CEPT/Conference Preparatory Group Meeting (1 trip/1 person) Goteborg, Sweden 976
Participate as a FCC/US representative on Spectrum authority (1 trip/1 person) Kingston, Jamaica 400
Attend the WRC-03 Preparatory Meeting (1 trip/1 person) Libreville, Gabon 1,499
Meeting of the CEPT Conference Preparatory Group (1 trip/1 person) Lisbon, Portugal 596
International Maritime Organization Subcommittee (1trip/2 people) London, France 6,900
World Radio Conferences-03 bilateral meeting in Spain (1 trip/1 person) Madrid, Spain 899
Attend International Telecommunications Union -D Seminar Workshop on Maritime (1 trip/1 person) Martinique, MRT 2,543
Global Standards Collaboration Meeting (1 trip/1 person) Ottawa, CA 1,695
Radio Technical Liaison Committee Meeting (1 trip/5 people) Ottawa, CA 3,048
WP 8F meeting(1 trip/1 person) Poro Seguro, Brazil 3,558
Attend Asia-Pacific Telecommunications Conference (1 trip/1 person) Tokyo City, Japan 1,079
Meeting with regulators to prep for World European Conference(1 trip/1 person) United Kingdom, En. 464
21 TOTAL TRAVEL AND TRANSPORT OF PEOPLE 209,718
2311 GSA Space Rent

MO-2003-54-002 2311 Auctions prorata share of GSA rent for Portals I and Portals II space. General Services Adm. (GSA) 6,570,000
2321 Non GSA Space Rent

OMSD-2003-000060 2321 Space rental for Auctions War Room in Gettysburg, PA for auctions activities. Realty Leasing & Management 581,731
Page 2 of 28
2331 Non GSA Telephone/Fax
AUC-2003-000011 2331 Lease and air-time for (2) pagers for the Gettysburg Office network staff. Network Services 244
AUC-2003-000012 2331 Cellular phone service for staff working on auctions related matters. Verizon Wireless 43,700
Auctions portion of the phone service running through the PBX at the Gettysburg auction site, with a telephone
AUC-2003-000013 2331 prefix of 337/338. Sprint Telephone 70,500
AUC-2003-000041 2331 Portals II Headquarters Auctions site monthly internet access. Genuity 62,903
AUC-2003-000042 2331 Auctions portion of the phone service running through the PBX at the Portals II Auction Site. Verizon 103,000
AUC-2003-000043 2331 Auctions portion of the phone service running through the PBX at the Portals I Auction Site. Verizon 80,500
AUC-2003-000044 2331 Portals I Headquarters Auctions site monthly internet access. Genuity 58,500
AUC-2003-000130 2331 Replacement cellular phones for staff working on auctions related matters. Nextel 9,000
AUC-2003-000184 2331 Blackberry 6510 phones for auction staff working on auction related matters. Nextel 42,736
Three internet access accounts independent of the Commissions Internet Service Providers. These accounts
MO-2003-54-008 2331 serve dual purposes allowing Auctions to see what the public sees on the Auctions internet service line. AT&T 800
MO-2003-54-018 2331 Auctions prorata share of FCC's commercial telephone charges. Verizon 36,126
2331 Auctions prorata share of FCC's commercial telephone charges. Verizon Wireless 25,478
2331 Auctions prorata share of FCC's commercial telephone charges. Pacific Bell Telephone 100
2331 Auctions prorata share of FCC's commercial telephone charges. Verizon California 267
2331 Auctions prorata share of FCC's commercial telephone charges. Sprint Local 31,118
2331 Auctions prorata share of FCC's commercial telephone charges. Verizon 764
2331 Auctions prorata share of FCC's commercial telephone charges. Verizon 1,206
2331 Auctions prorata share of FCC's commercial telephone charges. Christopher Libertell 107
2331 Auctions prorata share of FCC's commercial telephone charges. SBC 2,627
MO-2003-54-217 2331 Various auctions telecom services. 33,960
2332 GSA Telephones

Auctions Crossover contract supporting auctions telephonic bidding, communication with alternate auction site and
MO-2003-54-012 2332 call accounting. GSA 130,000
MO-2003-54-019 2332 Auctions prorata share of FTS phone lines. GSA 360,593
MO-2003-54-091 2332 Auctions prorata share of FTS phone lines. GSA 2,933
DDFTS 2003 2332 Auctions prorata share of FTS phone lines. GSA 567
2333 Mail Service - Postage

Fed Ex mailing to qualified bidders of their registration information including: auction ID No., letters confirming
MO-2003-54-026 2333 participation in FCC Auctions, Bidders Login ID, and password to be used when placing bids. Federal Express Corporation 16,472
MO-2003-54-107 2333 Auctions prorata share of FCC's mail service. US Postal Service 149,200
MO-2003-54-033 2333 Mailing of auction information for March Paging Auction. US Postal Service 2,000
MO-2003-54-148 2333 Electrical work and HVAC for Auctions computer room. GSA 9,288
2335 Gas/Electric/Other Utilities

MO-2003-54-060 2335 Auctions prorata share of turnkey 24/7 operations, maintenance and utilities for supplemental HVAC system. GSA 18,636
MO-2003-54-100 2335 Auctions prorata share of FCC's garage utilities in Portals II. PEPCO 6,720
MO-2003-54-101 2335 Auctions prorata share of FCC's overtime HVAC and O&M costs in Portals II. GSA 20,089
MO-2003-54-102 2335 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Utilities at Gettysburg facility. 20,272
MO-2003-54-106 2335 Auctions prorata share of FCC's elevator services in Portals II. GSA 3,178
MO-2003-54-109 2335 Auctions prorata share of FCC's electrical and maintenance changes for electrical rooms in Portals I. GSA 3,393
Page 3 of 28
MO-2003-54-146 2335 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Overtime Utilities GSA 5,549
2336 IRM Telephone Service

AUC-2003-000001 2336 Headquarters internet service and independent service internet provider for the Gettysburg Auction War Room. WorldCom Technologies, Inc. 115,510
Provides the Auctions and their associated contractor sites with access to the Verison FDDI (Fiber Distributed Data
ITC-2003-000071 2336 Interface) Network Service. Verizon 2,058
ITC-2003-000095 2336 Auctions prorata share of FCC's paging services. Skytel 29,100
2340 Copier Rental

AUC-2003-000072 2340 Rental of auctions xerox copiers providing support for conducting auctions tasks. Xerox Corporation 127,500
OMSD-2003-000175 2340 Auctions prorata share of FCC's copier service. Xerox Corporation 186,759
23 TOTAL RENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, UTILITIES 8,965,181
2400 Printing/Reproduction
MO-2003-54-036 2400 Printing of auction brochures for auctions trade show distribution. Government Printing Office 5,005
MO-2003-184 2400 Printing and binding of CMRS Competition Report. 8,300
2400 Subscription to Wireless Market Stats for use in tracking auctionable wireless telecommunications industry trends. Kagan World Media 995
2412 Printing/Binding/Federal Register.

MO-2003-54-096 2412 Federal Register printing cost of auction related items. Government Printing Office 94,250
24 TOTAL PRINTING 108,550
2520 Contract Services - Non Federal

Contractor support to assist ITT in converting the international satellite telephone accounts data to the Revenue
AMD-2003-000006 2520 Accounting Management Information System (RAMIS). National Associates 111,000
AMD-2003-000007 2520 Contractor assistance for auctions related financial audit services. Ernst & Young 998,177
AMD-2003-000008 2520 Services for Mellon Bank for upfront deposits from auction bidders. Mellon Bank 80,000
AMD-2003-000011 2520 Contractor assistance for managing ongoing RAMIS auctions financial data and database administration support. Digital Systems Group, Inc. 496,600
AMD-2003-000013 2520 Contractor support for the financial, clerical and management analyst support of the auctions program. Vistronix 214,440
AMD-2003-000014 2520 Accountant and clerical support for the Auction Installment Program and auction payment activities. Frye Williams & Company 66,147
Contractor support to design, generate, and distribute live web-based auctions related financial reports as well as
AMD-2003-000016 2520 make available auctions related financial reports not available through RAMIS. Dyncorp 39,000
RAMIS T1 connectivity lines between Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, PA and the RAMIS system in Washington, DC for
AMD-2003-000019 2520 spectrum auction loan processing. Mellon Bank 38,400
AMD-2003-000034 2520 Contractor services for Auctions Cost Accounting System support. Soza & Company, Ltd. 102,200
AMD-2003-000042 2520 Contractor support for the financial, clerical and management analyst support of the auctions program. NATEK Incorporated 142,500
AUC-2003-000014 2520 Spectrum consultation services for exploring more efficient applications of wireless technologies. Charles Rush 32,500
AUC-2003-000040 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Offsite Data protection service. Iron Mountain 12,000
AUC-2003-000046 2520 Integration and support services for Auctions Network. AAC Associates 3,606,116
AUC-2003-000047 2520 Database and Integration support. Zen Technology, Inc. 1,006,429
AUC-2003-000049 2520 Paralegal support to the Auctions process including auctions, licensing, and litigation matters. Frye Williams & Company 289,194
AUC-2003-000050 2520 Contractor support for programming support in auctions automation efforts. Dyncorp 565,317
Contractor assistance to maintain existing LAN infrastructure and provide support personnel to maintain existing
AUC-2003-000051 2520 auctions platform at remote site in Gettysburg, PA. Nova Technology Inc. 339,891
Page 4 of 28
Contractor support to assist Auctions Expenditure Group with electronic and/or manual financial data
AUC-2003-000052 2520 management. Dyncorp 379,133
AUC-2003-000053 2520 Auction site audit liaison support. TWM Associates, Inc. 113,278
AUC-2003-000054 2520 Software programming support to conduct auctions and award auction licenses. Computech, Inc. 12,942,899
AUC-2003-000055 2520 Contractor support for quality assurance activities to conduct auctions and aware licenses. Titan Systems-Averstar Group 635,316
AUC-2003-000056 2520 Telephonic telemarketing assistance to the general public regarding auction-related inquiries. GCI Information Systems 786,518
AUC-2003-000057 2520 Contractor support for auctions BLS maintenance and enhancement efforts. Dyncorp 1,200,780
AUC-2003-000058 2520 Telephonic assistance at remote auction site to assistance bidders during mock auction and auction event. GCI Information Systems 41,400
AUC-2003-000059 2520 Data entry support for the administration and management of license applications for auctionable radio services. Vistronix 111,106
AUC-2003-000060 2520 Technical information support for licensing efforts related to Auctions. Vistronix 808,923
AUC-2003-000061 2520 Data entry support for the administration and management of license applications for auctionable radio services. Vistronix 93,063
Contractor assistance to provide original copies of In-Sync bankruptcy litigation documents to be used to prepare
AUC-2003-000065 2520 witnesses for auction depositions. IKON Office Solutions 12,000
AUC-2003-000076 2520 Contractor support to provide virtual routing additions to auctions PBX. Avaya 4,674
AUC-2003-000105 2520 Spectrum consultation services for exploring more efficient applications of wireless technologies. CMR Consulting 131,500
Contractor support for special optimization software involving combinatorial bidding providing participants with
AUC-2003-000119 2520 bidder information in a particular market. Axioma Incorporation 65,000
Contractor assistance to analyze, design, develop, test, implement and document enhancements to the existing
AUC-2003-000137 2520 auction systems infrastructure. AAC Associates 360,000
Contractor telephonic assistance to support auction applicants and bidders during mock auction and duration Electronic Consulting Services,
AUC-2003-000189 2520 during auction event. Inc. 102,800
CGB-2003-000025 2520 Exhibit Booth for Consumer and Governmental Affairs to display auctions information at conferences. Joan Carol Design & Exhibit 3,990
Antennas and printed circuit boards to be used with the Upper Spectrum DF and previously purchased analyzers in
EB-2003-000001 2520 support of field measurements for the microwave spectrum project. H & L Electronics, Inc. 5,000
EB-2003-000006 2520 Printed circuit boards for Enforcement Bureau's field technical analysis of auctionable spectrum bands. BMW Metal Fabrication, Inc. 5,000
EB-2003-000008 2520 Printed circuit boards for Enforcement Bureau's field technical analysis of auctionable spectrum bands. Williams Machine 5,000
EB-2003-000011 2520 support of field measurements for the microwave spectrum project. Assemblies, Inc. 6,989
EB-2003-000012 2520 support of field measurements for the microwave spectrum project. Antennas By Design 9,994
EB-2003-000017 2520 support of field measurements for the microwave spectrum project. N.E.A.T. 13,988
EB-2003-000018 2520 support of field measurements for the microwave spectrum project. Williams Machine 10,000
EB-2003-000019 2520 support of field measurements for the microwave spectrum project. N.E.A.T. 10,000
EB-2003-000021 2520 Metal fabrication drawing relating to antennas for auction projects. Williams Machine 11,000
Records and files maintained for each FCC Auction employee by the contractor includes Official Personnel
Folders, benefits documents (health and life insurance forms); time and attendance forms and Employee
HRM-2003-000028 2520 Performance Folders. STG International 173,240
ITC-2003-000056 2520 SmartHost solution program dedicated to the Auctions component of the Windows 2000 infrastructure. Syntegra 35,044
Auctions prorata share of on-site technical telecommunications systems service support at the FCC site in
ITC-2003-000062 2520 Gettysburg, PA. Nova Development Corporation 74,816
Contractor support for network operations coverage for Revenue Accounting and Management System and
ITC-2003-000066 2520 Commission Registration System. Nova Development Corporation 421,840
Page 5 of 28
Auctions portion of Phase II of FCC's Microsoft Migration project for the integration and implementation of
ITC-2003-000067 2520 Microsoft Outlook. Gov/Works/Department of Interior 36,960
Auctions portion of contractor support for one technical specialist to the Leave Distribution Reporting (LDR)
ITC-2003-000082 2520 system. Titan Systems-Averstar Group 1,637
ITC-2003-000143 2520 Renewal of maintenance agreement for 3 Oracle database licenses. Oracle Corporation 26,327
ITC-2003-000146 2520 ITC requirement to provide Database Integration Services. Zen Technology, Inc. 103,291
ITC-2003-000147 2520 Contractor assistance to provide financial systems IT support under the Programming Services Contract. Computech, Inc. 454,182
ITC-2003-000220 2520 Off-site storage of auctions tapes. First Federal Corp. 1,489
ITC-2003-000256 2520 Contractor tracking systems support for auctions programming services. Dyncorp 35,394
ITC-2003-000257 2520 Contractor licensing systems support for auctions programming services. Dyncorp 63,201
LIB-2003-000030 2520 Auctions prorata share of day -to-day operations of FCC's library. PTFS of Bethesda, Md. 33,286
MO-2003-54-003 2520 Storage, assembly and dismantling of FCC Trade Show Booth. MC2 2,272
MO-2003-54-004 2520 Property Transport Management of auctions items to and from Trade Show Booth events. Hughes 100
MO-2003-54-005 2520 Booth inspection and preparation for shipment to various FCC auction trade shows. Hughes 800
MO-2003-54-042 2520 Electrical services for FCC Trade Show Booth at NTCA Expo '03 in Phoenix, Arizona. Commonwealth Electric Co. 212
MO-2003-54-043 2520 Miscellaneous services for FCC Trade Show Booth at NTCA Expo '03 in Phoenix, Arizona. Champion Exposition Services 556
MO-2003-54-044 2520 Computer rentals for FCC Trade Show Booth at NTCA Expo '03 in Phoenix, Arizona. Bit By Bit Computer Rental 838
MO-2003-54-045 2520 Telephone service for FCC Trade Show Booth at NTCA Expo '03 in Phoenix, Arizona. Phoenix Civic Plaza 1,538
MO-2003-54-046 2520 Booth inspection and preparation for shipment to various FCC auction trade shows. Hughes 750
MO-2003-54-049 2520 Storage cost of new FCC Trade Show Booth. MC2 625
Advertisement supporting upcoming auctions to reach economic development leaders and decision makers in National Congress of American
MO-2003-54-053 2520 Indian Country and rural America. Indians 500
MO-2003-54-057 2520 Installation of lighting illumination to existing FCC Trade Show Booth. MC2 4,671
MO-2003-54-058 2520 Repairs made to doors on FCC Trade Show Booth. MC2 4,450
MO-2003-54-065 2520 Auctions portion of computer rental for FCC Trade Show Booth at IWCE 2003 in Las Vegas, NV. ABC Rentals 714
MO-2003-54-067 2520 Auctions portion of miscellaneous services for FCC Trade Show Booth at IWCE 2003 in Las Vegas, NV. Freeman Companies 253
MO-2003-54-068 2520 Auctions portion of electrical services for FCC Trade Show Booth at IWCE 2003 in Las Vegas, NV. Edlen Electrical Exhibit 372
MO-2003-54-069 2520 Auctions portion of telephone and network services for FCC Trade Show Booth at IWCE 2003 in Las Vegas, NV. Smart City Networks 2,248
MO-2003-54-070 2520 Auctions portion of Turnkey Display for FCC Trade Show Booth at IWCE 2003 in Las Vegas, NV. Primedia Business Exhibits 6,165
MO-2003-54-071 2520 Tektronix Phaser 850 ColorStix for auctions color copier. World Wide Technology 864
MO-2003-54-072 2520 Auctions portion of cleaning services for FCC Trade Show Booth at CTIA 2003 Trade Show in New Orleans, LA. Freeman Companies 173
Auctions portion of reader card and rolls of paper for FCC Trade Show Booth at CTIA 2003 Trade Show in New
MO-2003-54-073 2520 Orleans, LA. Expoexchange 160
Auctions portion of electrical and telecommunications services for FCC Trade Show Booth at CTIA 2003 Trade
MO-2003-54-074 2520 Show in New Orleans, LA. Morial Convention Center 2,483
Auctions portion of pre-show planning and administrative set-up services for FCC Trade Show Booth at CTIA
MO-2003-54-076 2520 2003 Trade Show in New Orleans, LA. MC2 28,188
MO-2003-54-077 2520 Display services for FCC Trade Show Booth at CTIA 2003 Trade Show in New Orleans, LA. Fl Expositions, Inc. 366
Auctions portion of electrical services for FCC Trade Show Booth at the Broadband Wireless World Show 2003 in
MO-2003-54-085 2520 San Jose, CA. Champion Exposition Services 1,306
Auctions portion of display screen and laser printer rental for FCC Trade Booth Show at the Broadband Wireless
MO-2003-54-086 2520 World Show 2003 in San Jose, CA. Insight 455
Auctions portion of telephone services for FCC Trade Show Booth at the Broadband Wireless World Show 2003 in San Jose Convention Cultural
MO-2003-54-087 2520 San Jose, CA. Facilities 1,333
Service to construct antennas, connectors, and miscellaneous items to be used in construction of 13 Shippable
MO-2003-54-098 2520 Direction Finders (DF). Various Vendors 9,703
Page 6 of 28
MO-2003-54-103 2520 Exhibit storage for FCC trade show booth. MC2 625
Rental of tables, table skirts, table cloths and easels for Wireless Innovations Showcase with the Department of
MO-2003-54-104 2520 Commerce. Party Rentals 1,300
MO-2003-54-116 2520 Transport of Display Booth to New Orleans, LA for CTIA Show. Mayflower Moving and Storage 4,686
MO-2003-54-118 2520 Memorex DVDs for use at FCC Trade Shows. Videoed messages from FCC Chairman and Commissioners. Staples Office Supplies 26
Service to provide a master copy of Commission proceedings, Chairman speeches, etc to be used at FCC Trade
MO-2003-54-119 2520 Show Booth. CACI Productions 172
MO-2003-54-120 2520 Repairs and shipment of FCC Trade Show Booth. Hughes 2,847
MO-2003-54-123 2520 Miscellaneous services, installation and dismantle of FCC Trade Show Booth at UTC Expo 2003 in Houston, TX. Brede Exposition Services 2,768
MO-2003-54-124 2520 Cleaning services for FCC Trade Show Booth at UTC Expo 2003 in Houston, TX. City of Houston 195
MO-2003-54-125 2520 Attendee Data Recorder for FCC Trade Show Booth at UTC Expo 2003 in Houston, TX. Expoexchange 145
MO-2003-54-126 2520 Telephone, network and electrical services for FCC Trade Show Booth at UTC Expo in Houston, TX. Smart City Networks 2,985
MO-2003-54-127 2520 Rental of monitors, printers and setup services for FCC Trade Show Booth UTC Expo in Houston, TX. Menlo Event Services 1,085
MO-2003-54-129 2520 Cleaning services and material handling of FCC Trade Show Booth at SuperComm 2003 in Atlanta, GA. Freeman Companies 6,282
MO-2003-54-130 2520 Electrical, telephones and high internet services for FCC Trade Show Booth at SuperComm 2003 in Atlanta, GA. Georgia World Congress 6,950
MO-2003-54-134 2520 Transport of Display Booth to Houston, TX for UTC Telecom 2003 show. United Van Line 3,864
MO-2003-54-135 2520 Transport of Display Booth to Las Vegas, NV for CTIA Wireless I.T. & Internet 2002 show. Von Paris & Sons Inc. 2,650
MO-2003-54-136 2520 Transport of Display Booth to Atlanta, GA for Supercomm 2003. United Van Line 4,365
MO-2003-54-145 2520 Preparation and inspection of FCC Trade Show Booth for shipment. Hughes 750
Rental of laser printers, plasma screens, speakers, cable programming and on site- labor for FCC Trade Show
MO-2003-54-150 2520 Booth at Supercomm 2003 in Atlanta, GA. MC2 44,643
MO-2003-54-151 2520 "Ready-to-Grant" Public Notices via Federal Express to winning bidders of Auction Number 54. Federal Express Corporation 900
MO-2003-54-152 2520 Signage/banner for FCC Trade Show Booth at APCO in Indianapolis, IN. MC2 975
MO-2003-54-153 2520 Miscellaneous furnishings for FCC Trade Show Booth at APCO in Indianapolis, IN. Freeman Companies 3,556
MO-2003-54-154 2520 Rental of LCD flat screen and laserjet printer for FCC Trade Show Booth at APCO in Indianapolis, IN. Freeman Companies 2,685
MO-2003-54-155 2520 Electrical, phone and internet service at FCC Trade Show Booth at APCO in Indianapolis, IN. Indiana Convention Center 2,535
MO-2003-54-156 2520 Telephone service for FCC Trade Show Booth at APCO in Indianapolis, IN. SBC Global Network 3,300
MO-2003-54-157 2520 Storage of FCC Trade Show Booth. MC2 625
MO-2003-54-158 2520 Rental of scan print system for FCC Trade Booth Show at APCO in Indianapolis, IN. CTE Inc. 165
MO-2003-54-160 2520 Repairs to FCC Trade Show Booth. MC2 4,506
MO-2003-54-173 2520 Rental exhibit package and furnishings for FCC Trade Show Booth at NAB Radio Show in Philadelphia, PA. GES National Servicenter 4,358
MO-2003-54-174 2520 Electrical Services at FCC Trade Show Booth for NAB Radio Show in Philadelphia, PA Authority 480
MO-2003-54-175 2520 Telephone and Network Services at FCC Trade Show Booth for NAB Radio Show in Philadelphia, PA Authority 1,720
MO-2003-54-176 2520 Network Equipment at FCC Trade Show Booth for NAB Radio Show in Philadelphia, PA. Authority 1,294
MO-2003-54-177 2520 Display Setup at FCC Trade Show Booth for NECA Show in San Antonio, TX. Freeman Decorating 102
MO-2003-54-178 2520 Telephone and electrical services at FCC Trade Show Booth for NECA in San Antonio, TX. Hyatt Regency San Antonio 870
MO-2003-54-179 2520 Rental of flat screen LCD at FCC Trade Show Booth for NECA in San Antonio, TX. Audio Visual Solutions 978
MO-2003-54-180 2520 Stata statistical software to analyze auction data. Stata Book Store 245
MO-2003-54-189 2520 Installation of SAN Receptacles in the Auctions Computer Room. GSA 2,090
MO-2003-54-203 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's miscellaneous security purchases. Various Vendors 21,300
MO-2003-54-204 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's miscellaneous security purchases. Various Vendors 1,751
MO-2003-54-205 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's installation of closed circuit TV override for security reasons. Capital Antenna Co. 1,791
MO-2003-54-206 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Public Address System override for security reasons. Capital Antenna Co. 1,297
NC03052980006 2520 CTIA Data Select News renewal. BOA 275
Page 7 of 28
Anodized parts for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in auctionable
PV MD03TOG-398 2520 spectrum bands. William F. Bentley 297
PV MD03TOG1212 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Installation of X-Ray machine for security purposes. Point Security, Inc. 465
OIG-2003-000001 2520 Auctions prorata share of KPMG staff Portals I leased space. KPMG Peat Marwick 6,026
OIG-2003-000005 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's "Review of OIG Quality Control System". Thompson Cobb Bazilio & Assoc 5,537
OIG-2003-000007 2520 Audit of RAMIS Application Controls. KPMG Peat Marwick 261,000
OIG-2003-000011 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Financial Statement Audit and Financial Assurance Services. Clifton Gunderson L.L.C. 654,463
Auctions prorata share of the FCC's risk assessment of the Commission's implementation of the President's
OIG-2003-000016 2520 human capital management initiative. Job Performance Systems, Inc. 7,018
OIG-2003-000022 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Physical Security audit. Job Performance Systems, Inc. 17,762
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) Evaluation and Risk
OIG-2003-000023 2520 Assessment. KPMG Peat Marwick 73,000
OIG-2003-000024 2520 Auctions share of FCC's FY 2003 Follow-up Audit on Web Presence Security. KPMG Peat Marwick 75,000
OIG-2003-000026 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Contingency ABD Disaster Recovery Plans. Job Performance Systems, Inc. 25,000
Caption services in audio visual center for June 5, 2003 auction seminar to inform members and communications
OMR-2003-000010 2520 industry of procedures on spectrum auctions. Maslow Media 425
Caption services in audio visual center for March 6 and April 2, 2003 auction seminars to inform members and
OMR-2003-000011 2520 communications industry of procedures on spectrum auctions. National Captioning Institute 1,365
Caption services in audio visual center for auction seminar to inform members and communications industry of
OMR-2003-000014 2520 procedures on spectrum auctions. National Captioning Institute 1,560
Contractor services to maintain agency's inventory, warehouse and forms distribution function as a result of
OMSD-2003-000063 2520 auctions loan portfolio and as mandated by OIG audit. Vistronix 394,119
OMSD-2003-000064 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's property, plant & equipment audit financial statements. Vistronix 43,949
OMSD-2003-000091 2520 Telecommunications Data Cabling for Portals I 6th floor. Texel Corporation 173,815
OMSD-2003-000093 2520 Contractor support for administration of procedures documenting COTR certification requirements. Leads Corporation 740,889
OMSD-2003-000101 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Forms and Warehouse Housekeeping. Vistronix 88,331
OMSD-2003-000102 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Mail Room Operations. Vistronix 135,348
OMSD-2003-000103 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Transportation Services. Vistronix 45,532
OMSD-2003-000104 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Administrative Services. Vistronix 53,986
OMSD-2003-000105 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Laborers. Vistronix 56,539
OMSD-2003-000107 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Project Management Vistronix 18,241
OMSD-2003-000108 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Housekeeping. Vistronix 23,978
OMSD-2003-000109 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Facility Engineering . Vistronix 43,867
OMSD-2003-000110 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Printing Center. Vistronix 8,731
OMSD-2003-000112 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Security Assistance. Vistronix 49,118
OMSD-2003-000113 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Mail Room in Gettysburg, PA. Vistronix 24,478
OMSD-2003-000114 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Guard Service. Wackenhut 270,173
OMSD-2003-000118 2520 Auction's prorata share of FCC's Guard Service. Wackenhut 137
OMSD-2003-000159 2520 Removal of existing emergency generator surplus by the Auction's Computer Room upgrade project. Johnson & Towers, Inc. 10,908
Security maintenance agreement to obtain needed repairs and technical response to problems with the security
OMSD-2003-000164 2520 system. Parcel 49C Limited Partnership 968
OMSD-2003-000181 2520 Switches to provide network connectivity for the WTB Auctions personnel who will occupy Portals I 6th floor. Systems, Inc. 3,712
OMSD-2003-000201 2520 Electrical design analysis and drawings for panel boards required in the Auctions Computer Room. Parcel 49C Limited 7,079
OMSD-2003-000203 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Emergency Evacuation and Signage Review. Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc. 12,232
OMSD-2003-000204 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Safety and Health Specialist. Vistronix 5,770
Page 8 of 28
Electrical changes on copiers being placed in Portals I, as well as changes to systems furniture locations and
OMSD-2003-000208 2520 electrical connections required for auctions staff. Parcel 49C Limited 10,313
OMSD-2003-000209 2520 Design for auctions 6th floor cut-through space. Parcel 49C Limited 10,505
OMSD-2003-000231 2520 Electrical upgrades, mechanical changes and reconfigurations for auctions staff at Portals I. Parcel 49C Limited Partnership 5,000
In an effort to provide additional security in the event of an emergency at the Agency and the Gettysburg location,
the Agency has purchased Jersey Walls. A permanent concrete pad to store the Jersey Walls is being
OMSD-2003-000260 2520 constructed. Realty Leasing & Management 1,419
OMSD-2003-000261 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's rooftop antenna cost. Parcel 49C Limited Partnership 4,447
OMSD-2003-000263 2520 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Gettysburg HVAC system rebalance. Realty Leasing & Management 38,790
OPP-2003-000002 2520 Conference on Combinatorial Spectrum Auctions and Exchanges. Wye River Conference Center 5,000
2522 ADP Data Retrieval Service

ITC-2003-000282 2522 Online research and advisory services. Gartner, Inc. 9,030
MO-2003-54-142 2522 Auctions prorata share of FCC's maintenance and upgrade of database subscriptions for FCC Library. TBD 91,495
NC03072470122 2522 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Mathworks transactions for licenses and maintenance. BOA 8,484
PV MD03TOG1027 2522 Auctions prorata share of FCC's ADP Data Retrieval service. Precursor Group 14,500
2523 Training/Tuition/Fees
Facilitation and team building training to increase the efficiency of managing the auction budget for Information
AUC-2003-000218 2523 Technology projects. Macro International 5,400
Microwave and wireless technologies training for Enforcement Bureau staff in support of measurements and/or
EB-2003-000010 2523 technical analysis of microwave spectrum bands subject to future auctions. GW Solutions 20,492
HRM-2003-000018 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Grammar and Usage Training Class. Dr. Richard Group 448
HRM-2003-000019 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Advanced Product Differentiation in Media Markets Training. Dr. Simon Anderson 490
HRM-2003-000020 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Managing Writers Training Course Lauchman Group 252
HRM-2003-000021 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Introduction to Supervision Training Course. Sonnie Sussillo 252
HRM-2003-000022 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Effective Writing Class. Lauchman Group 1,793
HRM-2003-000023 2523 Auctions prorata share of AFCC's Writing Agenda Items Course. Lauchman Group 1,344
HRM-2003-000024 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Team Building for Team Workshops. Sonnie Sussillo 756
HRM-2003-000025 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Presentation Skill Workshops. Sonnie Sussillo 840
HRM-2003-000035 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Retirement Training Enforcement Bureau. Ann Fagelson Government 1,064
HRM-2003-000036 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Skillsoft web based training. Department of Transportation 1,009
HRM-2003-000038 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Spectrum Management and Digital TV Training. Charles W. Rhodes 3,750
HRM-2003-000046 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Grammar and training Usage Class. Dr. Richard Lauchman 896
HRM-2003-000047 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Plain Language Writing Class. Dr. Richard Lauchman 448
HRM-2003-000050 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Managing Writers Class. Lauchman Group 504
HRM-2003-000051 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Writing Agenda Items. Dr. Richard Lauchman 448
HRM-2003-000052 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Preventing workplace violence class. Star Mountain 260
HRM-2003-000066 2523 Communications and Propagation for Spectrum Managers Course. Dr. Theodore Rappaport 16,250
HRM-2003-000073 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Team Building Workshop. Sonnie Sussillo 336
HRM-2003-000074 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Telecom Economics for Non-Economics Course. Gerald W. Brock 1,680
HRM-2003-000075 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Retirement Training. National Institute of 938
HRM-2003-000077 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Spectrum Interference Modeling Training. The Mathworks, Inc. 57,300
HRM-2003-000078 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Introduction to Supervision Course. Sonnie Sussillo 252
Page 9 of 28
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards Financial Management
HRM-2003-000089 2523 Training. Magnetic Concepts Corporations 4,495
HRM-2003-000091 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Statement of Work for Advanced Course On Vertical Market Structure. Dr. Preston McAfee 490
HRM-2003-000092 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Dollars and Sense Financial Management Training. Department of Treasury 4,061
HRM-2003-000093 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Mentor and Mentee Workshops. Creative Approaches Unlimited 280
HRM-2003-000094 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Method of Moments Training for Interface Modeling. Capital Analytical Ser. 16,000
HRM-2003-000095 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Telecommunications Economics for Non-Economics. Gerald Brock 1,680
HRM-2003-000106 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Customer Service Training. Owen 3,068
HRM-2003-000107 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's University Catalog OPM Interagency Agreement. OPM 21,081
HRM-2003-000111 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Voice and Diction Training. Language at Work 2,548
HRM-2003-000112 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Persuasive Writing Course. Word at Work International 1,645
HRM-2003-000113 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Federal Executive Institute training for FCC manager. Federal Executive Institute 4,809
HRM-2003-000114 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Interdiscplinary Decision Making, Collaboration and Career Management Training. Dr. James G. Clawson 2,800
HRM-2003-000126 2523 Spectrum Management and Digital TV Training. Charles W. Rhodes 4,000
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Dealing with Competing Demands Mastering the Managerial Balancing Act
HRM-2003-000127 2523 Training. American Management Assoc 1,960
HRM-2003-000129 2523 Econometric Approach to Differentiated Product Markets Advanced Course. University/Steve Berry 560
HRM-2003-000131 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Project Management Training. The Mathis Group 4,144
Auctions prorata share of FCC's 360 Degree Assessment and Competency model for supervisors, managers and
HRM-2003-000132 2523 executives. OPM 14,700
HRM-2003-000134 2523 Auctions Package Bidding Workshop. David Parkes 2,700
HRM-2003-000140 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Directing Your Development Training. Sterling Institute 1,834
HRM-2003-000146 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Teaming With Your Manager Training Course. Lazar Holbrook Associates 1,120
HRM-2003-000150 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Collaboration & Negotiation Training Class. Sugarloaf International 1,106
HRM-2003-000151 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Interpersonal Skills Training Class. Laura Holbrook 1,400
HRM-2003-000179 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Retirement training for Gettysburg. Planning, Inc. 1,533
MO-2003-54-200 2523 Telecom Policy Research Council panel on Special Auctions with Package Bidding. George Mason University 195
OIG-2003-000008 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's CISA Review Course. Accountants 1,600
OIG-2003-000014 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Federal Government Financial Statement Audit Process Training. Accountants 1,544
TG-2003-000001 2523 FedWeb Conference attendance by auctions staffers. George Mason University 1,190
TG-2003-000002 2523 Financial Management class for Auctions budget assistant. USDA Graduate School 545
TG-2003-000003 2523 Economic and finance class for auctions industry analysis staffer. Montgomery College 460
TG-2003-000004 2523 Project management training for auctions staffer. AFCEA 840
TG-2003-000005 2523 Project management training for auctions staffer. SkillPath Seminars 99
TG-2003-000006 2523 Graphic training for auctions staffer. Graphic Press, LLC 320
TG-2003-000023 2523 Audio visual editing training for FCC and auctions staffers. Henninger Video 7,000
TG-2003-000008 2523 Project management training for auctions staffer. ESI Int'l 1,945
TG-2003-000009 2523 Project management training for auctions staffer. ESI Int'l 1,695
TG-2003-000010 2523 Brochure, Newsletter, Ads design training for auctions staffer. Career Track 179
TG-2003-000010 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's White Collar Crime Training. TG-293 340
TG-2003-000012 2523 Sybase Techwave technical training for auctions staffer. Maritz Travel 1,495
TG-2003-000013 2523 Economic and finance class for auctions industry analysis staffer. Southeastern University 1,240
TG-2003-000014 2523 Adobe Illustrator training for auctions staffer. Howard Community College 300
TG-2003-000015 2523 Statistical Software package training for auctions staffer. Stata Corp 125
TG-2003-000016 2523 Technology and management training for auctions staffer. Tech Conferences 1,195
Page 10 of 28
TG-2003-000017 2523 Technology and management training for auctions staffer. Henninger Video 1,630
TG-2003-000022 2523 Basic Computer Crime Certification Training Program. Inspector General Criminal 1,000
MD03TOG-441 2523 Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services Regulations. Ghassan F Khalek 435
HRM-2003-000034 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Pre-Retirement Training Class. USDA Graduate School 495
TG-2003-000007 2523 How to Deliver Exceptional Consumer Services Career Track 198
HRM-2003-000034 2523 Auctions prorata share of FCc's Retirement Training. National Institute of 633
2533 Security Investigations - Federal

OMSD-2003-000072 2533 Mandated OPM background investigations for auctions personnel. OPM 145,537
OMSD-2003-000191 2533 Mandated OPM background investigations for Auction Contractors. OPM 12,895
2534 Interagency Contracts

AMD-2003-000018 2534 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Procurement Desktop maintenance. Center 49,857
Auctions prorata share of FCC's FFS maintenance and Data Warehousing for Auction related revenues and Dept of Interior Nat'l Business
AMD-2003-000020 2534 expenses. Center 142,665
HRM-2003-000067 2534 Auctions prorata share of FCC's OPM Mid-manager training. OPM 16,268
HRM-2003-000076 2534 Auctions prorata share of FCC's OPM FCC University Catalog. OPM 9,240
HRM-2003-000165 2534 Auctions prorata share of FCC University Catalog 360 Degree Assessment project. OPM 37,442
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Learning Management System which supports the administration, tracking and
HRM-2003-000166 2534 reporting of classroom, online, and other learning events. OPM 4,701
HRM-2003-000167 2534 Auctions prorata share of FCC's 360 Degree Assessment Project. OPM 2,800
ITC-2003-000205 2534 Auctions prorata share of FCC's E-training services. Department of Transportation 15,820
ITC-2003-000326 2534 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Interagency Agreement to upgrade the Travel Management System. National Business Center 17,457
Auctions prorata share of FCC's implementation plans of a full-featured cost-accounting system (CAS) that will be Dept of Interior Nat'l Business
MO-2003-54-059 2534 an integral part of the broad and on-going re-structuring of the Commission's financial management infrastructure. Center 659,475
MO-2003-54-212 2534 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Full Featured Cost Accounting System Center 78,000
OIG-2003-000002 2534 Clifton Gundersons Staff Portals I Lease for the months of November 2002 through February 2003. Department of Labor 18,941
OIG-2003-000013 2534 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Reimbursable audit agreement. Defense Contract Audit Agency 16,856
AT&T GSA Crossover Services to support the auctions telephonic bidding, communication with alternate auction
MO-2003-54-012 2534 site, and call accounting. GSA Office of Finance 120,410
MO-2003-54-016 2534 Census Data DVD's to help in establishing minimum opening bids and up-front payments by population. BOA 210
MO-2003-54-017 2534 Flash Usability Bundle: Reports and Video to assist auctions in developing new Internet applications. BOA 127
MO-2003-54-034 2534 Expert Consultant in the In-Sync Bankruptcy Litigation. Department of Justice 12,825
HRM-2003-00068 2534 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Introduction to Communications and Technology. Dale Hatfield 770
2541 Space Repair/Interior/Exterior

AUC-2003-000048 2541 Upgraded electric service to enable replacement Xerox printer in Gettysburg. Realty Leasing & Management 1,701
AUC-2003-000186 2541 Components for Auctions build out of its Network Operations Center (NOC). Wright Line 8,905
MO-2003-54-024 2541 Construction services associated with partial tenant alterations of Portals I 6th floor. GSA 500,000
MO-2003-54-025 2541 Construction services associated with partial demolition and flooring of Portals I 6th floor. GSA 265,747
Page 11 of 28
Construction, security and mechanical work associated with preparing space for occupancy by auctions personnel
MO-2003-54-064 2541 who will occupy the Portals I 6th floor project. GSA 352,184
MO-2003-54-147 2541 Installation of HVAC monitoring system in the Auctions computer room located on the Courtyard level in Portals II. GSA 1,464
MO-2003-54-187 2541 Security Upgrades for Portals I and II. Republic Properties Corporation 137,800
MO-2003-54-188 2541 Paint Touch up 6th Floor Portals I. GSA 3,520
MO-2003-54-204 2541 Sweep of Commission Offices, Gettysburg Barriers and Secure Fax. BOA 1,258
OMSD-2003-000180 2541 Auctions portion of construction of a guard booth at the Twelve Street Pull. Parcel 49C Limited Partnership 96,232
OMSD-2003-000202 2541 Auctions portion of sidewalk construction to meet the new perimeter security bollards being installed. Parcel 49C Limited Partnership 6,743
AUC-2003-000126 2541 Electrical circuits with quad receptacles for Auctions War Room to support plasma screens. Parcel 49C Limited Partnership 3,200
OMSD-2003-000231 2541 Electrical Facility Upgrade for auctions staff in Portals I / 6th floor facility. Parcel 49B Limited Partnership 57,372
Relocation of thermostats and sprinklers heads made after the original scope of work completed due to changes
OMSD-2003-000207 2541 made by WTB auctions personnel on furniture placement. Parcel 49C Limited 3,130
2571 Repair/Maintenance Vehicles - Field Office

Repair vehicles for Enforcement Bureau - vehicles used to move and relocate the monitoring equipment used to
MO-2003-54-143 2571 make measurements. Pest G 6,000
OET-2003-000019 2571 Repair of FCC DTV Field Testing Truck. Reliable Tire Inc. 250
2572 ADP Software Maintenance

AUC-2003-000004 2572 Checkpoint software warranty for Auctions and ULS firewalls. Logicon FDC 15,919
AUC-2003-000005 2572 Websphere Studio Application Developer warranty for Auctions and ULS for the creation of web applications. GTSI 6,820
Mercury Interactive software for Auctions and ULS computer staff to perform automated testing of new and
AUC-2003-000006 2572 changed applications. Spectrum Office Systems, Inc. 40,559
AUC-2003-000007 2572 Microsoft phone support for Auctions and ULS CDW Government, Inc. 1,585
AUC-2003-000015 2572 Remedy Software for Auctions and ULS helpdesk management. Logion FDC 20,185
AUC-2003-000016 2572 RSA Ace Server software for authentication of our SecurID cards. CDW Government, Inc. 10,704
AUC-2003-000017 2572 Coldfusion, jRun and Dreamweaver software for Auctions Automated Systems. Macromedia 47,323
AUC-2003-000019 2572 Tripwire software maintenance warranty for security audit response use by ULS and Auctions. CDW Government, Inc. 9,573
AUC-2003-000020 2572 Java design software for ULS and Auctions. Spectrum Systems, Inc. 2,874
AUC-2003-000028 2572 Dbartisan software database administration tool for Auctions and ULS. Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. 12,607
AUC-2003-000029 2572 ILOG software to solve complex problems associated with combinatorial auctions. ILOG, Inc. 17,139
AUC-2003-000031 2572 Security software for Auctions and ULS. Internet Security Systems, Inc. 46,949
AUC-2003-000032 2572 Software to manage code development in Sybase and Oracle for Auctions and ULS. Cast Software, Inc. 14,565
AUC-2003-000033 2572 Performance monitoring software for Auctions and ULS. NetIQ 9,636
AUC-2003-000034 2572 RealSystem Server Maintenance for streaming video over the web for auctions outreach programs. RealNetworks, Inc 3,619
RC Cad engineering packages for ULS used in determining coverage for auctioned licenses when being
AUC-2003-000035 2572 disaggregated and/or partitioned. SiteSafe 3,675
AUC-2003-000037 2572 Software to monitor auctions performance of our database management system. Quotium 6,021
AUC-2003-000038 2572 Java performance monitoring software for ULS. Straka Software 2,800
AUC-2003-000039 2572 Software product to monitor attendance and to crosscheck auctions contractor invoices . Stromberg 1,798
Geographic Information System software maintenance to graphically determine locations of existing licenses as
AUC-2003-000045 2572 well as licenses to be auctioned. Oracle Corporation 64,603
Digital ID license to issue secure server certificates that client browser will recognize as authenticating the security
AUC-2003-000062 2572 server. Verisign, Inc. 13,105
AUC-2003-000063 2572 Legato software maintenance for enterprise backup for ULS and Auctions. CDW Government, Inc. 11,499
Page 12 of 28
AUC-2003-000064 2572 Radia maintenance used for pushing software to auctions desktops. Novadigm Inc. 9,751
AUC-2003-000073 2572 Software maintenance for auctions Powerbuilder and Sybase associated products. Sybase 257,109
AUC-2003-000079 2572 Microsoft phone support for Auctions and ULS Microsoft 1,225
AUC-2003-000080 2572 DreamWeaver MX maintenance renewal for Auctions and ULS. CDW Government, Inc. 605
AUC-2003-000110 2572 Software technical support service on Knowlix for IT and KX KnowlixBuilder associated products. Northrump Grumman 34,840
Upgrade of Coldfusion platform to Coldfusion MX for J2EE Application Servers and additional BEA WebLogic
AUC-2003-000117 2572 licenses for Auctions and ULS. NetStar-1 155,284
Verity search engine software maintenance which provides internet users the capability to search via the FCC
AUC-2003-000121 2572 Auctions internet site. Verity, Inc. 19,984
Maintenance for Auctions MX for BEA, Studio MS and Dreamweaver MX software. Both the auction and license
AUC-2003-000153 2572 components of our system require these products. GovConnection 21,243
HRM-2003-000079 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Telcordia Software License Agreement. Telcordia Technologies 413
ITC-2003-000068 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Support Tickets for e-mail shuttle. CompuSven, Inc. 280
ITC-2003-000070 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Spectrum Manager Support. Systems, Inc. 117
ITC-2003-000072 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's software maintenance. Spectrum Systems, Inc. 126,721
ITC-2003-000098 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Production Tracker Support. TOSS, Inc. 2,888
ITC-2003-000109 2572 RightFax software maintenance to handle the faxback functions of the bidding system. Syscom Services, Inc. 1,675
ITC-2003-000110 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Inktomi License Maintenance Inktomi 1,222
ITC-2003-000113 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's CTTI Server Software Maintenance. Equiliti Communications, Inc. 3,394
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Enterprise Intellisync licenses synchronization software between PDA's and
ITC-2003-000168 2572 desktops. Pumatech, Inc. 1,078
ITC-2003-000175 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Lotus Notes Client licenses in support of complaint processing workload (OSCAR) NSPI 733
ITC-2003-000176 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's EC License fees software to support telephone system automated call display. Rockwell First Point 2,730
ITC-2003-000178 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's ISS License Maintenance Renewal. Internet Security Systems, Inc. 417
ITC-2003-000201 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's renewal of maintenance support for Gauntlet Firewall Licenses. Secure Computing 1,777
ITC-2003-000204 2572 Renewal of comprehensive maintenance agreement for Gettysburg Interactive Intelligence Right(IVR) license. Systems Integration, Inc. 1,267
ITC-2003-000224 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Remedy Support Maintenance to support help desk software. BMC Software 11,269
ITC-2003-000228 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Panoptic FMS Software Maintenance. PUMA SYSTEMS, INC. 13,546
ITC-2003-000242 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's SupportNet for PVCS Version Manager to support the EDOCS System. Merant 94
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Journyx timecard and timesheet software to report auctions contractors billable
ITC-2003-000251 2572 time. Journyx, Inc. 372
Auctions prorata share of FCC's RSA Ace server plus technical support for security tokens for secure access to
ITC-2003-000264 2572 FCC network from remote employee telecommute and travel locations. Patriot Technologies 1,648
ITC-2003-000291 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's NetIQ Software maintenance FedTek 2,025
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Symantec Enterprise Security Software for Symantec security to thwart
ITC-2003-000296 2572 virus/worm attacks. DTL Solutions, Inc. 1,301
ITC-2003-000324 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Maintenance for technical support Tripwire License and Tripwire for NT Servers. Patriot Technologies 1,188
ITC-2003-000339 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Maintenance for 2800 Symantec Antivirus Licenses. CDW Government, Inc. 5,101
ITC-2003-000340 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Maintenance support for the DeltaView Licenses. Workshare 833
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Maintenance support for EiStream software loaded on OSCAR applications
ITC-2003-000343 2572 server. EiStream WMS, Inc. 4,416
ITC-2003-000350 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Maintenance for Microsoft Enterprise License. CDW Government, Inc. 98,392
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Kane Security software which helps analyze network risk allowing immediate
ITC-2003-000375 2572 corrective action to be taken to safeguard integrity. Intrusion Detection, Inc. 217
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Microsoft Premier Support Contract which provides critical software maintenance
ITC-2003-000406 2572 and engineering support for FCC's Microsoft Infrastructure. Microsoft 15,650
Page 13 of 28
DocConverter maintenance from ActivePDF as the utility for converting electronically filed attachments from
MO-2003-54-011 2572 various word processing formats to a PDF format. Active PDF 1,249
MO-2003-54-041 2572 Versigns Software Publisher Digital ID maintenance. Verisign, Inc. 400
MO-2003-54-185 2572 Groupwise mail server maintenance. Sento Corporation 325
AUC-2003-000027 2572 RightFax software maintenance to handle the faxback functions of the bidding system. Syscom Services, Inc. 1,996
AUC-2003-000066 2572 HP OpenView Maintenance. Logicon FDC 111,856
ITC-2003-000177 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Command Antivirus Support. Command Software Systems 875
ITC-2003-000231 2572 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Renewal of Free Balance Support. Freebalance, Inc. 1,784
2573 ADP Equipment Maintenance

AUC-2003-000009 2573 Hardware maintenance for Gettysburg auction site Uninterrupted Power Supply(UPS). Liebert Global Services 9,391
AUC-2003-000010 2573 Maintenance on auctions HP Plotter. Westwood Computer Corporation 822
AUC-2003-000018 2573 Hardware maintenance for auctions Uninterrupted Power Supply(UPS). Lee Technologies 8,151
AUC-2003-000008 2573 Alteon Service Contract for hardware phone support for a Auction's load balancers. CDWG 27,983
AUC-2003-000021 2573 Hardware maintenance warranty on data and voice communication equipment in Gettysburg, PA. Avaya 74,503
AUC-2003-000024 2573 Total Control modem bank maintenance for ULS. Sorensen's Computer Connection 2,775
AUC-2003-000025 2573 Warranty subscription for CISCO equipment for firewalls, routers and dial shelves. Systems, Inc. 165,691
AUC-2003-000026 2573 Maintenance of load balancing gear for ULS test environment that accurately matches gear used in production. CDW Government, Inc. 38,402
AUC-2003-000030 2573 Hardware maintenance warranty on data and voice communication equipment in Washington, DC. Avaya 29,953
AUC-2003-000081 2573 Hardware maintenance of RMON Probes for Auctions internet comprehensive security system. Logicon FDC 29,739
Hardware maintenance for Auctions Sun Microsystems IT Infrastructure at both the Gettysburg and Portals auction
AUC-2003-000113 2573 sites. GTSI 1,867,320
ITC-2003-000090 2573 Maintenance on Sun Server and Solaris Software. Electronic Systems 26,253
ITC-2003-000091 2573 Cisco equipment maintenance. Sprint Telephone 44,095
ITC-2003-000093 2573 Auctions prorata share of FCC's SAN Hardware & Software maintenance. IMS Systems 21,351
ITC-2003-000111 2573 Video Conference Units Maintenance. WorldCom Technologies, Inc. 1,134
ITC-2003-000128 2573 Spur Box Maintenance for Gettysburg, Pa. Spur Support Services, Inc. 725
ITC-2003-000153 2573 Auctions prorata share of FCC's automated call device. Rockwell First Point 4,069
ITC-2003-000161 2573 SGI hardware maintenance renewal. SGI 30,249
ITC-2003-000169 2573 SGI hardware maintenance renewal. SGI 1,124
ITC-2003-000200 2573 Warranty support pack for printers. HP Express Services 1,880
ITC-2003-000235 2573 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Voice mail system maintenance. Avaya 299
ITC-2003-000236 2573 Auctions prorata share of FCC's UPS (Uninterrupted Power Supply). Lee Technologies 2,907
ITC-2003-000278 2573 Auctions Voice Mail maintenance. Avaya 1,927
MO-2003-54-201 2573 Maintenance of damaged auctions laptop. LKA Computer Consultants, Inc. 50
MO-2003-54-121 2573 Auctions Scanner Repair. Fujitsu 3,102
2574 Repair Office Equipment

OMSD-2003-000176 2574 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Xerox Copiers in Portals II. Xerox Corporation 56,388
2575 ADP Service Contracts

ITC-2003-000272 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's material technical support for programming services contract. Softchoice Government 10,967
ITC-2003-000044 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Computer Resource Center Support. Vistronix 441,567
ITC-2003-000045 2575 Maintenance on Auctions Electronic Document Management system. Dyncorp 333,135
ITC-2003-000046 2575 Auctions Sybase Infrastructure Support. Zen Technology, Inc. 1,158,490
Page 14 of 28
ITC-2003-000047 2575 CoChannel Serial Coordination (CoSer) and Master Frequency File (MFF) system maintenance. Dyncorp 108,506
ITC-2003-000048 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Network Operations Services. Nova Technology Inc. 390,715
ITC-2003-000049 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Infrastructure enhancements to support Microsoft roll-out. Nova Technology Inc. 248,863
ITC-2003-000062 2575 Contractor for telephone maintenance such as phone moves and monitor of Auctions PBX system. Nova Development Corporation 8,134
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Microsoft Migration project for the integration and implementation of Microsoft
ITC-2003-000067 2575 Outlook e-mail system. Gov/Works/Department of Interior 78,716
ITC-2003-000157 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's SGI hardware maintenance support for RAMIS application. SGI 28,616
ITC-2003-000159 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's IRIX Operating System Maintenance. SGI Federal 594
ITC-2003-000069 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Migration Program manager. Nova Technology Inc. 17,960
Auctions prorata share of FCC's CoChannel Serial Coordination (CoSer) and Master Frequency File (MFF) system
ITC-2003-000081 2575 maintenance. Dyncorp 62,621
ITC-2003-000088 2575 Auctions Prorata share of FCC's Administrative Group Contract Services. Titan Systems-Averstar Group 102,012
ITC-2003-000089 2575 Auctions Prorata share of FCC's Telecom Task Support. Nova Technology Inc. 51,437
ITC-2003-000101 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's COALs External System Implementation. Dyncorp 3,374
ITC-2003-000112 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Electronic Comments Filing System scanning services. Vistronix 11,104
ITC-2003-000114 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Technical support for HFDFC. Connectioneers 3,825
ITC-2003-000121 2575 Installation services for hardware addition to the RAMIS server in the FCC computer room. SGI/Federal 500
ITC-2003-000122 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Help Desk support for auctions-related information technology activities. Vistronix 385,690
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Cisco Catalyst to support the load balancing for the Gigabit Windows 2000
ITC-2003-000173 2575 servers supporting the UPN servers, terminal servers, and Outlook Web Access servers. NextiraOne Federal 3,442
DTV enhancements requirements to plot interference for user specified DTV or NTSC stations using Lonley-Rice
ITC-2003-000182 2575 and Map Info software to display results. TechWare 4,500
ITC-2003-000208 2575 Migration of CADapult from FM to SQL in support of Commission wide space management activities. CADapult, Ltd 2,293
ITC-2003-000212 2575 Object COBOL Development Suite software in support of RAMIS system. Micro Focus 2,500
ITC-2003-000215 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's QuickHire Services in support of HRM's recruitment system development. QuickHire 17,275
ITC-2003-000265 2575 Modification of CDBS Auctions Interface contract for auctionable broadcast services. Titan Systems-Averstar Group 28,483
ITC-2003-000269 2575 Pilot phase of IMPACT rulemaking automation project for auction-related proceedings only. Systems Integration, Inc. 315,104
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Experimental Licensing System scanning and technical support programming
ITC-2003-000286 2575 services. Vistronix 5,465
ITC-2003-000292 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Consultant Services for AppManager. FedTek 349
ITC-2003-000300 2575 IMPACT pilot document management for rulemaking for auctionable radio services. IMPACT 228,519
ITC-2003-000320 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Electioneering Communications Database. ESI Int'l 38,826
ITC-2003-000323 2575 Integrated Licensing and Customer Support Initiative. Gov/Works/Department of Interior 2,041,880
Auctions prorata share of FCC's services to implement changes to OET's automated systems to comply with
ITC-2003-000329 2575 changes to Rule Making and Order of Part 15 of the FCC Rules. Dyncorp 35,000
Auctions prorata share of FCC's contract services for a pilot project to assist with the identification and
ITC-2003-000342 2575 presentations on Emerging Technologies. Gartner, Inc. 4,542
ITC-2003-000345 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Consumer Information Management System Phase 3 Enhancements. Advanced Technology Systems 41,791
Programming and analysis support for CORES, Collections and ROSIE systems and of programming and analysis
ITC-2003-000383 2575 support for the Cost Reporting System. Computech, Inc. 1,127,334
MB-2003-000008 2575 Informal Filings Development of the Consolidated Database System. TBD 238,869
ITC-2003-000313 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Computer Security Services. TWM Associates 170,000
ITC-2003-000151 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Windows 2K Infrastructure product services. AC Technologies 1,400
ITC-2003-000179 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Syncort Clustering Service. IMS Systems 4,425
NC03000137 2575 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Phase II of Microsoft Migration project of Microsoft Outlook. Dept. of Interior 9,088
ITC-2003-000066 2575 Auctions network operations maintenance and software for RAMIS and CORES. Nova Development Corporation 1,241,806
Page 15 of 28
2578 Technical Equipment Repair

OET-2003-000018 2578 Equipment calibration for Office of Engineering and Technology in support of Auctions project testing. Agilent Technologies 8,100
25 TOTAL CONTRACTS - OTHER SERVICES 47,262,069
2600 Supplies and Materials

MO-2003-54-001 2600 General supplies for auctions staff and all personnel working on auctions related matters. Boise Cascade 30,000
MO-2003-54-013 2600 General supplies for personnel working on auctions related matters. Boise Cascade 958
MO-2003-54-014 2600 General supplies for personnel working on auctions related matters. Boise Cascade 3,147
Subscription to Wireless Telecom Investor for use in tracking auctionable wireless telecommunications industry
MO-2003-54-038 2600 trends. Kagan World Media 1,190
MO-2003-54-020 2600 Supplies for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in auctionable spectrum. Pest G 76,000
MO-2003-54-022 2600 Supplies for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in auctionable spectrum. Pest G 38,848
NC03013170006 2600 Power Supplies for Spectrum monitoring project. various vendors 1,523
2670 General Supplies and Materials

AUC-2003-000216 2670 Backup tapes for auctions data storage. Disk-O-Tape, Inc. 41,225
MO-2003-54-007 2670 Backup tapes for auctions data storage. Westwood Computer Corporation 9,630
MO-2003-54-009 2670 Subscription with Microsoft Developer Network for Auctions Operations uses of Microsoft products . CDW Government, Inc. 2,545
MO-2003-54-028 2670 Fiber cable for connection of server to the SAN storage and the Gigabit network. ACCU-Tech Corporation 752
MO-2003-54-029 2670 Backup tapes for auctions data storage. GTSI 3,760
MO-2003-54-030 2670 RJ-45 cat5 connectors to connect servers to the Ethernet network. CDW Government, Inc. 408
MO-2003-54-031 2670 Connectors to connect servers to the SAN and the Gigabit Ethernet network. Tyco Electronics 1,624
MO-2003-54-037 2670 Solaris subscription for use with auctions database and web servers. Element K Journals 107
MO-2003-54-051 2670 Pentium CAT5 cable spools to connect servers and workstations to the Auctions network. ACCU-Tech Corporation 273
MO-2003-54-052 2670 CAT5 cable spools to connect servers and workstations to the Auctions network. ACCU-Tech Corporation 428
MO-2003-54-079 2670 ULS training CD's to be used at FCC Trade Show Booth. Diskcopy 2,100
MO-2003-54-080 2670 DVD's for copying of auctions presentations. CDW Government, Inc. 350
MO-2003-54-081 2670 Tapes for new auctions cameras videoing auctions presentations. Washington Professional System 1,240
MO-2003-54-082 2670 New Wave Development: Resizing the SDLC for auctions system development. Gartner, Inc. 95
MO-2003-54-083 2670 ULS requires OCE Toner Cartridges for the recently purchased Gettysburg OCE printers. OCE Toner Cartridges 214
MO-2003-54-108 2670 Copier paper for auctions staff. Government Printing Office 31,884
MO-2003-54-110 2670 LTO tapes for auctions new backup system. CDW Government, Inc. 29,795
MO-2003-54-112 2670 ULS training CD's to be used at FCC Trade Show Booth. CDW Government, Inc. 780
MO-2003-54-137 2670 Floor puller suction cups used in auctions computer room to pick up floor tiles. Jensen Tools, Inc. 221
MO-2003-54-163 2670 Toner supplies for auctions copier. CDW Government, Inc. 4,409
MO-2003-54-164 2670 CD Sleeves for ULS training CD's. Westwood Computer Corporation 150
MO-2003-54-167 2670 Plotter paper for auctions plotters used for presentations. GTSI 635
MO-2003-54-169 2670 Printer supplies for OCE printers. OCE Toner Cartridges 105
MO-2003-54-203 2670 Security items for auctions related matters. BOA 504
MO-2003-54-216 2670 Fiber Optic cabling supplies for auctions DC and Gettysburg offices. Graybar Electric Company 4,907
Workspace and way finding signage for the WTB auctions personnel who will occupy the Portals I 6th floor
OMSD-2003-000138 2670 auctions project. Scott Sign Systems 10,176
Page 16 of 28
OMSD-2003-000183 2670 Auctions prorata share of FCC's copier paper. Frank Parson Paper Co., Inc. 1,120
OMSD-2003-000187 2670 Auctions prorata share of FCC's copier supplies. RIS Paper 1,120
OMSD-2003-000214 2670 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Shelter-in-Place survival kits. Services 3,105
OMSD-2003-000215 2670 Trash receptacles for auctions personnel occupying space in Portals I. Fuller Contract Accessories 5,145
OMSD-2003-000224 2670 Mark -N-Wipe boards for Auctions. Boise Cascade 1,120
OMSD-2003-000252 2670 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Guard Force Security Containers for Weapons. Caswell Detroit Armor Companies 82
OMSD-2003-000254 2670 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Guard Force Security Lockers. Boise Cascade 69
OMSD-2003-000172 2670 Office supplies. Adam Marketing Association, Inc. 1,290
OMSD-2003-000182 2670 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Wordex copier toner supplies. Wordex Corporation 31,500
OMSD-2003-000184 2670 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Xerox copier toner supplies Xerox Corporation 4,200
2690 Project Supplies

General project supplies for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in auctionable
EB-2003-000007 2690 spectrum bands. Micro-Tronics 3,744
General project supplies for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in auctionable
EB-2003-000013 2690 spectrum bands. IW Microwave Products Division 16,645
2634 ADP IRM Supplies

ITC-2003-000198 2634 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Data tapes. CDW Government, Inc. 1,916
2660 Periodicals and Subscriptions

Lexis-Nexis research tool for industry reports and e-clipping service that will aggregate news and legal information
AUC-2003-000022 2660 relating to auctions matters. Lexis-Nexis 79,000
AUC-2003-000108 2660 Report to examine the policy issues surrounding quality of service in the wireless sector. National Regulatory Research 336
Subscription to Wireless Telecom Investor for use in tracking auctionable wireless telecommunications industry
AUC-2003-000138 2660 trends. Kagan World Media 1,095
MO-2003-54-010 2660 Wall Street Interactive Edition for use in tracking auctionable wireless telecommunications industry trends. Wall Street Journal 195
MO-2003-54-015 2660 Subscription to RCR for use in tracking auctionable wireless telecommunications industry trends. RCR Publications, Inc. 64
MO-2003-54-035 2660 Wall Street Interactive Edition for use in tracking auctionable wireless telecommunications industry trends. Wall Street Journal 195
CTIA select and Information Service is used to track auctionable wireless telecommunications industry trends and
MO-2003-54-056 2660 conditions. CTIA 269
MO-2003-54-061 2660 Bankruptcy reference materials in support of auctions bankruptcy activities. AWHFY Inc. 360
CTIA select and Information Service is used to track auctionable wireless telecommunications industry trends and Cellualr Telecommunications &
MO-2003-54-089 2660 conditions. Internet Association 183
MO-2003-54-105 2660 Newton's Telecom Dictionary will assist in providing research and analysis auction related matters. Barnes and Nobles 160
MO-2003-54-117 2660 Subscription to Wireless Week for use in tracking auctionable wireless telecommunications industry trends. Wireless Week 104
MO-2003-54-190 2660 General office supplies for OGC staff working on auctions related matters. Boise Cascade 1,010
AUC-2003-000107 2660 Subscription to RCR for use in tracking auctionable wireless telecommunications industry trends. RCR Publications, Inc. 69
NC03052980002 2660 Wall Street Interactive Edition for use in tracking auctionable wireless telecommunications industry trends. Wall Street Journal 41
MO-2003-54-090 2660 Art Explosion software in support of auction services. Nova Development Corp 86
NC03071490014 2660 CTIA online subscription for use in tracking auctionable wireless telecommunications industry trends. CTIA 89
26 TOTAL SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 458,667
3110 Technical Equipment

Spectrum and Vector analyzers for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in
EB-2003-000014 3110 auctionable spectrum bands. Agilent Technologies 288,578
Page 17 of 28
Antenna Horn for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in acutionable spectrum Antenna Research Associates,
EB-2003-000022 3110 bands. Inc. 43,200
Lifebook B Series/Auto Adapters for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in
EB-2003-000003 3110 auctionable spectrum bands. Force 3, Inc. 35,138
Signal Monitors for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in acutionable
EB-2003-000004 3110 spectrum bands. Intergroup 98,515
Spectrum monitoring system to conduct spectrum monitoring surveys on the 1-6 GHz and 22-25 GHz frequency
EB-2003-000020 3110 bands for occupancy as specified in the upper spectrum project for Auctions. Zeta Technologies Ltd. 245,251
Enclosures to house and transport sensitive test equipment for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis
EB-2003-000023 3110 and measurements in auctionable spectrum bands. ECS Technologies Inc. 48,151
Digital Demodulator Units for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in
EB-2003-000024 3110 auctionable spectrum bands. Agilent Technologies 48,042
Microwave signal generators for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in
EB-2003-000025 3110 auctionable spectrum bands. NAVICPMART 235,459
Lifebook laptops for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in auctionable
MO-2003-54-EB3 3110 spectrum bands. BOA 46,697
Communication receivers for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in
EB-2003-000002 3112 auctionable spectrum bands. Ham Radio Outlet 18,644
Low Noise Amplifiers for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in auctionable
EB-2003-000015 3112 spectrum bands. Miteq, Inc. 43,676
Low Noise Amplifiers for Enforcement Bureau's Project on technical analysis and measurements in auctionable
EB-2003-000026 3112 spectrum bands. Miteq, Inc. 955
3120 ADP Equipment

SunRays "thin clients" to provide simpler and more manageable workstations for auctions telemarketing and
AUC-2003-000089 3120 reduce training, maintenance and repair time. GMR 41,036
iSCS routers to expand connectivity to DC and GB SAN machines that are not directly connected via fiber iSCS Northrop Grumman Computing
AUC-2003-000090 3120 routers. Systems, Inc. 42,728
AUC-2003-000093 3120 SAN central data storage unit that can be connected simultaneously to multiple hosts for ULS and AAS projects. GTSI 624,250
Gigabit support for additional servers and providing multi-homing capability for all AAS and ULS production
AUC-2003-000094 3120 servers. MSD, Inc. 174,847
AUC-2003-000095 3120 Life Cycle replacement of core router complement in Gettysburg, PA and Washington, DC. Systems, Inc. 116,254
AUC-2003-000096 3120 Monitors in Auction War Rooms in Gettysburg, PA and Washington, DC for simultaneous auctions. Westwood Computer Corporation 53,484
AUC-2003-000097 3120 SAN central data storage unit that can be connected simultaneously to multiple hosts for ULS and AAS projects. GTSI 335,377
AUC-2003-000098 3120 Additional phones to support Voice-Over-IP based phone system for auctions in Gettysburg, PA and Washington. Systems, Inc. 39,508
AUC-2003-000102 3120 Laptops capable of running XP operating systems for multiple auctions demonstrations. CDW Government, Inc. 29,524
MO-2003-54-021 3120 USB printer cables for auctions staff printers. CDW Government, Inc. 192
MO-2003-54-047 3120 ATA rated travel cases to transport auctions road show laptops to protect the equipment from damage. StarCase 232
MO-2003-54-054 3120 ATA rated travel cases to transport auctions road show laptops to protect the equipment from damage. StarCase 955
AUC-2003-000076 3120 Virtual routing additions to auctions PBX. Avaya 3,944
ITC-2003-000260 3120 Five desktop computers for contractor personnel supporting auction receipt and payment activities. CDWG 5,435
ITC-2003-000284 3120 Cisco Gigabit Ethernet Interface for auction employees from Portals II to Portals I. GTSI 7,092
ITC-2003-000460 3120 Auctions prorata share of FCC's life cycle replacement of network printers. Westwood Computer Corporation 14,477
ITC-2003-000465 3120 Auctions prorata share of FCC's life cycle replacement of laptop computers. Westwood Computer Corporation 693
ITC-2003-000466 3120 Rear Projection Smartboard for Conference Room. Westwood Computer Corporation 1,929
ITC-2003-000467 3120 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Hard Drives for Telecommuters. CDW Government, Inc. 1,499
Page 18 of 28
ITC-2003-000469 3120 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Xerox Phaser Printers. Westwood Computer Corporation 7,438
ITC-2003-000470 3120 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Avaya Phones. AVAYA, INC. 2,092
ITC-2003-000474 3120 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Computer Desktop. Westwood Computer Corporation 69,649
ITC-2003-000476 3120 Auctions prorata share of FCC's IBM Thinkpad Laptops. Westwood Computer Corporation 36,332
MO-2003-54-055 3120 RJ-45 Ethernet cables for PCMCIA cards used in auctions laptops. GTSI 12
MO-2003-54-084 3120 DVDs for auction presentations. CREDIT CARD 845
MO-2003-54-115 3120 CardScan Office 600 for business card scan onto PDA's for auctions staff. GTSI 836
Sun Servers to house web, application, administration and database servers purchased for various projects (ISAS
AUC-2003-000083 3121 enhancements-Business Objects,175 Isolation/QA Test Coldfusion and SunRay Projects. GTSI 631,470
AUC-2003-000091 3121 ULS Task Force Life Cycle replacement of personal computers. CDWG 34,235
AUC-2003-000092 3121 Four shelves of rack mounted workstations to support auctions testing and configuration labs. GMR 179,545
Five real-time video conferencing units to provide video links among Washington, DC and Gettysburg, PA war
AUC-2003-000100 3121 rooms and the infrastructure and software operations staff. IVCI 121,216
AUC-2003-000125 3121 Life cycle replacement of auctions monitors. Westwood Computer Corporation 113,134
AUC-2003-000142 3121 Appliance Netscaler equipment for auctions Network Recording System. GTSI 246,126
Niksun NetDector to increase auctions system performance by unloading the decryption tasks from web servers,
AUC-2003-000144 3121 freeing the web servers to serve pages more rapidly. GTSI 238,673
Software Bluecoat Caching Appliance to increase performance, decrease response time and add security for
AUC-2003-000146 3121 public bidding in the 700 MHz Auctions. CDW Government, Inc. 92,919
AUC-2003-000147 3121 Backup tape system for Gettysburg, PA and Washington, DC. GTSI 389,058
Digital CCTV systems to provide digital video recording of all perimeter doors for increased physical security
AUC-2003-000154 3121 posture for auctions locations. AVNET Enterprise Solutions 67,084
KVM (key board, video, monitor) to provide remote console access Windows servers which provide controlled
AUC-2003-000156 3121 levels of secure access for servers or groups of servers. Government Micro Resources 36,777
Plotters for printing large Entity Relationship Diagrams, network design drawings, and computer room building
AUC-2003-000157 3121 plans and layouts for auctions. Westwood Computer Corporation 42,997
Life cycle replacement of Dictaphone recording system which supports recording of auctions telephonic bid
AUC-2003-000158 3121 assistant interactions with customers. Dictaphone Corporation 343,312
AUC-2003-000160 3121 Plasma screens to display all active information required by the administrators and technicians during an auction. GTSI 38,334
AUC-2003-000161 3121 Life cycle replacement of laptops and printers for auction personnel. CDW Government, Inc. 207,690
Server switches to connect servers to the SAN and storage for Auctions and ULS to implement combinatorial 700
AUC-2003-000162 3121 MHz auction. GTSI 621,540
Lantronix provides encryption, packet filtering (firewall), per port user permission, user authentication (integrates
AUC-2003-000164 3121 with identity server, and is safe for Sun machines (machines stay running if the terminal server reboots.) CDW Government, Inc. 38,075
AUC-2003-000168 3121 Cable tester for physical cable plain in Washington, DC and Gettysburg, PA. GTSI 33,114
AUC-2003-000171 3121 SunFire V1280s servers for development and test of combinatorial auctions for both ULS and Auctions Systems. GTSI 439,500
AUC-2003-000174 3121 Upgrade of utility blade servers for PCS (Personal Communication Service) combinatorial auction. GMSI 43,800
Sun B 1600 blade servers with N1 Provisioning software for Auctions utility applications, Remedy, Kavado,
AUC-2003-000179 3121 NetCool, LDAP, etc. Government Micro Resources 102,280
AUC-2003-000180 3121 SPAM filtering and enhanced virus scanning for Auctions internal email. CDW Government, Inc. 114,517
AUC-2003-000192 3121 VOIP Phone Assistant for use with spectrum auctions. Management Systems Design 24,946
Media Equipment for auctions outreach program which involves recording of auctions training sessions,
AUC-2003-000193 3121 conferences, and meetings for distribution as streaming video on the internet. Washington Professional System 29,969
AUC-2003-000202 3121 Life cycle replacement HP printers for Auctions and ULS users. Westwood Computer Corporation 7,420
AUC-2003-000203 3121 Life cycle replacement of Viewsonic monitors for Auctions and ULS users. GTSI 22,900
Page 19 of 28
Compaq ProLiant rack-mount servers to increase speed of combinatorial solver servers for upcoming
AUC-2003-000207 3121 combinatorial 700 MHz auction. CDW Government, Inc. 55,691
Core switches for Washington and Gettysburg to perform firewall, routing and switching through our auctions
AUC-2003-000208 3121 infrastructure. GTSI 148,284
Spare parts for auctions equipment to be used in the combinatorial 700 MHz auction and the Integrated Spectrum
AUC-2003-000215 3121 Auctions System (ISAS). GTSI 14,175
AUC-2003-000217 3121 Smart card system to further secure the desktops on the Auctions Network. Maximus ITD 17,375
ITC-2003-000145 3121 Auctions prorata share of FCC's SAN Disk Drives for Microsoft Migration Project. IMS Systems 20,620
ITC-2003-000156 3121 RAMIS server relocated to SAN as part of auctions network infrastructure build out. IMS Systems 51,454
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Cisco equipment to support expansion of servers and support connectivity and
ITC-2003-000199 3121 redundancy for additional servers. GTSI 20,941
ITC-2003-000229 3121 Auctions prorata share of FCC's maintenance of Panoptic Software to manage projects. Government Micro Resources 137,358
ITC-2003-000243 3121 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Scanner Units for Gettysburg, PA auction site. GMR 40,640
ITC-2003-000302 3121 SQL server project hardware. Westwood Computer Corporation 67,006
Auctions prorata share of FCC's hardware and software for Gettysburg Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
ITC-2003-000303 3121 Storage area network (SAN). IMS Systems 72,427
ITC-2003-000316 3121 Server and associated hardware for ULS COOP. Government Micro Resources 102,006
ITC-2003-000356 3121 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Dialogic Emergency Call Out System. Avaya 18,744
ITC-2003-000364 3121 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Sun Servers for Non-ULS and External Web COOP. Government Micro Resources 28,562
ITC-2003-000378 3121 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Gettysburg, PA COOP Server expansion. IMS Systems 10,735
ITC-2003-000389 3121 SmartHost backup solution for Auctions Microsoft email (Outlook) users. IMS Systems 55,569
ITC-2003-000415 3121 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Gigabit sniffer to analyze traffic of gigabit servers. GovConnection Inc. 5,640
ITC-2003-000416 3121 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Sun Servers in support of lifecylce Replacement Plan. Government Micro Resources 29,710
ITC-2003-000438 3121 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Cisco Local Area Network Upgrade. Systems, Inc. 54,040
ITC-2003-000440 3121 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Cisco Local Area Network Upgrade. World Wide Technology, Inc. 73,484
ITC-2003-000464 3121 IMPACT Infrastructure Servers for connection to the SAN. IMS Systems 42,950
MO-2003-54-092 3121 Technical supply materials. CDW Government, Inc. 975
MO-2003-54-122 3121 Wireless remote control for presentations used in various auctions and ULS seminars and road shows. Systems, Inc. 532
ITC-2003-000181 3121 Auctions prorata share of FCC's purchase of Cisco Switches to upgrade network infrastructure. Systems, Inc. 3,037
MO-2003-54-138 3121 Printer for auction staffer. Westwood Computer Corporation 369
AUC-2003-000067 3122 Cable management channels and cage nuts for mounting auctions equipment in the racks. SharkRack Inc. 2,339
AUC-2003-000068 3122 Connectors and tools to make LC fiber for the SAN. Anixter, Inc. 7,834
AUC-2003-000111 3122 Lifecyle replacement of auction printers. GTSI 5,093
AUC-2003-000118 3122 Compaq ProLiant servers to provide high quality service to auction Intranet users. Westwood Computer Corporation 24,222
AUC-2003-000123 3122 VOIP phones, new access points, cards and wireless phones for auctions staff. World Wide Technology, Inc. 21,574
AUC-2003-000132 3122 Multichannel Video Data & Distribution Service report used to calculate the Auctions Tribal Lands Bidding Credits. Neilsen Media 525
Network Recorder System to provide necessary enhancements to the Automated Auctions System's security
AUC-2003-000143 3122 posture, performance, troubleshooting, and network traffic visibility. GTSI 43,484
AUC-2003-000141 3122 PowerStream servers for auctions outreach programs. Audio Visual Innovations 54,991
AUC-2003-000155 3122 Tempus Gntp time server to correlate events occurring on Auctions network. EndRun Technology 17,828
AUC-2003-000165 3122 Headsets used by auctions technical tech support, hotline and telephonic bid assistants. Jenne Distributors 3,971
AUC-2003-000182 3122 Inventory tracking supplies. CDW Government, Inc. 1,426
Scanner for large format documents such as frequency charts, large Entity Relationship Diagrams (ERD), network
AUC-2003-000183 3122 design drawings and computer room building plans and equipment layouts for spectrum auctions. GTSI 17,165
AUC-2003-000187 3122 ViewSonic Monitors for Auctions build out of its Network Operations Center (NOC). Wright Line 12,240
AUC-2003-000188 3122 LED Display Units for Auctions build out of its Network Operations Center (NOC). Wright Line 23,855
Page 20 of 28
Lighting equipment used in recording of auctions training sessions, conferences, and meetings for distribution as
AUC-2003-000190 3122 streaming video on the internet. R&R Lighting Company 4,409
VersaPoint RF Wireless keyboards used with the Integrated Spectrum Auction System (ISAS) for presentations in
AUC-2003-000205 3122 use with plasma screens in Gettysburg and Washington war rooms. Westwood Computer Corporation 1,024
AUC-2003-000211 3122 Sony VAIO laptop for auctions staffer actively working on 700 MHz auction. Westwood Computer Corporation 3,152
Local printers for auctions personnel who are directly working as developers and serving as end-users of the
AUC-2003-000213 3122 Auction Financial Reporting and Tracking system. CompUSA, Inc. 2,680
ITC-2003-000050 3122 SGI Server support hardware supporting RAMIS and for SAN Auctions connectivity. SGI 1,080
ITC-2003-000074 3122 Compaq servers and associated components. Westwood Computer Corporation 34,788
ITC-2003-000094 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Equipment for Wireless Networks in Conference. Management Systems Design 2,208
ITC-2003-000099 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Cisco Switch. Management Systems Design 2,966
ITC-2003-000123 3122 Voice and Data Network connectivity for workstations to be located in Portals I building. GTSI 39,963
ITC-2003-000124 3122 Network Printers to support agency personnel and contractors relocating to Portals I facility. Hewlett Packard Company 9,900
ITC-2003-000152 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Cisco Content Switches. GTSI 5,466
ITC-2003-000174 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's NetBotz PiolotPak to monitor servers in FCC Computer Room. Systems, Inc. 2,309
ITC-2003-000202 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's life cycle replacement of NEC and Samsung Monitors. CDW Government, Inc. 2,820
ITC-2003-000206 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Sun Microsystems Disks and PCI Adapters for COOP. Government Micro Resources 2,930
ITC-2003-000210 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Sun DLT Tape Drives for backups on Commission-wide applications. GTSI 1,775
ITC-2003-000216 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Carrier Cabinet for PBX Cards for telephone/voice mail system. AVAYA, INC. 3,484
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Journeyx Hand Reader installation in Portals I and Portals II for standard time-
ITC-2003-000241 3122 reporting system. Journyx, Inc. 2,759
ITC-2003-000247 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's PBA for all HP spare parts. FedTek 2,604
ITC-2003-000248 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Basic Purchase Agreement (BPA) for fax. The Fax Connection 2,604
ITC-2003-000249 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's printers (HP) support and repair. Teleplan International 5,208
ITC-2003-000253 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's hardware/software for Kiosks in 12th Street Lobby. TTSS Interactive Product6s 812
ITC-2003-000258 3122 Audio Conferencing sets for placement in auctions conference rooms located on the 6th floor of Portals I. SKC Communications 3,123
ITC-2003-000259 3122 Analog phones in auctions copy room located on the 6th floor of Portals I. Phone Xtra 595
ITC-2003-000285 3122 Cisco switches to accommodate auctions staff workstations. Systems, Inc. 5,906
ITC-2003-000304 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Servers for Gettysburg COOP build out. Westwood Computer Corporation 2,308
ITC-2003-000308 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's NetBotz Pilot Pak to monitor hardware in Gettysburg Computer Room. Westwood Computer Corporation 1,354
ITC-2003-000317 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's SunFire Server for Gettysburg COOP. GTSI 2,383
ITC-2003-000327 3122 Laptop for OET to conduct spectrum studies. HP Online Store 3,146
ITC-2003-000332 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Cisco Access Point Units for wireless reception. GTSI 714
ITC-2003-000355 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Secure Fax for Gettysburg COOP. Fax Plus 582
ITC-2003-000365 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Cisco Communication Switch for Gettysburg COOP. Systems, Inc. 4,065
ITC-2003-000366 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Cisco Switch to provide support for new Microsoft dial-up services. Northrop Grumman 3,468
ITC-2003-000367 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Siprnet/Adnet for Gettysburg COOP. Harte Graphics 6,664
ITC-2003-000368 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Disk Drives to increase capacity of the Storage Area Network (SAN). IMS Systems 25,706
ITC-2003-000369 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Check Point Firewall Solution to provide support for internet services. Patriot Technologies 9,426
ITC-2003-000379 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Compaq Server for Gettysburg COOP. CDW Government, Inc. 1,423
ITC-2003-000386 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's purchase and installation of stationary satellite phones. InTouch USA 1,122
ITC-2003-000391 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Nextel service in Portals I in support of Homeland Security. Nextel 2,893
ITC-2003-000401 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Tape Backup System for Commission servers. IMS Systems 45,777
ITC-2003-000420 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Flat Screen Monitors. CDWG 3,478
ITC-2003-000422 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Media Tape Expansion. Tapeandmedia.com 2,570
Page 21 of 28
ITC-2003-000423 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Intranet Web server support. GTSI 4,457
ITC-2003-000424 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Brocade Switch for tape library system. IMS Systems 5,545
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Cisco server for management of the internal network structure of routers and
ITC-2003-000426 3122 switches at Portals I. Government Micro Resources 1,791
ITC-2003-000427 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Dictaphone System for Computer Help Desk. Dictaphone Corporation 4,170
ITC-2003-000432 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Remedy production server . GTSI 4,603
ITC-2003-000443 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Remedy Access and Support. Nextel 812
ITC-2003-000446 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Sun Fire Servers. Government Micro Resources 5,375
ITC-2003-000475 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Xerox Phaser. Westwood Computer Corporation 14,478
MB-2003-000014 3122 Sun Workstation used for licensing of auctionable broadcast radio services. Mapinfo Corporation 3,328
MO-2003-54-095 3122 Memory upgrades for Compag Personal Computers used by auctions staff. CTI 3,098
MO-2003-54-132 3122 Memory upgrades from 256MB to 512MB for auctions developers. CDW Government, Inc. 1,275
MO-2003-54-133 3122 Plotter printer heads for auctions plotter. GMR 1,644
MO-2003-54-144 3122 Printer for auction staffer. Westwood Computer Corporation 371
MO-2003-54-162 3122 Video cards to support Flash and Integrated Video Conferencing on auctions plasma monitors. CDWG 3,144
Census Summary File 3 DVD for internal analysis of licensees and the demographic relationships within the
MO-2003-54-168 3122 auction markets they reside in. Census Bureau 105
Tiger2Shp software for Census Bureau mapping files for internal analysis of licensees and the demographic
MO-2003-54-170 3122 relationships within the auction markets they reside in. GIS Tools 49
MO-2003-54-209 3122 Power cords for auctions Compag G2 servers. Systems, Inc. 972
MO-2003-54-210 3122 Digital Camera for Auctions Outreach Program. Computer 4Sure 585
MO-2003-54-214 3122 Desktop Printers for Office of General Counsel working on auctions related matters.. Westwood Computer Corporation 3,375
NC03081840022 3122 Tektronix Phaser 850 ColorStix for auctions color printer. BOA 382
ITC-2003-000136 3122 HP/Compaq server computers and associated components. CDWG 2,970
ITC-2003-000137 3122 Qlogic 2200 components & optical fiber cables. Integrated Mass Store System 3,652
ITC-2003-000190 3122 Toshiba tablet computers and associated equipment. CDWG 7,212
ITC-2003-000193 3122 Auctions prorata share of FCC's WIN2K production servers. GMR 29,340
3130 ADP Software

AMD-2003-000050 3130 Oracle Discover Licenses for financial operations staff performing auctions related tasks. National Business Center, Denver 8,920
AUC-2003-000076 3130 Virtual routing additions to auctions PBX. Avaya 3,227
AUC-2003-000088 3130 Nice Analyzer software to track auctions related calls thru call centers. Avaya 44,677
ITC-2003-000463 3130 Auctions prorata share of FCC's ColdFusionMX Enterprise Production. Macromedia 840
AUC-2003-000078 3131 DBArtisan and Change Manager to assist in administration of auctions database servers. Spectrum Office Systems, Inc. 29,079
AUC-2003-000085 3131 CiscoWorks software to manage and troubleshoot all auctions Cisco infrastructure devices. CDWG 29,550
AUC-2003-000086 3131 Licenses for 175 project and Coldfusion for auctions quality assurance test environment. GMR 31,949
AUC-2003-000087 3131 SAMFS, and QFS File systems to permit single posting with multiple appearances of auction results. GMR 114,401
AUC-2003-000116 3131 ColdFusion and BEA software for ISAS and ULS. ASAP Software 99,999
AUC-2003-000070 3130 Trend Micro Anti-Virus Software used for deployment of Microsoft Exchange and new Windows 2000 servers. CDWG 10,916
AUC-2003-000212 3130 Backup tape storage software for Auctions and ULS. Systems, Inc. 135,469
AUC-2003-000153 3130 Macromedia Maintenance for auction and licensing system components. Gov Connections, Inc. 7,654
Upgrade of auctions Coldfusion platform to Coldfusion MX for J2EE Application Servers and BEA WebLogic
AUC-2003-000117 3131 licenses for Auctions and ULS. NetStar-1 (BEA) 398,470
DBArtisan and Change Manager licenses and subscription warranty to assist in administration of auctions
AUC-2003-000124 3131 database servers. Spectrum Systems, Inc. 29,850
Page 22 of 28
Geographic Information Software upgrade to allow users to graphically determine location of licenses won by
AUC-2003-000128 3131 auction bidders in the current round of an on-going auction and of current licensees. DTL Solutions, Inc. 23,450
AUC-2003-000139 3131 Remedy Action Licenses to track auctions customer service calls related to AAS and ULS. Systems, Inc. 105,204
ScanDo software to scan auctions web sites for known vulnerabilities as well as inventory all forms and fields on
AUC-2003-000148 3131 our web sites. Government Micro Resources 166,203
MO-2003-54-027 3131 MAC version software to test Auctions and ULS systems. BOA 248
AUC-2003-000149 3131 Netcool software package to manage auctions firewalls, routers, switches, web servers and databases. Eyak Technology, LLC 318,531
HP OpenView's SPI for Bea WebLogic licenses to report and alarm on performance and uptime of WebLogic
AUC-2003-000150 3131 applications and servers for the 700 MHz auction. GTSI 45,496
AUC-2003-000151 3131 Foundstone FoundScan scanning software to bring a higher level of security to the Auctions Systems. Mythics, Inc. 47,738
QFS file system for auctions administrators to move entire databases from one physical device to another and
AUC-2003-000152 3131 provide faster backups and restores. Government Micro Resources 135,659
NetForensics to correlate security events from our security devices and software to enhance auctions security
AUC-2003-000159 3131 environment. IGOV.com 163,539
SunOne Identity server, Meta-Directory licenses and Instant Messaging software to increase Auctions security
AUC-2003-000163 3131 posture when providing password synchronization for 700 MHz auction. GTSI 52,303
AUC-2003-000170 3131 Server Side Java Tuning software to implement first combinatorial 700 MHz auction. Wily Technology 307,502
AUC-2003-000172 3131 Citrix Thin Client/Server Solution remote access software for Auction and ULS Systems. Emergent OnLine, Inc. 71,532
AUC-2003-000173 3131 Citrix Thin Client/Server Solution remote access training for Auction and ULS Systems. Emergent OnLine, Inc. 16,000
AUC-2003-000177 3131 Upgrade of Windows 2000 and NT server to Windows 2003 on all window, blade and application servers. CDW Government, Inc. 93,474
AUC-2003-000178 3131 Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) to bring a higher level of security to the Auctions Systems. Management Systems Design 51,822
Cisco Unity licenses for retention of AUDIX voice mail systems for both Washington and Gettysburg in support of
AUC-2003-000195 3131 spectrum auctions. PlanetGov 116,710
AUC-2003-000199 3131 Intrusion detection capability NCircle to ensure the security of the Auctions Network. PlanetGov 152,712
Upgrade of Patrol licenses for Auction and ULS database monitoring tool to monitor the Sybase and Orcale Northrop Grumman Computing
AUC-2003-000200 3131 database servers. Systems, Inc. 93,085
Business Objects Agent Schedule for auction staff report retrieval to run specified times and specify delivery points
AUC-2003-000201 3131 for pubic retrieval. Onix Networking 63,172
Asset Management Suite; Server Provisioning Suite; and Client Management Suite software for combinatorial
AUC-2003-000209 3131 auction and ISAS (Integrated Spectrum Auctions System). CDWG 96,201
ITC-2003-000075 3131 Scan mail suite software. Government Tech. Solutions 4,800
ITC-2003-000133 3131 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Xerox 4050 Maintenance. Xerox Corporation 6,412
ITC-2003-000134 3131 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Microsoft for Win2K. CDW Government, Inc. 19,016
ITC-2003-000294 3131 iManage software for IMPACT document management pilot project. MDY Advanced Technologies 346,795
ITC-2003-000301 3131 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Server Software for Windows 2000 Database. CDW Government, Inc. 4,685
ITC-2003-000371 3131 Auctions prorata share of FCC's RealSecure Wireless Scanner License. Internet Security Systems, Inc. 3,405
ITC-2003-000405 3131 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Street Atlas USA 2004. Delorme Map Co. 1,652
ITC-2003-000076 3131 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Synscort for Unix software. IMS Systems 27,666
ActivePDF conversion software license to convert word processing attachments to PDF format for Auctions and
MO-2003-54-088 3131 ULS. Active PDF 3,900
ILOG's optimization software used to calculate current price estimate for each auction license at the close of each
MO-2003-54-113 3131 round. ILOG, Inc. 8,719
MO-2003-54-139 3131 Oracle Dabatabase licenses and Sybase Direct Connect for Oracle licenses for Auctions and ULS data. Sybase, Inc. 15,909
Avocent Longview KVM Units to provide PC output to the ceiling mount plasma screens for video conferencing and
MO-2003-54-140 3131 network monitoring. CDW Government, Inc. 2,670
MO-2003-54-181 3131 Smartdraw software to support the flowcharting and diagramming associated with auctions. Smartdraw 208
Page 23 of 28
AUC-2003-000127 3132 Xpress-MP License and lease for two months to cover development and production run of Auction 51. Dask Optimization, Inc. 16,379
AUC-2003-000166 3132 SQL Backtrack for MS-SQL Licenses to allow auctions to backup 25 gigabytes per server. Mythics, Inc. 19,404
AUC-2003-000181 3132 Adobe Acrobat Writer software for auctions staff. GTSI 6,435
Small Device Remote Access to permit execution of device commands from the Nextel phones carried by auctions
AUC-2003-000194 3132 staff. Inciscent 13,224
Visual Build Professional V5 software to create an automated, repeatable process for building software deployment
AUC-2003-000196 3132 packages. GTSI 1,643
AUC-2003-000210 3132 ILOG CPLEX licenses for auctions solver servers to take advantage of better clock speeds. ILOG, Inc. 17,000
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Veritas software required for SUN and WINDOWS servers that maintain auction
ITC-2003-000155 3132 and non-auction applications. BOA 1,119
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Lotus Notes licenses for Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau - CIMS and
ITC-2003-000275 3132 OSCAR licenses. ASAP Software 1,275
ITC-2003-000277 3132 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Gettysburg Avaya PBX Upgrade. Avaya 1,603
ITC-2003-000303 3132 Auctions prorata share of FCC's hardware and software for Gettysburg COOP Storage Area Network (SAN). IMS Systems 12,298
ITC-2003-000314 3132 Auctions prorata share of FCC's software to monitor and audit the FCC Wireless LAN. GTSI 523
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Syncsort Client Licenses for Non-San Servers for Gettysburg COOP. These
licenses will enable the Commission to backup various windows servers which are not connected to the Storage
ITC-2003-000318 3132 Area Network (SAN). IMS Systems 360
ITC-2003-000373 3132 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Firewall Suite to aid in the investigation of misuse of Internet services. FedTek 1,775
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Network Monitoring Software upgrade that will allow the monitoring of new
ITC-2003-000374 3132 Servers, such as the server that support RIM pagers. FedTek 5,547
Auctions prorata share of FCC's CPU Licenses for BEA WebLogic Cluster needed to move to the industry
ITC-2003-000387 3132 standard J2EE environment and to run the production application servers for WEBSQL replacement. Nextel 13,479
Auctions prorata share of FCC's statistical software to be used by engineers to capture, apply and share
ITC-2003-000393 3132 calculations in the internet, intranet or extranet via a Web browser. MathSoft 1,180
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Environmental Systems Research Institute software to be used in support of FCC
ITC-2003-000400 3132 Excellence in Engineering Initiative Program. ESR 4,018
Auctions prorata share of FCC's software that will monitor the FCC Network and perform diagnostics to correct
ITC-2003-000402 3132 problems. OPNET 14,822
ITC-2003-000433 3132 Auctions prorata share of FCC's RiskWatch automated risk assessment tool. Risk Watch 2,129
ITC-2003-000435 3132 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Percon contract for CD subscription. PerCon Corporation 3,499
ITC-2003-000445 3132 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Wireless Remedy Access and Support. Northrop Grumman 5,670
MO-2003-54-023 3130 Solaris 9 software for x86 (Intel) for performance enhancement to auctions cpu bound processes. SUN 20
MO-2003-54-032 3130 ScriptLogic software which attaches a client PC to the proper file and print servers when the PC is logged on. En Pointe Technology 3,152
MO-2003-54-048 3130 Desktop publishing software suite to prepare, modify and enhance auctions brochures. CDW Government, Inc. 507
MO-2003-54-050 3130 ZonAlarm Pro software to test auctions firewalls. Zone Labs 40
Software for PC layout, assemblers, languages, upgrades and development of antennas and plotting for field
MO-2003-54-040 3132 measurements for the microwave spectrum project. BOA 9,722
MO-2003-54-090 3132 Art Explosion 600,000 software for reports, brochures created by staff working on auctions related matter. Nova Development Corporation 100
NC03013170010 3132 Windows XP Harddrive for Enforcement Bureau project to perform technical analysis of spectrum bands. BOA 278
Netcharts software to help view auctions budget, expense and travel reports in graph/chart formats from the
MO-2003-54-093 3132 Auctions Expenditure & Planning database. Visual Mining, Inc. 1,750
Wingra's GroupWise Migrator for Exchange software to convert WTB Auctions from Groupwise e-mail to Outlook e-
MO-2003-54-161 3132 mail. Wingra Tech 2,000
Adobe Illustrator creates artwork for the Internet and in print and can be used in conjunction with existing software
MO-2003-54-171 3132 including Microsoft Powerpoint and Word. Adobe 420
Page 24 of 28
Adobe Photoshop permits editing of photos and other materials for use with existing publishing software including
MO-2003-54-172 3132 Microsoft Powerpoint and Word. Adobe 175
Auctions prorata share of FCC's National Land Cover Data Set to be used by engineers to determine
ITC-2003-000394 3132 demographics. USGS Eros Center 228
ITC-2003-000388 3132 Auctions prorata share of FCC's SKT/SATSOFT software to be used by engineers to determine demographics. Analytic Graphics 2,268
AUC-2003-000112 3132 CrystalReports 8.5 software to provide auctions custom reports from Remedy. GTSI 1,855
ITC-2003-000444 3132 Auctions prorata share of FCC's On-Line IT Security training. OPM 5,023
MB-2003-000015 3132 IT MapBasic version software and upgrade for CDBS Sun Workstation. Mapinfo Corporation 1,400
Corel iGrafx Process Modeling software to enable auctions to update and maintain the Systems Development Life
AUC-2003-000167 3132 Cycle (SDLC). CDW Government, Inc. 1,317
Kodak Capture Mid-Volue Software for conversion of scanned documents to a usable PDF form for ULS system
AUC-2003-000204 3132 electronic filing. CDW Government, Inc. 9,746
ITC-2003-000442 3132 Auctions prorata share of FCC's MATLAB software for Excellence in Engineering program. The Mathworks, Inc. 2,128
Spector Pro V4.0 software to help auctions testers capture the sequence of events leading to error and documents
MO-2003-54-182 3132 each step. SpectorSoft Corporation 410
MO-2003-54-215 3132 Windows dial-out software to dial into the internet from outside auctions network. Software Spectrum, Inc. 956
Auctions prorata share of FCC's WebAccess Tokens to be used by telecommuters and those who need to access
ITC-2003-000341 3132 their E-mails. Patriot Technologies 4,123
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Tripwire Manager software which is an automated monitoring and managing of
ITC-2003-000372 3132 data integrity of FCC servers and system files. Patriot Technologies 2,202
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Visual Basic.NET to be used in support of the FCC's Excellence In Engineering
ITC-2003-000447 3132 Initiative Program. CDW Government, Inc. 280
Kleptomania Capture Tool software to enable auctions testers to easily copy items of text into bug reports and
MO-2003-54-183 3132 software change request to be documented efficiently in the body of a report. THSupport@sturturise.com 169
QDirect Software, Hardware and Integration to improve the interface of auctions OCE 750 printer in Gettysburg
AUC-2003-000185 3132 which prints large volume reports, licenses and other auction related documents. Rochester Software Association 10,500
ITC-2003-000448 3132 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Windows Repair Tools Software to repair dead systems by rebooting. Winternals Software LP 1,004
AUC-2003-000145 3132 VMWare software for auctions integration testing which allows uploading from local media. Government Micro Resources 18,874
AUC-2003-000197 3132 XMLSpy software for use with auctions websites which allows for designing, editing and debugging of applications. Programmer's Paradise, Inc. 5,059
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Veritas software required for file management on the existing server this is
ITC-2003-000335 3132 scheduled to replace two obsolete servers. Government Micro Resources 1,035
ITC-2003-000118 3132 Auctions prorata share of Blackberry Enterprise License. Skytel 350
ITC-2003-000119 3132 Auctions prorata share of FCC's RIM Pagers Client Licenses. Skytel 1,107
AUC-2003-000069 3132 Upgrade of WRQ Reflection Suite software used with auctions Security Management System. ASAP Software 3,744
Auctions prorata share of FCC's RSA Software to provide additional secure token to gain access to FCC-wide
ITC-2003-000165 3132 network services during the Microsoft Migration effort. Patriot Technologies 34,720
MO-2003-54-141 3132 Dreamweaver licenses for use with auctions Coldfusion, Flash and web site development. Systems, Inc. 5,369
AUC-2003-000191 3132 Remedy licenses which enables Remedy administrators to work more efficiently with auctions Remedy System. Systems, Inc. 6,927
Auctions prorata share of FCC's MapInfo software to be used in support of FCC Excellence in Engineering Northrop Grumman Computing
ITC-2003-000413 3132 Initiative Program. Systems, Inc. 1,198
AUC-2003-000077 3132 CAST for Oracle SQL-Builder licenses to adequately manage auctions GIS development environment. Cast Software, Inc. 4,145
AUC-2003-000071 3132 Ghost Software to decrease deployment time for Windows 2000 and Windows XP. World Wide Technology, Inc. 3,417
3140 Office Furniture and Equipment
Page 25 of 28
Video conferencing equipment for Enforcement Bureau field offices and headquarters for technical discussions of
measurement procedures and/or technical analysis of spectrum bands that are subject to future auction by the
EB-2003-000016 3140 Commission. PC Nation 59,006
Video conferencing equipment for Enforcement Bureau field offices and headquarters for technical discussions of
measurement procedures and/or technical analysis of spectrum bands that are subject to future auction by the
EB-2003-000005 3140 Commission. David Neuman dba Vuports 4,075
OMSD-2003-000122 3141 Workstations and chairs for Auctions personnel in the Portals I 6th floor auction project. Herman Miller, Inc. 116,131
OMSD-2003-000128 3141 Office furniture for Auctions personnel in the Portals I 6th floor auctions project. DSI Industries, Inc. 205,385
MO-2003-54-203 3142 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Security Items, i.e. Perimeter Lighting, Transceiver, etc. BOA 8,253
Auctions prorata share of FCC's Security Measures, i.e. Sweep of Commission Offices, Gettysburg Security
MO-2003-54-204 3142 Barrier and Secure Fax. BOA 582
OMSD-2003-000253 3142 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Guard Service - Handgun Discharge Containment Unit. SafeMasters 200
OMSD-2003-000723 3142 Office equipment to support staff. Bettar Appliance 1,296
OMSD-2003-000115 3142 Chairs for Auctions personnel in the Portals I 6th floor auction project. Haworth, Inc. 66,374
OMSD-2003-000130 3142 Televisions with/without VCR's for Auctions personnel in the Portals I 6th floor project. BestBuyBiz 63
OMSD-2003-000100 3142 Times Two File cabinets for Auctions personnel in the Portals I 6th floor auctions project. Richard Wilcox 114,309
OMDS-2003-000129 3142 Mail modules for Auctions personnel in the Portals I 6th floor project. Warner Boyd 2,499
OMSD-2003-000257 3142 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Security System for Warehouse. ABC Burglar Alarm Systems, Inc. 826
OMSD-2003-000117 3142 Conference room chairs for Auctions personnel in the Portals I 6th floor auctions project. VIA Seating c/o FDC 36,394
OMSD-2003-000127 3142 Keyboard trays for Auctions personnel in the Portals I 6th floor auction project. ISE, Inc. 14,677
OMSD-2003-000158 3142 Office equipment to support staff. Blocher's Furniture & Appliances 890
OMSD-2003-000221 3142 As part of the lease the existing facility break room must be renovated. Kruegar International, Inc. 712
OMSD-2003-000159 3142 Relocation of auctions generator in Computer Room. Warner Boyd 5,935
OMSD-2003-000130 3142 Televisions for WTB Auctions personnel in Portals I 6th Floor. BOA 1,398
OMDS-2003-000171 3142 Television/VCR for Auctions conference training room in Gettysburg, PA. BOA 763
31 TOTAL EQUIPMENT 13,139,132
Subtotal Auctions Operating Costs Funded from Auctions Receipts 96,805,245
Credit Reform Program Cost
Credit Reform Cost - Personnel Compensation

1100 Credit Reform Program - Personnel Compensation 840,203
11 TOTAL CREDIT REFORM PROGRAM - PERSONNEL COMPENSATION 840,203
Credit Reform Cost - Personnel Benefits

1200 Credit Reform Program - Personnel Benefits 219,561
12 TOTAL CREDIT REFORM PROGRAM - PERSONNEL BENEFTIS 219,561
2100 Credit Reform Program - Travel and Transport of People

Auctions Audit Review (1 trip/1 person) Annapolis, MD 489
Hearing on Wireless Bureau Auctions Bankruptcy case (1 trip/4 people) Wilkes-Barre, PA 1,579
Visit Colson to review the credit reform reporting requirements, Nextwave meetings ,Nextwave Bankruptcy Case (5
trips/9 people) New York, NY 4,209
Nextwave Case Hearing (1trip /1 person) Manhattan, NY 147
MO-2003-54-208 Bankruptcy Travel Expenses 1,913
Page 26 of 28
21 TOTAL CREDIT REFORM PROGRAM - TRAVEL AND TRANSPORT OF PEOPLE 8,337
2520 Credit Reform Program - Contract Services - Non Federal

AMD-2003-000007 2520 Contractor assistance for auctions related financial audit services. Ernst & Young 2,802,780
AMD-2003-000011 2520 Contractor assistance for managing ongoing RAMIS auctions financial data and database administration support. Digital Systems Group, Inc. 1,413,400
AMD-2003-000013 2520 Contractor support for the financial, clerical and management analyst support of the auctions program. Vistronix 931,560
AMD-2003-000014 2520 Accountant and clerical support for the Auction Installment Program and auction payment activities. Frye Williams & Company 160,441
Contract services to provide loan servicing, document storage, imaging and legal services for the FCC's Auction
AMD-2003-000015 2520 Loan Program. Chase Manhattan Bank 1,875,000
Contractor support to design, generate, and distribute live web-based auctions related financial reports as well as
AMD-2003-000016 2520 make available auctions related financial reports not available through RAMIS. Dyncorp 111,000
AMD-2003-000017 2520 Contractor for storage facilities housing auction files. Inc. (PRSI) 7,450
RAMIS T1 connectivity lines between Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, PA and the RAMIS system in Washington, DC for
AMD-2003-000019 2520 spectrum auction loan processing. Mellon Bank 21,600
AMD-2003-000037 2520 Digital scanner maintenance for contractor support for loan servicing imaging for the FCC's Auction Loan Program. Chase Manhattan Bank 3,785
Temporary general clerical, accounting and administrative services to assist with management of auctions loan
AMD-2003-000038 2520 portfolio. Select Staffing Services 30,649
AMD-2003-000042 2520 Contractor support for the financial, clerical and management analyst support of the auctions program. NATEK Incorporated 332,500
Research tool for industry reports and e-clipping service that will aggregate news and legal information relating to
AMD-2003-000046 2520 auctions matters. Lexis-Nexis 40,260
AMD-2003-000047 2520 Subscription service to provide credit information for auction loan holders. CreditRiskMonitor.COM 4,000
AUC-2003-000049 2520 Paralegal support to the Auctions process including auctions, licensing, and litigation matters. Frye Williams & Company 61,131
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filing services to perfect FCC security interest arising from bandwidth spectrum
AUC-2003-000101 2520 auctions and licensing. CT Corp. 5,000
Expert legal advice in matters relating to actual and potential auction bankruptcies of FCC licensees that owe
Federal Treasury funds arising from auction installment payment financing and cost associated with spectrum
AUC-2003-000109 2520 auctions. Rothschild Inc. 25,003
AUC-2003-000114 2520 Expert legal advice relating to auctions Nextwave proceedings. Kirkland & Ellis 25,000
MO-2003-54-099 2520 Access to General PACER system for staff working on auctions bankruptcy matters. PACER Service Center 300
MO-2003-54-211 2520 American Bankruptcy Institute membership for auctions bankruptcy reference. American Bankruptcy Institute 95
OGC-2003-000008 2520 Contractor assistance for auctions related financial bankruptcy services. Rothschild Inc. 675,000
OGC-2003-000009 2520 Contractor assistance for auctions related financial bankruptcy services. Geoffrey Hazard 1,925
OGC-2003-000014 2520 Contractor assistance for auctions related financial bankruptcy services. Kirkland & Ellis 14,275,000
2534 Credit Reform Program - Interagency Contracts

Auctions prorata share of FCC's implementation plans of a full-featured cost-accounting system (CAS) that will be
MO-2003-54-059 2534 an integral part of broad and on-going re-structuring of the Commission's financial management infrastructure. CGI-AMS 123,345
Reimbursable Agreement between Department of Justice and FCC for Office of General (OGC) support in
MO-2003-54-186 2534 bankruptcy cases. Department of Justice 37,528
MO-2003-54-213 2534 Auctions prorata share of FCC's Full Featured Cost Accounting System. CGI-AMS 31,500
25 TOTAL CREDIT REFORM PROGRAM - CONTRACTS - OTHER SERVICES 22,995,252
2600 Credit Reform Program - Supplies and Materials

AMD-2003-000051 2600 File Folders for Auction Loan Portfolio files. Boise Cascade 892
Page 27 of 28
MO-2003-54-014 2600 General supplies for personnel working on auctions related matters. Boise Cascade 1,312
26 TOTAL CREDIT REFORM PROGRAM - SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,204
3170 Credit Reform Program - Books

MO-2003-54-094 3170 Reference materials for staff working on bankruptcy matters related to the auctions program. AWHFY Inc. 154
Census 2000 Summary File in preparation for competitive bidding to define minimum opening bids and up-front
MO-2003-54-166 3170 payments. Washington Law & Prof. Books 956
MO-2003-54-097 3170 Law in a Nutshell & Bankruptcy Law Book for staff working on auctions bankruptcy matters. Washington Law & Prof. Books 24
31 TOTAL CREDIT REFORM PROGRAM - BOOKS 1,134
FUNDED FROM TREASURY CREDIT PROGRAM ACCOUNTS 24,066,691
Page 28 of 28
Was hingt on, D.C'.

CHAIRMAN September 30,2004 ' I

Chairman
Transportation
United States Senate I

Please find enclosed the Federal Communications Commission's Auctions Expenditure

1997, as codified in Section 309(j)(8)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, '
which requires the submission of a "statement of each expenditure made for the purposes of
conducting competitive bidding under this subsection during such second preceding fiscal year."
1919.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN September 30,2004 ‘ 1

Chairman
the Internet
Committee on Energy and Commerce I


1997, as codified in Section 309(j)(S)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
expenditures; and (2) a 29-page summary acquisition report for fiscal year 2003 expenditures by,
fiee to contact me, or your staff may contact Andrew S . Fishel, Managing Director, at 202-418-
1919.
Sincerely, 17
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004 ' ,
I

Chairman
Subcommittee on Communications,
Transportation
Dear Chairman Bums:

which requires the submission of a "statement of each expenditure made for the purposes of ,
1919.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
I
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004 I

President
Vice President of the United States
S-212 The Capitol Building I
Dear Mr. Vice President:

which requires the submission of a “statement of each expenditure made for the purposes of I
free to contact me, or-your staff may contact Andrew S. Fishel, Managing Director, at 202-418-
1919.
Enclosure
- . ...~ - - . . . .. . _ ,x..I....
”
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004

Ranking Member

1919.
Sincerely, I?
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
I
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004
The Honorable Dennis J. Hastert

Speaker
Dear Mr. Speaker:

The attached report contains: (1) a three page overview of fiscal year 2003 auction ,
My staff and I are available to discuss specific questions that may arise in relation to the ,
1919.
Sincerely,
fl
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
, CHAIRMAN

Ranking Member
Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation *
Please find enclosed the Federal Communications Commission’s Auctions Expenditure Report
for fiscal year 2003. The material is submitted pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as
codified in Section 309(j)(S)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which ,
requires the submission of a “statement of each expenditure made for the purposes of conducting
competitive bidding under this subsection during such second preceding fiscal year.”
free to contact me, or your staff may contact Andrew S . Fishel, Managing Director, at 202-418-
1919.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
I I I . .- . ”_ -.^. -. .. . ”.
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004

Chairman
Committee on Energy and
Commerce

1919.
.Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004

Ranking Member
the Internet

1919.
Sincerely, A
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
... ”,._ . ... - ..... . . .. - .. ... . . , . . ,

,
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN

Ranking Member
Committee on Appropriations I


expenditures; and (2) a 29-page summary acquisition report for fiscal year 2003 expenditures by ~
1919.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
.. .
~ ... . , .
I
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004 I

Ranking Member
Committee on Commerce
Science and Transportation

1997, as codified in Section 3096)(8)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 1
1919.
- - Michael K. Powell
Eric1osure
Washington, D.C.
, CHAIRMAN September 30,2004
‘ I

Chairman
Justice, State, and the Judiciary I
Dear Chairman Wolf:

1997, as codified in Section 3096)(8)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as mended,
which requires the submission of a “statement of each expenditure made for the purposes of ’
1919.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C’.
CHAIRMAN
The Honorable JosC Serrano

Ranking Member
Committee on Appropriations *

Report for fiscal year 2003. The material is submitted pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act qf
1919.
Sincerely, fl
- Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
September 30,2004 I

Chairman
S- 146A The Capitol Building

Report for fiscal year 2003. The material is submitted pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act o,f
1919.
Enclosure
NV5&:6 '&Z ' d 3 S 3111 INIbd wV&&:6 '&Z '0'3s 3111 Q 3 A I 3 3 3 b
JDHN MCCAIN, ARIZONA. CUAIRMAN
TED STEVENS. ALASUA PRNEST F, VOLLINGS. SDUTM CAROLINA
CONRAD BURN$. MONTANA DANICLK, INOUVE. HAWAII
TRENT LOTT. MISSISSIPPI JORN 0. ROCKEFELLER IV. WEST VIRGINIA
KAV BAILEY HUTCHISON, TCXAS JOHN F. KERRY. MASSACMUSETS
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, MAINE JOHN E. BREAUN. LOUISIANA
SAM BROWNEACK. KANSAS
GORDON SMITH. OREOON
PETER G. FITzCERALD. ILLINCIS
JOHN ENSIGN, NEVADA
BYRON L. DORGAN. NOU'IW DAKOTA
RON WVDEN. OREGON
YAUDARA BOXER. CALIFORNIA
BILL NELSON. FLORIDA
Wnited statea @enate
GEOROE ALLEN, VIRGINIA MARIA CANTWELL. WASHINGTON COMMllTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE,
JOHN E SUNUNU. NEW HAMVSlllli~ FRANK UL'TENBCRG. NEW JERLEV
AND TRANSPORTATION
JEANNE DUMPUE. REPUBLICAN STAFF DIRECTOR AND GENERAL COJNSEL
KEVIN 0, KA*S6. DEMOCRATIC STAFF DIRECTOR AND CHIEC COUNSEL
' WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6125
September 23,2004

Chairman
445 12'~Street, S.W.
Dear Chairman Powell;
I would like to thank you for appearing before the Senate Commerce Committee
this month to discuss the 9-1 1 Commission's recommendations to provide spectrum for
public safety organizations. As always, your testimony was greatly appreciated.
In your testimony at the hearing you stated that you are confident the FCC's 800
MHz Order will withstand legal scrutiny, but that codifying the order will help avoid any
delays in the appeal process. Please provide for the record a hrther explanation of this
recommendation.
Thank you for your attention on this important matter.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Chairman
www.aenJtc.gov/-commsrcn
flb'ii&:6 '&Z ' d 3 5 3WIl 1NItld iniVii:6 '&Z ' d 3 S IN11 13AI333Y
U.S. SENATE C O m E ON
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
JOHN McCAm, Chairman www.senate.gov/-commercc .
L
..
TO:
SUBJECT:
. .
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
October 8,2004

Chairman
Washington, D.C. 205 10-6125
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Senate Commerce Committee last
month to discuss the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Regarding First Responders.
Consistent with the 9/11 Commission Recommendations, the FCC has worked very aggressively
to provide additional spectrum and interference-free communications to our first responders.
That work involves not only the DTV transition as we discussed at the Hearing, but also vital
exlstmg;public safety operations at 800 MHz. In that regard, thank you also for your request that
I provide for the record a fuller explanation of my recommendation that Congress codify the
Commission’s unanimous decision to adopt the 800 MHz Order. As I stated in my testimony,
the Commission’s decision is within the Commission’s existing statutory authority.
Nevertheless, there could well be a judicial challenge that might slow implementation of the
rebanding. The fact that the Order is legally sound makes it especially important that the safety
of America’s first responders not be placed at risk by such delay, nor endangered by the
vicissitudes of the appeals process. Legislation ratifying the Commission’s 800 MHz Order
would serve to prevent that unacceptable outcome.
In the 800 MHz Order, the Commission took steps to address the growing problem of
interference to public safety communications in the 800 MHz band. Among other things, the
Commission adopted a revised nationwide 800 MHz band plan that minimizes the potential for
interference to public safety systems. The plan addresses conflicts caused by licensees’
deployment of permissible but often incompatible technologies by providing maximum spectral
separation between incompatible users. The plan also results in approximately 4.5 MHz of
additional 800 MHz spectrum becoming available for public safety use.
We cannot afford to leave the men and women charged with ensuring public safety
vulnerable during the months and possibly years of an appeals process - or indefinitely, should
there be a judicial reversal. Nor can we place the financial burden of relocation on the thousands
of incumbent non-cellular licensees, including state and local public safety agencies with very
limited resources, and expect that the interference problem will be resolved in either a timely or
acceptable manner. Lives and property are placed at risk daily when 800 MHz public safety
Page 2-The Honorable John McCain-October 8,2004
radios fail due to interference, severing the communications link that public safety officers rely
upon to summon help, coordinate actions with their fellow officers, request emergency medical
services, and respond to incidents that threaten homeland security. The public safety
interference problem in the 800 MHz band will only increase in severity until the Commission's
800 MHz Order is implemented.
Swift congressional action could ensure that the Commission's plan is implemented as
quickly as possible and not subjected to delay, uncertainty, or the chance of judicial reversal.
Legislation could ratify the Commission's 800 MHz Order and confirm the Commission's
existing authority to exercise its spectrum management powers to address the interference
problems in the 800 MHz band. We look forward to assisting you in any way in your efforts to
promote public safety and to address threats to homeland security.
Sincerely,
Michael K. Powell
241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
JOHN McCAlN WASHINGTON,DC 20510-0303
ARIZONA (2021 224-2235

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE. SUITE 8-130
Wnited States Senate TEMPE, A 2 85282
(480) 897-6289
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 2400 E A S T ARIZONA

BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 1150
PHOENIX, A 2 85016
(602) 952-2410

SUITE 200
TUCSON, A Z 85701
(520) 670-6334
October 8,2004 TELEPHONEF O R HEARINGIMPAIRED
(202) 224-7132
1602) 952-0170
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
Refer to: Qwest Account Number 602 942-38 18 8 16R
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, David Bookbinder, who
has encountered a problem with the Federal Access charges on his telephone bill.
CORRESPONDENCE TO:

4450 S. Rural Road
Suite B- 130
Tempe, AZ 85282
If you should have any questions in the meantime, you can reach my ofice at (480) 897-6289. I
look foiward to your reply at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
John McCain
JMlmg
Enclosure

. --
--
i.
Page 3 of 3
4
THIS PAGE INCLUDES THESE QWEST SERVICES: DAVID BOOKBINDER

Account Number: 602 942-3818 816R
Customer Service 1 800 244-1111 Visit www.qwest.com
Home Telephone
Charges from Sep 28 to Oct 27
Basic Services
1 Residence Line 13.18
$13.18
Taxes, Fees & Surcharges

The following charges are permitted by local, state and federal
governments. For more information, visit our website at
www.9 west.com.
Federal Excise at 3% .59
State Sales at 5.6% .74
Regulatory Surcharge at .19% .03
This charge recovers the amount Qwest is assessed by the
Arizona CorporationCommission. This assessment funds the
corporation commission, enabling it to penbrm its lawful duties.
CsL!n!y S2ks a! .?% .c9
City Sales at 4.7% .62
State 91 1 at $.37per access line .37
This surcharge, funds the cost of providing emergency
services communications systems in your community.
Federal Universal Serv Fund at 8.9% .56
This charge recovers the amount Qwest contributes to
the Federal Universal Service Fund. This fund helps
keep local phone rates affordable for all Americans.
Arizona Universal Service Fund at $.01 per line .Ol
This charge recovers the amount Qwest remits to the Arizona
CorporationCommission. This fund helps keep basic exchange
rates affordable in high cost rural areas of the state. I
Telecommunication Relay Service Fund at 1.1% .14
This charge funds relay centers that help hearing- and
speech-impaired customers make and receive calls.
Federal Access Charge
This charge, allowed by the FCC, covers part of the cost for
providing access to and maintenance of the local network.
$9.45
Total Qwest Home Service $22.63
' I
Qwest.
-
-42
Sptrlt 01 Ssrvlcs"
Qwest's free account review could save you money.

Qwest Promise of ValuerM Call 1-888-273-4772
FREE ONLINE TOOLS AND INFORMATION

ESPECIALLY FOR QWEST CUSTOMERS
GETTING Go to www.awest.com/moven
READY TO *
Find housing, rental and utility services
School, city and salary profiles
MOVE? e MortGage quotes and payment calculator

Address changer and notification cards
and more!
LET US GIVE ORDER A FREE MOVER'S KIT

ONLINE OR CALL 1 866-502-6683
YOU A HAND. Includes move planning checklist, address change
1 RECEIVED& INSPECTED
OCT 18 2004
notification forms and FREE 30-minute phone card!
I FCC-MAILROOM I
A
m
OCT 25 2004

Tempe, AZ 85282
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, David Bookbinder, regarding
his concerns about the Federal Interstate Access charge on his telephone bill.
charge assessed by the government; it is a federally regulated charge capped by the FCC. This
charge is collected by local phone companies to recover some of the costs of connecting
telephone lines to homes or businesses. Local telephone companies incur these costs
regardless of whether the customer places or receives long distance calls. The government
receives no money from this charge. It is not a tax.
Enclosed is information to further assist Mr. Bookbinder in understanding the charges

on his telephone bill. The Commission seeks to ensure that consumers are fully informed about
their choices in telecommunications services. The Commission has available an e-mail service
public notices, among other consumer information. To subscribe, an individual should send an
e-mail to subscribe@info.fcc.gov 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”).
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. Information on
telephone-related issues can also be accessed via the Internet. The Commission’s Home Page
is located at http://www.fcc.gov.
questions.
Sincerely,
t\r K. Dane Snowden )‘

Chief
Enclosure
1‘ -
~
JOHN M i C A l N ARIZONA CHAIRMAN

TED STEVENS ALASKA ERNEST F HOLLINGS SOUTH CAROLINA
CONRAD BURNS MONTANA DANIEL K INOUYE PAWAII
TRENT LOT1 MISSISSIPPI JOHN D ROCKEFELLER IV WESTVlRGlNlA
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TEXAS JOHN F KERRY MASSACHUSETTj
OLYMPIA J SNOWE MAINE JOHN B BREAUX LOUISIANA
S A M BROWNBACK KANSAS
GORDON SMITH OREGON
rt I t K b k I I I b E R A L D ILLINOIS
JOHN ENSIGN NEVADA
BYRON L DORGAN NORTH DAKOTA
RON WYDEN ORFGON
BARBARA BOXER CALIFORNIA
KILL NELSON FLORIDA
United gtate5 Scnate
GEORGE ALLEN VIRGINIA MARIA CANTWELL WASHINGTON
JOHN E SUNUNU NEW HAMPSHIRE FRANK LAUTENBERG NEW JERSEY
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE,
JEANNE BUMPUS REPUBLICAN STAFF DIRECTOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL
AND TRANSPORTATION
KF~IIU n YAKS D E M O C R ~ T I C c T A r r D I ~ C C T O RAND CHIEF L U V N ~ ~ L
Monday, October 18,2004

Chairman
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Chairman Powell
I understand that the Commission is seeking comment on several issues

surrounding the future viability of video relay services (VRS). In recent months, I have
heard from several groups representing the hearing-impaired community who believe that
VRS is the only means of providing functionally equivalent telephone service to
individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing as required by Title IV of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). Furthermore, I have been informed of a decrease in the
quantity and quality of VRS services due to a reduction in funds provided for VRS.
As a co-author of the ADA, I take a keen interest in ensuring that those

Americans who are hearing-impaired or visually-impaired have full access to functionally
equivalent services. As technology provides better and greater options to these persons, I
hope the Commission embraces these options and works to ensure all persons have
access to the most helpful and technologically feasible services available.
VRS appears to meet Title IV’s directive to the Commission that relay regulations
“encourage . . . the use of existing technology and do not discourage or impair the
development of improved technology.” It appears that VRS is the type of “improved
technology’’ that Congress envisioned when it first drafted Title IV of the ADA for
enhancing telecommunications opportunities for deaf and hard of hearing Americans. As
such, I urge the Commission to take the necessary steps to promote the VRS service and
ensure that providers offer the service at a reasonable fee.
‘
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and
Speech Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 04-137).
www senate gov’-commerce

Thank you for your for your efforts to improve opportunities for Americans with
disabilities. I note that this letter reflects my own concerns on this important public
policy. Please treat this letter in compliance with all applicahle substantive and
procedural rules.
Sincerely,
Chairman
Federal C o m m u ni cat i ons Commission
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN November 4,2004

Chairman
Washington, D.C. 205 10’
Thank you for your October 18,2004 letter regarding Video Relay Service (“VRS”), a
form of Telecommunications Relay Service (“TRS”).
I share your concern for ensuring that all persons have access to the most helpful and
technologically feasible services available. To this end, in March 2000 the Commission
recognized VRS as a form of TRS, furthering the requirement of Title IV of the Americans with
Disabilities Act that TRS be made available to the extent possible and in the most efficient
manner to persons with hearing or speech disabilities in the United States.
We have heard a number of concerns similar to yours about a perceived decrease in the
quantity and quality of VRS services due to a reduction in hnds provided for VRS. All VRS
calls -both interstate and intrastate - are reimbursed from the Interstate TRS Fund at rates
adopted annually; and all VRS calls, many of which are long distance, are free to VRS users.
The annual compensation rate is based on projected cost and usage data submitted by the
providers themselves to the National Exchange Carrier Association (“NECA”), which is the TRS
Fund administrator. Each year, NECA reviews these submissions and recommends a
compensation rate to the Commission. For the July 2004 to June 2005 Fund year, NECA
submitted a proposed VRS compensation rate of $7.293 per minute. On June 30,2004, the
Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued an Order approving NECA’s
proposed rate, subject to certain adjustments.
It is clear that markedly more consumers are enjoying VRS service. This remains true
even though VRS presently is not a mandatory service, and generally is available only to
individuals with hearing or speech disabilities who have access to broadband services. Use of
VRS increased from 21 1,529 minutes in June 2003, to 1,080,983 minutes in August 2004. We
anticipate that the current competition in provision of VRS (there are presently seven providers)
may lead some providers to continue expanding their hours of service. In addition, because VRS
remains a relatively new service, the Commission has waived for VRS several standards
. .. . . ..
Page 2-The Honorable John McCain-November 4,2004
applicable to other forms of TRS. We continually monitor these waivers to assess whether they
should remain in effect.
Our continuing attention to the evolution of VRS also is reflected in the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) the Commission released on June 30,2004. Among other
things, the FNPRM seeks comment on various matters concerning the provision, regulation, and
compensation of VRS. Specifically, the FNPRM seeks comment on the appropriate cost
recovery methodology for VRS; whether the Commission should adopt jurisdictional separation
of costs for VRS so that not all VRS costs are reimbursed from the federal Interstate TRS Fund;
whether VRS should become a mandatory form of TRS; whether VRS should be required to be
offered 7 days a week, 24 hours a day; and whether a “speed of answer” rule should be applied to
the provision of VRS. I am enclosing the Commission’s News Release for your information.
I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter. Please be assured that we will
keep your concerns in mind as we proceed in our consideration of VRS issues.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairwoman
Enclosed is the Federal Communications Commission's Management Report on

ending September 30,-2004. This report is required by Section 5 of the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended.
action is pending on nine audit reports with disallowed costs (see Enclosure 2). There are no
audit reports recommending that funds be put to better use (see Enclosure 3).

Sincerely,
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHNRMAN
November 30,2004

Chairman

ending September 30,2004. This report is required by Section 5 of the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended.

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
November 30,2004

Chairman
Dear Chairman Bums:

1978, as amended.

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
Dear Senator Byrd:

1978, as amended.

Sincerely,
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
November 30,2004

Chairman

ending September 30, 2004. This report is required by Section 5 of the Inspector General Act o f
1978, as amended.

Enclosures
. . .. . ~.
..II__l-.-..l.I . . ". .li _I . .". , ...^_I" I ,.. . .
Federal Cornm unicat ions C omm ission
Washington, D .C.
CHAIRMAN
November 30,2004

Ranking Member

1978, as amended.
audit reports recommending that funds be put to better use (see Enclosure 3 ) .

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
S-l46A The Capitol

Inspector General Audit and U.S. General Accounting Office Reports for t h e six-month period
1978, as amended.

Sincerely,
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member

1978, as amended.

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
November 30,2004

Ranking Member
S-I23 The Capitol Building

ending September 30,2004. This report is required by Section 5 of the Inspector General Act o f
1978, as amended.

Sincerely,
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAlRMAN November 30,2004

Ranking Member

Inspector General Audit and U.S. General Accounting Office Reports for t h e six-month period
1978, as amended.

Sincerely,
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member

1978, as amended.

Sincerely,
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
November 30,2004

Ranking Member

1978, as amended.

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Chairman

ending September 30, 2004. This report is required by Section 5 of the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended.

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member

1978, as amended.

Sincerely,
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Josk Serrano

Ranking Member
U S . House of Representatives

1978, as amended.
action is pending on nine audit reports with disallowed costs (see Enclosure 2 ) . There are no

Enclosures
.. . ..- -__I^ .. . . . . .. . .." _..... . . .... . -. ~ - .

Washington, D.C.


1978, as amended.

conditions that could lead to waste, fi-aud,resource abuse or mismanagement.
Enclosures
FederaI Comm un icat ions C ommission
Washington, D C .

Chairman

1978, as amended.
audit reports recommending that hnds be put to better use (see Enclosure 3).

Sincerely,
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Chairman

1978, as amended.

Sincerely,
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member

1978, as amended.

Sincerely,
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Dear Chairman Wolf:

1978, as amended.

Enclosures
Washington, D.C.

Chairman

1978, as amended.

Sincerely,
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
Ms. Linda M. Springer, Controller

Office of Management & Budget
725 17'h Street, NW
Dear Ms. Springer:

1978, as amended.
-
The Commission remains committed to identifying and eliminating all practices or ,/
_-
-
,
/-
-
-
_-- ,
, /
*
&
Si erely,
Michael K. Powell
Enclosures
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
November 30,2004
The Honorable David M. Walker

Comptroller General
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street, NW, Rm. 7100
Dear Mr. Walker:

1978, as amended.

Enclosures
Enclosure 1
MANAGEMENT REPORT ON INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT AND GAO REPORTS ONE

YEAR OR MORE OLD FOR WHICH FINAL ACTION HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN
(For the Six-Month Period Ending September 30,2004)
Name of report more than one year Date Dollar value Dollar value of
old for which a management report of disallowed recommendations that
decision has been made but no final issued costs funds be put to better
action taken use (and agreed to by
management)
1. Audit Report on the Auction 9/28/1999 N/A N/A
Physical Security at the Portals Site
(Audit Report No. 99-1 1)
Auction Physical SecuriG at the
Portals Site (Audit Report No. 02-
AUD-03-11)
Explanation for nos. 1 and 2: The remaining open recommendation in the original and follow-
up reports concerns addition of lighting in the courtyard and 12'h Street alley areas of the
headquarters building. Now that permission from the building owner has been granted and
funding has been obtained, completion of lighting installation is expected by December 2004.
3 . Final Reports Related to Non- 1212311999 N/A N/A

Tax Delinquent Debt
Explanation for no. 3: The majority of recommendations have been implemented. The
remaining open recommendations concern asset sales, gathering borrower credit information, and
procedures for return of defaulted licenses. Completion of action on these issues will depend on
the outcome of the bankruptcy of NextWave Telecom Inc., and on whether the Commission will
re-institute its auctions loan program.
N/A= Not Applicable
1
Enclosure 1
4. Report on Audit of Computer 612 1/2000 N/A N/A

Controls at the FCC National Call
Center (Audit Report No. 00-AUD-
01-12)
5. Report on Follow-up Audit on 1/10/2003 N/A NIA
Computer Controls at the FCC
Consumer Center (Audit Report No.
0 1-AUD-07-30)
Explanation for nos. 4 and 5: Many of the open recommendations in the 2003 follow-up audit
report are similar to open recommendations from the 2000 audit report. The remaining
recommendations apply to systems that are currently being upgraded. This upgrade process is tied
to a Commission-wide effort to refresh our current technology which is a major, multi-year effort.
In addition, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has requested additional evidence be provided
to support the closure of the recommendations. FCC efforts are ongoing to obtain clarification
from the OIG and to provide the requested documentation. In addition, the Commission is
moving steadily to resolve all other remaining areas of concern. The Commission anticipates
accreditation and completion of the remaining corrective actions for the NCC by March 2005.

7. Federal Communications 2/9/200 1 N/A N/A
8. Federal Communications 4130/2002 NIA N/A
Commission Fiscal Year 200 1
Report No. 0 1-AUD-07-28)
9. Federal Communications 1/3/2003 NIA NIA
Report No. 02-AUD-08- 16)
N/A= Not Applicable
2
Enclosure 1
Explanation for nos. 6,7,8, and 9: Most of the open recommendations in the FY 2002 Annual
Financial Report are similar to open recommendations from the FY 1999,2000, and 200 1
Financial Reports. Open recommendations fall into two broad categories: ( 1) financial
management issues, and (2) computer security or information technology issues.
In the financial management area corrective action was completed on October 1,2003, for
weaknesses related to cost accounting and loan processing. A determination has also been made
and issued as a Commission Order that was effective October 1,2004, regarding the applicability
of federal financial regulations to the Universal Service Fund. These actions will close a
significant portion of the financial management-related recommendations that remain open. Long
term efforts to implement the Commission's Revenue and Accounting Management Information
System (RAMIS) are ongoing and should resolve the remaining financial weaknesses.
In the area of computer security and information technology, completion of corrective actions is
now dependent on completion of the Commission's Computer Security Program Plan,
establishing a centralized audit management capability, and inclusion of the major applications
and development of business continuity plans (BCP) in the disaster recovery plan. Recent focus
to complete certification and accreditation of all major application and general support systems
had delayed completion of these tasks. Efforts are ongoing to complete the FCC Computer
Security Program Plan which is currently in draft form and will be updated and forwarded to FCC
management for approval. The implementation of a centralized audit capability will continue
when additional funding and resources become available. The FCC Continuity of Operations
Plan and IT Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) have been completed and successfully tested in May
2004 during the Forward Challenge Exercise. FCC has ongoing efforts to phase the FCC
applications into the IT DRP and develop specific BCPs for the Bureaus and Offices.
10. Report on Audit of Web 6/13/200 1 N/A N/A

Presence Security (Audit Report No.
00-AUD-0 1- 10)
Explanation for no. 10: The majority of the corrective actions established for the Audit of Web
Presence Security have been implemented. The OIG has requested additional evidence be
provided to support the resolution of the recommendations. Continuing efforts are ongoing to
obtain clarification from the OIG and to provide the requested documentation. In addition, the
remaining recommendations are dependent upon the establishment of a centralized audit
management capability. The implementation of a centralized audit capability will continue when
additional funding and resources become available.
N/A= Not Applicable
3
Enclosure 1
11. Audit Report on Verification of 8/28/200 1 $25,248 N/A

Global Management Systems, Inc.
Costs Incurred under Contract No.
2700-FCC-97-C-0014 (Changed to C-
98000 16) (Audit Report No. 0 1-
AUD-04- 11\
Explanation for no. 11: The Commission will soon issue a final payment demand letter to the
debtor. If no response or payment is received the debt will be transferred to the Department of the
Treasury for collection.
12. Report on Government 11/29/2001 N/A N/A

Evaluation - Findings and
Recommendations (Audit Report No.
0 1-AUD- 11-43)
13. FY 2002 Government 1/6/2003 N/A N/A
Evaluation - Findings and
Recommendations (Report No. 02-
AUD-02-06)
Explanation for nos. 12 and 13: The FCC’s Continuity of Operations Plan and IT Disaster
Recovery Plan have been completed and were successfully tested in May 2004 during the
Forward Challenge Exercise. The open recommendations in both these reports are similar and are
related to completion of the Commission’s Personnel Security Manual, Information Security
Directive, major applications Business Continuity Plans (BCP), and establishing a centralized
system audit management capability. Efforts for the Personnel Security Manual and the
Information Security Directive are on-going. The implementation of a centralized audit capability
will continue when additional funding and resources become available.
14. Report on Workplace Violence 1/15/2002 N/A N/A

Prevention at the FCC: Risk
Assessment (Report No. 01-AUD-06-
23)
Explanation for no. 14: The majority of recommendations have been implemented. Most of the
remaining open recommendations involve funding issues for physical security enhancements, or
building access matters currently beyond the control of the Commission.

Employee Use of FCC Travel Cards
(Report No. IG-0 1-AUD-10-4 1)
N/A= Not Applicable
4
Enclosure I
Explanation for no. 15: Due to the complexity of the changes in the Commission’s travel and
travel card policies it has taken longer than expected to complete the necessary revisions to the
FCC Travel Manual. The handbook is currently undergoing final management review and edits,
and is expected to be printed by December 3 1,2004.
16. Telecommunications: Additional 1 1/8/2002 N/A N/A

Federal Efforts Could Help Advance
Digital Television Transition (GAO-
03-7)
Explanation for no. 16: The Commission has completed action on the GAO report’s
recommendations on outreach to consumers about the DTV transition and consideration of a date-
certain switch from analog to digital carriage rights. The concern of the remaining open
recommendation about digital cable-ready television sets was partially addressed when the
Commission adopted rules in September 2003 for a national “plug and play” standard for one-way
cable services permitting digital cable-ready television sets to be introduced in the marketplace in
2004. Industry negotiations on a bi-directional cable services agreement are ongoing, and the
Commission believes the concern of the recommendation will be fully addressed when bi-
directional plug-and-play rules are addressed.
17. Telecommunications: 1131/2003 N/A N/A

Comprehensive Review of U.S.
Spectrum Management with Broad
Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed
(GAO-03-277)
Explanation for no. 17: Since the GAO report was issued, there have been considerable efforts
to further review the need for changes to spectrum management policies, both at the FCC and in
the Executive Branch. Also, more specifically, the FCC has implemented many of the
recommendations for spectrum reform provided by the FCC’s Spectrum Policy Task Force in its
November 2002 report to the Commission.
Last June, as the result of a comprehensive year-long review initiated by President Bush, the
administration released two reports with recommendations for change in spectrum management
policies. One of the reports addressed federal government spectrum use and the other addressed
commercial and state and local government use of spectrum. The recommendations in these
reports ranged from suggested improvements in the process for making changes to spectrum use,
including the formation of an executive-branch appeals process to assist in the development of an
administration position on particular spectrum management issues, to recommendations for
fostering more innovative use of the spectrum, such as developing a test bed of two spectrum
bands for dynamic sharing between federal government and commercial spectrum users. The
Federal Communications Commission, as an independent agency, was an observer in this inquiry
N/A= Not Applicable

Enclosure 1
and had representation in its capacity as observer throughout the process.
Spectrum management reform continues to be a high priority at the FCC. Within the last several
months, the FCC adopted numerous policies focused on facilitating the deployment of spectrum-
based services in rural areas. Specifically, these include, inter alia, providing for smaller licensing
areas in rural areas, increasing the permissible transmit power levels for certain facilities located
in rural areas, and providing licensees with the flexibility to grant security interests in certain
wireless licenses to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service, which provides
loans to broadband service providers in rural areas. The FCC has continued to adopt measures to
increase flexibility in spectrum use, enabling more and more consumers and businesses to gain
access to enhanced spectrum-based services. Specifically, the FCC adopted regulatory changes to
facilitate the use of advanced antenna technologies and provide additional flexibility for
customization of wireless networks; the FCC also expanded rules related to spectrum leasing,
facilitating access to spectrum through secondary markets; and the FCC also revamped and
updated its rules related to nearly 200 MHz of spectrum, located in an especially prime region of
the radio spectrum. Moreover, in May, Chairman Powell formed the Wireless Broadband Access
Task Force whose principal objective is to conduct a comprehensive review of current FCC
spectrum policies related to the provision of wireless broadband services and to make
recommendations for improvements. This review is targeted for completion late this year. Also,
on an ongoing basis, the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force has continued to consider and review
issues related to spectrum policy reform. The FCC's efforts in the area of spectrum reform have
focused on these and other comprehensive initiatives.
18. Report on Follow-up Special 3/7/2003 N/A N/A

Review of Web Page Accessibility
(Report No. 02-AUD-02-05)
Explanation for no. 18: The International Bureau began the redesign of the International Bureau
Filing System in October 2003, using a phased approach. Phase 1, consisting of a new home
page, account management module, and the 3 12EZ interactive filing form, went into production
on October 26,2004. Subsequent phases will be implemented over the next three fiscal years.
As each phase is completed and implemented, the corresponding web pages will be Section 508
compliant.
19. Report on Audit of Auctions 9112/2003 N/A N/A

Information Technology Capital
Investment Practices
N/A= Not Applicable
-- --.".--.,".- -1-
.... ~.., ,... .
~ . . . . .. . . . .
.. . .. .. . . . .
Enclosure 1
~~~~ ~
Explanation for no. 19: The FCC has formed an Information Technology (IT) Steering
Committee (ITSC) to develop its IT capital planning and investment control process. The ITSC
has already been used to recommend priorities for FCC's end-of-year IT spending, and is currently
working on developing a vision for the coordinated improvement of FCC's numerous IT systems
for issuing licenses. We plan for the ITSC to make further progress in developing FCC's IT
capital planning and investment control process, in satisfaction of the audit report.
N/A= Not Applicable

Enclosure 2

MANAGEMENT REPORT ON FINAL ACTION ON AUDITS WITH
DISALLOWED COSTS
Number of Disallowed
Audit Reports costs
A. Audit reports with management decisions

on which final action had not been taken
at the beginning of the period 6 $2,328,094

decisions were made during the period 4 $1,576,350
C. Total audit reports pending final action

during period (Total A + B) 10 $3,904,444
D. Audit reports on which final action was

taken during the period
1. Recoveries
(A) Collections and offsets $5,452
(B) Property $0
(C) Other $0
2. Write-offs $0
3. Total 1 + 2 $5,452

the end of the period (C - D.3.) 9 $3,898,992'
1
$2,750,104 of disallowed costs in five reports is currently under administrative appeal by
auditees.
Enclosure 3
MANAGEMENT REPORT ON FINAL ACTION ON AUDITS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS

TO PUT FUNDS TO BETTER USE
Number of Funds To Be Put

Audit Reports To Better Use
A. Audit reports with management

decisions on which final action
had not been taken at the
beginning of the period 0 $0

decisions were made during the
period $0
C. Total audit reports pending final

action during period (Total A + B) $0
D. Audit reports on which final action

was taken during the period
I . Value of recommendations
implemented (completed) 0 $0
2. Value of recommendations that

management concluded should not
or could not be implemented or
completed 0 $0
3. Total (1 + 2) 0 $0

the end of the period (C - D.3.) 0 $0
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
November 15,2004

Chairman
U S . House of Representatives
Enclosed for your review is the Federa- Communications Commission’s Fiscal Year 004
Performance and Accountability Report required under the Accountability for Tax Dollars Act of
2002. In bringing together information on the Commission’s financial and programmatic
performance, this new report clearly shows how the work of the Commission boosts our
economy and improves our quality of life.
To link our performance to the achievements of the agency’s strategic objectives, we

have identified six pillars that strengthen all of the Commission’s efforts: broadband,
competition, spectrum, media, homeland security, and modernizing the FCC. While the
Commission can, and will, continue to improve its financial performance in the coming year, I
am honored to verify that the agency’s efforts during FY 2004 ensure that our networked society
functions smoothly in normal times and can be restored promptly when our Nation faces natural
or man-made disasters.

industries, we believe that our strategic objectives will allow the Commission to provide the
leadership necessary to facilitate competition in all communications markets, and the
development and deployment of new telecommunications technologies and services for all
Americans.
I look forward to any comments you have on our Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and
Accountability Report.
Sincerely,
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
.. .~
. .. . , ” -. . .- . -.
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Enclosed for your review is the Federal Communications Commission’s Fiscal Year 2004


Americans.
Sincerely, 17
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
Dear Senator Byrd:


Americans.
Sincerely,
A
\
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairwoman


Americans.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
*
& Michael K. Powell
. . -. I ..” . . .. . .... ~ ...

Washington, D.C.

Chairman
2 15 7 Rayburn House Office Building


Americans.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
Enclosed for your review is the Federal Communications Commission's Fiscal Year 2004
2002. In bringing together information on the Commission's financial and programmatic '
To link our performance to the achievements of the agency's strategic objectives, we

have identified six pillars that strengthen all of the Commission's efforts: broadband,
am honored to verify that the agency's efforts during FY 2004 ensure that our networked society

Americans.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
*
& Michael K. Powell
Washington, D .C.

Chairman


Americans.
Michael IS.Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Speaker
H-232 the Capitol Building


Americans.
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
2002. In bringing together information on the Commission's financial and programmatic

am honored to verify that the agency's efforts during FY 2004 ensure that OUT networked society

Americans.
Sincerely,
/7
Mic ael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
CHNRMAN November 15,2004

Ranking Member


Americans.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
*M Michael K. Powell
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member


Americans.
Sincerely, fl
-
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
Perfonnance and Accountability Report required under the Accountability for Tax Dollars Act of


Americans.
Sincerely, A
Enclosure
-
4 Michael K. Powell
Washington, D.C.
CHAlRMAN November 15,2004

Chairman


Americans.
Sincerely, A
1
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
.
I_ ..__..I. -I__.
~ __llllll_ _.
.I” .I _^__I ” . ~ .. ~ -
. . ..-
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Dick Cheney

President
Dear Mr. President:


Americans.
Sincerely,
*
& Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member


leadership necessary to facilitate competition in all communications marliets, and the
Americans.
Sincerely,
Michael K. PowellL
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member


Americans.
Sincerely, 17
1
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairman


Americans.
Sincerely,
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
Enclosed for your review is the Feclzral Communications Commission’s Fisca Year 2004
performance, this new report clearly shows how the work of the Cornmission boosts our


Americans.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
*
& Michael K. Powell
- . . .._-
.. ._-- ~ .- . ~ . . . .. .._I_-
Washington, D.C.



leadership necessary to facilitate competition in all communicafions markets, and the
Americans.
Sincerely,
*
& Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Enclosed for your review is the Federa. Commurilzations Commission i Fisca Year 2004


leadership necessary to facilitate competition in all communications m ~ k e t sand
, the
Americans.
Sincerely,
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
FederaI Corn rn unicat ions Commission
Washington, D.C.

Ranking Member
Enclosed for your review is the Federa. Communications Commission ; Fiscal 'ear 200,
To link ow performance to the achievements of the agency's strategic objectives, we

Commission can, and will, continue to improve its financial perfonnance in the coming year, 1

Americans.
Sincerely, A
-
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Dear Chairman Wolf:

Commission can, and will, continue to improve its financial perfonnance in the coming year, I

Am en cans.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
. .... . . . __. ..
. . . ..- .. .
."--I . - .. .
"I. ~
,.. ..-.
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
US.House of Representatives


Americans.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
*
& Michael K. Powell
Washington, D.C.
Joshua B. Bolten
Director
725 17th Street, N.W.- Room 252
Dear Mr. Bolten:


Americans.
Sincerely, A
-
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
Kim Geier
Accountant
New Executive Office Building
Dear Ms. Geier:


Americans.
Sincerely, fl
ichael K. Powell
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.
Sarah A. Lyberg
Program Examiner
New Executive Office Building
Resource Management Office
Dear Ms. Lyberg:


Americans.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
*
& Michael K. Powell
WASHINGTON,D C 20510-0303
ARIZONA
(202)224-2235
SUITE E-130
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION T E M P E ,AZ 85282
COMMITTEE O N ARMED SERVICES (480)897-6289
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 2400 EAST ARIZONA
BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 1 1 50
PHOENIX,AZ 85016
(602)952-2410
450 WESTPASEO REDONDO

SUITE 200
TUCSON, AZ 85701
(520)670-6334
November 16,2004
(202)224-7132
(602)952-0170
Director - Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau

445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, Diane McDowell, who
has encountered a problem with a cellular telephone company.
Please investigate my constituent’s claim, within the existing rules, regulations and ethical
CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Alesya Eben

4450 S. Rural Road
Suite B-130
Tempe, AZ 85282
look forward to your reply at yoin. earliest convenience.
&QF e+cL
John McCain
Mxae
Enclosure
-II. _1 L__.~I-L1”I_*II_ I
Diane McDowell
2 115 East Hermosa Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85282
October 18,2004
Senator John McCain

Washington, D C 205 10-0303
Re: Cell phone IssueFCC Form 475

Reference the enclosed copy of an FCC Form 475 with Exhibits concerning cell phone service. I
am forwarding this copy of the complaint to you for legislative consideration and action. As I set
forth in the Form 475, I believe there are privacy (identity theft) and security issues with this
company's policies.
I believe that my recommendations to cease using Social Security numbers for identification and
to allow persons with telephone numbers on an account to make changes on it are in the public
interest. Specifically, the public interests in privacy (identity theft prevention) and security would
be supported. I do not believe that either imposes any undue burdens on the company.
Thank you for your attention to this letter, and for your assistance in the past.
Sincere&,
/ Diane McDowell
Enclosures
Approved by OMB 3060-0874
Est. Avg. Burden Per Response: 30 minutes

FCC Form 475 - General-Telephone Related Issues

1. Consumer's Name:
la.* First Name m/t
-tI lb. Middle Initial:
-
lc.*LastName /vl c D o u g / /
2. Entity Name:
Complete only if you are filing this complaint on behalf of a company or
organization.
3. Mailing Address of Person or Entity filing complaint:
3a. * Contact Name (for entity): D l A/Lr F /L;rLmu EL
3b. Post Office Box Number:
3c. Street Address z//-
Office Box is required.
5 ,E? H,L?gmS& .l)R
k
* Either Street Address OR Post
3d. * City E
3e. * State A% 3f. * Zip Code By2 92
3g. YOWE-Mail Address:
4. Daytime Tdephooe Nsmber ( qw ) 93/ - 7yfl5- Extension:

The Best Time to Reach Consumer: A c trr 2p&
5. Are You filing this complaint on behalf of another party, such as a client o r
family member? -
If yes, complete the following FNo
yesin ormation:
5a. Your Relationship with the complainant:
5b. Your First Name:
5c. Your Last Name:
5d. Your Daytime Telephone Number: ( ) - Extension
5e. Your Mailing Address:
Post Office Box Number:
Street Address:
5f. Your City:
Sg. Your State: 5h. Zip Code
6. Subject/issue that Best Describes your Complaint. If you have complahts about
several different subjects, please complete a separate Consumer Complaint Form for
each subject.
6a. * If your complaint involves Cellular Telephone, Paging, or other Wireless
Services: (check here)
-Accessibility by persons with disabilities to telecommunications service
-Billing - Airtime Charges
- Billing - Roaming
-Billing - Service Plan Rate
-Carrier Marketing & Advertising
-Contract - Early Termination
-Community/Regional Dead Spots (where there is no signal)
-Premature Dropped Calls
Network Busy Signal
Other - the subject of my complaint is not listed above
OR
If your complaint involves ResidentiaVBusiness Telephone or other’Wireline
Services: (check here)
-Accessibility to persons with disabilities to telecommunication service
-Telephone Company Marketing & Advertising
-Cramming
-International Call Rates
-Operator Service Provider Rates
-Rates for Interstate Telecommunication Service
-Unsolicited Telephone Marketing
_.Unsolicited Telephone Marketing - telemarketer did not place me on their
do-not-call list
-Unsolicited advertisement sent to a facsimile machine
-Other- the subject of my complaint is not listed above
6b. *. Name f compan (ies involved in complaint:
&V&L 252 vE&/7J3/u
6c. * Which Type of Service is involved with the Complaint?
Home (Residential) Telephone Service
-Business (Commercial) Telephone Service
6d. List all Telephone Numbers (Maximum of 6) - including Area Codes, that are
involved in your complaint:
6d-!.:464 7 2 - 0 2 2 7 6 d - 2 . (qm ) 2 U - dm
6d-3. ( -I -- -6d-l. (-)---
6d-5. ( -I -- ___ 6d-6- (-)---
7. Have you contacted the companies (noted in box 6) to try to resolve the complaint yourself?
& Yes -NO (If yes, complete the foilowing information)
Company (ies) Name, telephone number. and representativds) number YOU sDoke with: . .
Telephone Numbe;: e00 )a anfs
7a. Compky Name: \/EQt2LW’ rj I y;FfrAN f 7
- f5&4 Extension: ~ ~ ~~~
Date:fi,x] .m4 (Format: MM/DD/YYYY)

7b. Company Name: v&g / 2 &I/ LdlRELE-si ANMA f Ldgmu I‘ far>
Telephone Number: ( ) - 0 24 Extension: ’
-
Date: Gq 2s m 4 (Format MMIDDNYYY)
8. Complete the following if you are disputing charges listed OD a telephone bill:
Sa. Have you paid any of the disputed charges? -Y& No
8b. Did the billing company adjust or refund the disputed charges? -Yes N o
8c. If yes to either question, what is the amount of the adjustment or refimd?
9. Briefly describe your complaint by including the following information in your statement:
Account numbeqs) involved with your complaint if that number is different than your telephone number;
Date(s) of the telephone bill involved with your complaint;
For Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations such as: unsolicited telephone call or an unsolicited
advertisement sent to your fax machine, failure to implement a do-not-call request, etc., you must provide the
date and time of incident and for faxes, a copy of the received, faxed document;
Descc\; ~ W a*t&c-&-
N ~ ~ T ~,/E,~AIP;+L C S
The resolution you are seeking. (To better assist you, please send a copy of the bill@) along with this form.)
10. * Are you willing to provide a written statement regarding your complaint that could be used by the FCC
or other federal and state regulatory agencies in enforcement actions against the company or companies
involved with your complaint? %Yes -No
(If yes, we will contact you if we need additional information about your complaint.)
Mail this form and a copy of the bill(s) to:

Consumer Information and Complaints Division
445 12th Street, SW
Note: An asterisk (*) preceding a field indicates that it is required
. .. ..- . "_ .. ...." ... .I . , ' _, .

My husband and I have a contract with Verizon Wireless for residential cellular telephone
service. Both of us signed the contract, which was executed in Scottsdale, Arizona. Each of us
has a separate telephone number under this contract. Charges for both numbers on this contract
are billed to and paid fiom our credit card account. This credit card account is in both our names
and paid for with our community funds.
My husband's Social Security number is used as the identdjmg number under the contract for
the Verizon Wireless account. I believe this use of his Social Security number could facilitate
identity theft. Verizon Wireless should use another number to identify the parties to the account
for all purposes. So far as I am aware, there is no tax reporting reason to use any Social Security
numbers for identification purposes under these contracts. In view of the potential for identity
theft, I feel Verizon Wireless should develop and utilize their own internal control number for
these contracts, and not the parties' Social Security numbers.
My cell phone is important to me for personal security purposes. During August 2004, I was in
Orange County, California. My husband was in Tempe, Arizona. On August 8,2004 I went to the
Verizon Wireless store at 2981 Michaelson Drive, Irvine, California 92616-0659 (telephone 949-
756-3515)to buy a new battery for the phone. They tested the phone and were not quite sure
what the problem was but since the phone was over two years old and the battery had never been
replaced they thought it should be replaced. They did say that the charger could not be working.
They placed a new battery in my phone and told me that it was 50% charged and that I should
give it a complete charge that evening. I said OK. That evening I attempted to charge the battery
but it would not charge. I returned to the store the next day with my phone and the charger. I
was advised by store personnel that the phone would have to be replaced as the charger worked
fine, the phone had a new battery but the phone would not charge. I was then advised that I
could not receive a replacement unit unless my husband would authorize replacement. I pointed
out that both our names were on the account, that all charges were paid for out of our joint and
common credit card account and that my husband was not available in Orange County.The
person with whom I was dealing still required by husband's approval, and was supported by the
store manager. They told me that I was not authorized to do anything with the account.
A conference (by my telephone) with the Verizon Wireless corporate headquarters f d e d to

resolve the issues. My husband finally called the store and told me that I could either walk out of
the store or that he would authorized a replacement cell phone. They told me that I would
have to sign a two year contract with them i f 1 wanted a new phone. I told them that I would not
sign a two year anything with them because of the way they did business and I was very upset
because I was alone and did not have a working phone. I told them the bottom line was that I
needed a phone that worked and that their business practices were totally unacceptable. The
manager of the store got involved and finally gave me a rebuilt phone. I was still advised that I
had NO rights regarding the phone and that ONLY my husband could authorize repairs,
replacements or other actions regarding the phone. I have contacted corporate headquarters in an
effort to resolve these issues, but have not been able to do so.
When I contacted Verizon Wireless corporate headquarters, the representative advised me that
only one name could be on the account. When I asked why only that person could authorize
. ~. ..,.I." . . _ , ...
actions on the account when two merent persons have phone numbers on it, I was not given a
satisfactory answer. My husband asked if he could execute a form designating me with authority
over the account, and he was advised that this is not possible. I assume this is company policy and
not a legal requirement. If the holder of the account authorizes in writing another person to make
decisions and take action on the account, the holder is still the person Verizon Wireless can
contact for payment and other related matters.
I believe that such policies by Verizon Wireless impair public saf", since many people now
depend on their cell phones for security assistance and support. If the account were in my name,
my husband would not be authorized to make decisions and take action on it, and that would not
be reasonable.
For the above reasons, I am seeking assistance from your office.

P.O. B0%9(1068
BELLRIUE, WA QBOOO
September 7,2004 PqpldS
fu
L
Summary of current charges vm
1 SA0 sno s.m $00 $.on s.00 s.00
Charges for 480-220-0227

Edward McDoweB
I
Y
Charges for 480-220-0228
Diane MCDowdI
f
__...._ " ..I... . . . ., . I . . . . . , .
ii
m
DEC 7 2004 Control No. 04037 13/aw

4450 S. Rural Road
Suite B-130
Tempe, AZ 85282
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Diane McDowell,
regarding her concerns with the requirements for cell phone service by Verizon Wireless,
which could lead to identity theft.
The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau has conducted a priority review of
Ms. McDowell's complaint. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by her to
Verizon Wireless and directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We
also directed the company to send Ms. McDowell a copy of the response that the company
submits to the Commission.
Ms. McDowell 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 1-888-225-
5322. TTY users may call 1-888-835-5322. Ms. McDowell would need to include the
complainant tracking number 04-BO138985 and the Congressional tracking number indicated at
the top of this letter to facilitate a prompt response to her inquiry.
Local authorities and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) process complaints of
identity theft. Ms. McDowell can contact the FTC 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 1-877-382-4357. Their web site is www.ftc.gov and their
Consumer Response Center web site is www.consumer.gov. Victims may call the FTC
Identity Theft Program at 1-877-438-4338. Their web site is www .consumer.nov/idtheft.
questions.
Sincerely,
't(* K. Dane Snowden3

Chief
- 1 1' -
JUL 8 2005
Control No. 0403713/kah/aw

Tempe, AZ 85282
This letter is a follow up to our letter dated December 7, 2004, regarding your
constituent, Ms. Diane McDowell’s concerns with the requirements for cell phone service by
Verizon Wireless.
On December 22, 2004, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed
Verizon Wireless to satisfy or answer the cornplaint 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 Wireless advises Mr. and Ms. McDowell that they have other means of
verification in the event that a customer does not want to provide the last four digits of his or
her social security number. Verizon states that the customer has the option to add an account
password for enforced security and verification purposes. If a customer does not elect to add
an account password, and does not want to verify the social security number, then they ask the
customer to verify the billing address, amount of the last payment, and the payment method
that was used (e.g. credit card, check, etc.) If Mr. and Ms. McDowell have additional
questions, they may contact Ms. LaDonna Pratt, Verizon Wireless West Area Executive
Coordinator, at 1-866-673-9561 or Verizon Customer Service at 1-800-922-0204. Based on
the information provided, the Commission does not plan to take any further action with respect
to Ms. McDowell’s complaint.
Sincerely,
Jay Keithley
Deputy Bureau Chief
Enclosure
. .
verimnwireless
P.O. Box 19769
Irvine, CA 92623-9769
December 28, 2004

Consumer Information Nehvork Division
445 12" Street, S.W.
Attn. Martha Contee

Re: Complainant: Diane McDowell - IC Number: 04-BO138985
Dear Ms. Contee:
This letter is in response to the above-identified complaint filed on behalf of Edward and Diane
McDowell. Ms. McDowell is challenging our policy of using social security numbers as a means
of account verification, stating that it leaves our customers vulnerable to identity fraud. Ms.
McDowell contends that she needed to replace her equipment, and was advised that we were unable
to do so, as she was not an authorized contact. She states that this matter was resolved after her
husband contacted the Retail Store. Ms. McDowell contends that she contacted our Corporate
Office regarding this matter, and was told that only one person can be the primary account holder.
She also states that her husband asked if he could execute a form designating her as having full
access to the account, and was told that this is not possible. Ms. McDowell is asking that we
change our verification policies.
Research into this matter has found that Mr. McDowell applied for Verizon Wireless service on
July 23 2002. During the application process our potential customers are asked to provide their
social security number as a means of credit verification. If a customer does not wish to provide his
or her social security number, then we allow the customer to activate service after paying a $400
deposit for each line of service. Mr. McDowell provided his social security number, we processed a
credit check, and Mr. McDowell was approved for service. He elected to activate two lines of
service, one for himself and one for his wife; Mr. McDowell was the primary Consumer Account
Holder. Our records reflect that Mr. McDowell may have also agreed to allow his wife to be an
authorized contact on his Verizon Wireless account.
A Consumer Account Holder is an individual who established an account under their social
security number and is financially responsible for it. Thus has full and complete access to the
account. An Authorized Contact is an indwidual authorized by the Account Holder to have limited
access to the account. In the event that a customer elects to add an authorized contact, the
Consumer Account Holder is given the option to add an account password as a means of
verification. Othemise, the Consumer Account Holder and the Authorized Contact are both
required to provide the last four digits of the Account Holder's social security number when
accessing the account or requesting account changes. We would like to ensure that the McDowells
understand that under no circumstances would we require a customer to provide his or her entire
social security number for verification purposes.
7 1
Our records also reflect that Mr. McDowell's account was password protected; however, they do
not reflect that Ms. McDowell was actually added to his account as an Authorized contact. Non-
Authorized Contacts can ONLY receive general information, even if they are able to verify the last
four digits of the account holder's social security number or password. This applies to spouses in
Community Property States. Our records reflect that Ms. McDowell called our Customer Service
Department on August 9,2004, to ask questions or access specific account information, and was
unable to do so as she was not listed as an Authorized Contact. Mr. McDowell then contacted us
on August 9, 2004, to add his wife as an Authorized contact, and his request was processed. Our
records reflect that Ms. McDowell contacted us again on September 29, 2004, in an attempt to
access the account, unfortunately Ms. McDowell was not able to verify the account password.
We regret any inconvenience this matter may have caused the McDowells. Verizon Wireless
customer records are confidential. Upholding our obligation to protect the confidentiality of their
records is crucial. We must make every effort to protect customer account information and
disclose such information only when it has been determined that the person requesting the
information is authorized to receive it.
We would like to advise Ms. McDowell that we do have other means of verification in the event
that a customer does not want to provide the last four digits of his or her social security number.
We reiterate that the customer has the option to add an account password for enforced security and
verification purposes. If a customer does not elect to add an account password, and does not want
to verify the social security number, then we ask the customer to verify the billing address, amount
of the last payment, and the payment method that was used (e.g. credit card, check, etc.)
We would also like to advise the McDowells that Verizon Wireless accepts Power of Attorney
documents which can be obtained through many sources, one of which it www.findlegalforms.com.
A Power of Attorney document will allow a customer to appoint a specific organization or
individual to handle hisher affairs in the event he/she is unavailable or unable to do so. The Power
of Attorney form must be signed by the account holder, witnessed notarized (state laws may vary),
and identification requirements must be met (if applicable, drivers license.)
If the McDowells have any questions we ask that they contact the undersigned at 866-673-956 1, or
they can contact Customer Service at 800-922-0204. If the FCC has any questions or concerns
regarding this report, please contact Michele Elliot at Michele.Elliott6.lVerizonWireless.corn.
Sincerely,
LaDonna Pratt
Verizon Wireless
West Area Executive Coordinator
C: Mr. and Ms. McDowell

Ms Michele Elliott, Verizon Wireless
" .
241 RUSSELLSENATEOFFICE BUILDING
JOHN McCAlN W A S H I N G T O NDC, 20510-0303
ARIZONA ( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235

C O M M I T E E O N COMMERCE, SUITE 8-130
(Unitedstate TEMPE,A2 85282
( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289
COMMIrTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS 2400 EAST ARIZONA

BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 1150
PHOENIX,A 2 85016
( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410

CT", SUITE 200
November 22,2004 PLI TUCSON, A 2 85701
(520)670-6334
( 2 0 2 ) 224-7132
(602) 952-0170
Ms. Martha Johnston

Director
Federal Communications Cornmission
445 12th Street, S.W., Room 8-C432
Dear Ms. Johnston:

3137
I wish to bring to your attention the matter concerning my constituent, Lisa Markkula, who
has encountered a problem with Sprint Relay Online. Please investigate, my constituent's claim,
within the existing rules, regulations and ethical guidelines, and provide me with the final
decision. MARK ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Chuck Coolidge

Suite 200
Wtcc
Enclosure(s)

t
Sprint is giving Nigerian criminals free telephone calls to U.S. businesses and
individuals, resulting in millions of dollars of losses through various fraud schemes. U S .
telephone customers pay for these calls through relay surcharges on their telephone bills.
The service is intended for the deaf, hard of hearing and speech impaired, yet Sprint does
not screen or register users. Another common abuse of the system is teenagers making
obscene calls to each other, themselves, or innocent victims; forcing operators to type and
voice pornographic and racist call content. Call volume has dramatically increased as a
result of these abuses, as has Sprint's revenue from its relay operations. Calls come in
through Sprint's website, www.sprintrelayonline.com. Arizona businesses and
individuals have been victims of these scams; Arizona minor children have been exposed
to obscene relay calls (some as participants, some not); and one Sprint relay call center is
located in Tucson, AZ.
I work as a Sprint relay operator at the Tucson, Arizona call center, which is dedicated
almost exclusively to processing Sprint Relay Online (SRO) calls. My employer is
Communication Services for the Deaf, a subcontractor for Sprint. Relay operators
process telephone calls between deaf and hearing person by typing what the hearing
person says and voicing what the deaf person types.
We are told that the FCC has ruled that we must process all calls. It is incredible,
however, that Sprint is not forced to register users -- which would eliminate both abuses.
Furthermore, while I do not object to hearing and speech impaired persons having access
to free long distance service, the ADA provides for parity, not preference. If there really
were no way to correct the problem (which I cannot believe), then online relay service
should go away altogether.
The best times to reach me are Wednesday through Friday all day, or Monday and
Tuesday mornings. I do not have an answering machine, but will check my caller ID. I
will be happy to answer questions and cooperate with any investigation.
Thank you. As a constituent, I appreciate Senator McCain's willingness to fight for fiscal
responsibility and to reduce the influence of industry and wealthy individuals on the
political process.
PRIVACY ACT CONSENT FORM
To Whom it May Concern:
In accordance with the provisions of Public Law 93-579 (The Privacy Act of 1974), hereby give my
consent for information concertiing my file be furnished to my Senator, John McCain.
I have discussed my case with Senator John McCain andlor his representative@), and request that any
relevant information he may require in order to assist in responding to my inquiry, as his constituent, be
provided to him in accordance with the provisions of the law.
If this problem involves either the Social Security Administration, the Office of Personnel Management,
the Military, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor or the EEOC, please provide the
following where appropriate:
Government agency involved:
Social Security
Number:
Civil Service Claim

Number:
Veteran Claim
Number:
Branch of
Service:
Date and Place of

Birth:
Military
Rank:
Coinplete address for Home of Records:-
Other Numbers Identifying your case:
Signature
(Please use reverse side of this form for additional details of your situation.)
m
December 20, 2004
Control No. 0403737-DRO-JS

450 W. Paseo Redondo, Suite 200
Tucson, AZ 85701
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Lisa Markkula, who
expresses concern about the improper use of Internet Protocol relay service (IP-Relay), a form
of Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), provided by Sprint Relay Online.
As you know, TRS is one of the major programs we enforce under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and is a nationwide system. TRS permits people who are not hearing
impaired to talk to those with hearing disabilities and speech disabilities, and vice versa, in a
manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual who does not have a
hearing impairment or speech impairment to communicate using voice communication services
by wire or radio.
IP Relay uses the Internet, rather than the Public Switched Telephone Network, to
place the leg of the call from the person with a hearing or speech disability to the TRS
communications assistant (CA). The IP Relay user establishes a local connection to an Internet
service provider (ISP) using a computer, web phone, personal digital assistant (PDA) or any
other IP-capable device. The IP Relay user then reaches a CA by directing the web browser to
one of the IP Relay providers' web sites. When the IP Relay user is connected to the IP Relay
service provider, the user is immediately routed to a CA, who then makes the outbound call to
the hearing person and relays the call between the parties. Additionally, because there is
currently no automatic means for determining whether a call made via IP Relay is intrastate or
interstate the FCC authorized, on an interim basis, recovery of all costs of providing IP Relay
from the Interstate TRS Fund in a Declaratory Ruling, April 2002.
There are many benefits to IP-Relay service, not the least of which is that consumers do
not need a TTY or TTY telephone line to make their phone call; thus their access to telephony
more closely parallels the traditional phone service that voice-to-voice users take for granted.
1 1'
The Commission has received complaints from vendors, consumers, and TRS providers
that people are using the IP Relay to make telephone purchases using stolen or fake credit
cards. Although such purchases are illegal, and the Department of Justice and the FBI can
investigate, due to the transparent nature of the CA’s role in a TRS call the Communications
Assistant may not interfere with the conversation. The TRS statutory and regulatory scheme
do not contemplate that the CA should have a law enforcement role by monitoring the
conversations they are relaying.
Since this type of fraud first became apparent, the TRS providers have worked to
develop methods to determine which IP Relay calls are fraudulent, and therefore have been
able to prevent many of these calls from reaching the intended victims. This has been achieved
without negatively impacting legitimate users of the service, according to the IP Relay
providers.
Enclosed is information Ms. Markkula may find helpful. To the extent Ms. Markkula
has concerns about the provision of TRS, we encourage her to actively participate in
proceedings before the Commission to ensure that her opinions are expressed and considered
fully. The Commission has available an e-mail service designed to apprise consumers about
the Commission to a wide audience, and to invite comments from other parties on Commission
To subscribe, an individual should send an e-mail to subscribe@info.fcc.gov 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”).
We also invite Ms. Markkula to visit the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau’s
Internet web site at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb or the Commission’s Home Page located at
http://www .fcc.gov.
questions.
Sincerely,
7.C K. Dane Snowden \

Chief
Enclosures
‘I 1 1
ARIZONA
( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN 4450SDUTH R U R A L R O A D
C O M M l n E E O N COMMERCE,
Wnited States S e n
SUITE 8-130
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION TEMPE,AZ 85282
C O M M l n E E O N ARMED SERVICES ( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289

BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 1150
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410

SUITE 200
TUCSON, AZ 85701
December 3,2004 ( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
( 2 0 2 ) 224-7132
( 6 0 2 ) 952-0170
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Mildred Revels who has encountered a
problem with loud advertisements on television.
respond directly to Mildred Revels: 1945 E. Trails End Rd. Huachuca City, AZ 85616.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
JM/tmm
Enclosure(s)

Senator John McCain
450 W.Paseo Redondo #200
Tucson, AZ 85701

You are so busy with all the requests you receive to speak on television and at many
occasions; I assume that you do not have much time to see television.
I am 83 and live alone. Frequently I do not have an opportunity to speak to another

living person for several days, so my television keeps me company.
Lately the advertisers have turned up the volume on their ads so high that I find it
necessary to stop what I am doing and adjust the volume, as my ears are hurting.
As I remember, about 12 years ago this same thing was a problem, and it is my under-
standing that the FCC told the advertisers that they could not be any louder than the
program that they were interrupting; it was such a relief. Now they are doing it again.
I do not know if the order has expired, or the advertisers just need to be reminded. If the
order has not expired, can’t it be enforced. Or if necessary, can it just all be done again,
without an expiration. It is as if the advertisers are all trying to out shout each other so
that (they think) we can hear their message; and it is making it difficult to see or hear
television.
If you can do something about this, I am sure that there are many ears that will appreciate
it.
Very sincerely,
Mildred Revels
1945 E. Trails End Rd.
Huachuca City, AZ 85616
520-266-0036
520-457-3594
December 13,2004
In Reply Refer To:

CN-0403806
Ms. Mildred Revels

1945 East Trails End Road
Huachuca City, Arizona 856 16
Dear Ms. Revels:
Senator John McCain has requested the Federal Communications Commission’s

assistance in responding to your letter concerning the high volume levels of commercial
advertisements on television. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
The Federal Communications Commission currently has no proceeding underway to

review the change in “loudness” between program content and commercial advertisements on
television and radio. The Commission, however, previously addressed this matter in a formal
proceeding where it examined complaints that commercials on television and radio were too
“loud”, and explored technical developments in measuring and controlling “loudness.” The
Commission’s Order in this proceeding reviewed the evidence and concluded that, while volume
can be objectively measured, “loudness” is a more complex phenomenon that has sensory,
contextual and other aspects and is perceived differently by age groups and genders. As a part of
this inquiry, the Commission also conducted surveys to discern whether television and radio
stations deliberately were increasing the audio level during commercial advertisements.
After reviewing more than 2,000 responses to its proceeding, both from members of the
general public and broadcast organizations as well as others with knowledge of audio
engineering, the Commission reached three general conclusions. First, the Commission
determined that loudness can be very subjective and may be affected by a number of factors,
including the listener’s perception of sound’s intensity, the listening environment, and
characteristics of the listener’s hearing. Second, although information filed with the Commission
did suggest that some commercials are made loud intentionally, this typically occurs at the
production phase rather than at individual television and radio stations. This would indicate that
program distributors which are generally subject to the Commission’sjurisdiction, such as a
local broadcaster or cable system operator, have little direct control over the volume of a
commercial. Finally, the Commission also found that technology was being developed and
deployed that could, at least in part, address the loudness of commercial advertisements. The
Commission ultimately concluded that because of the subjective nature of loudness, and because
technologies were emerging to address this issue, effective regulation in this area would be
difficult and may not be necessary.
Ms. Mildred Revels Page Two
Since the Commission concluded its proceeding, there have been advances in technology
to address “loud” commercials and other changes in the audio level of television programming.
It is also the case that technology has become more widely available both to television
programming distributors and to consumers. For example, automatic volume correction
hardware and software is generally available to consumers and program distributors from
multiple sources. In addition, some television manufacturers currently install this type of
technology directly into their products, while stand-alone devices are also available to
consumers. Equipment, such as audio dynamic range processors, also may be deployed by
distributors at the transmission facilities to moderate volume levels.
I hope that this information is useful to you. If you have any hrther questions or
concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Chiei, Office of Communications and Industry Information

Media Bureau
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
December 15,2004

Ranking Member
Enclosed, please find a copy of the “Annual Report on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry” for fiscal year 2003 from the Federal Communications Commission regarding the do-
not-call registry adopted by this Commission and by the Federal Trade Commission. The
Commission is submitting this Report to Congress pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Do-Not-Call
Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 108-10, 117 Stat. 557 (2003). The report was prepared by the
Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this Report, please do not hesitate to
Enclosure
\

Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
December 15,2004

Ranking Member
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Sincerely,
Enclosure
I __, ...~ , . .....I_

\

Washington, D.C.

Chairman
Implementation Act; Pub. L. No. 108-10, 117 Stat. 557 (2003). The report was prepared by the
Sincerely,
Enclosure
\

Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
December 15,2004

Chairman
contact me at (202) 41 8- 1900. I will be pleased to facilitate answers to those questions or to
Enclosure
Federa I C o m m un icati ons Commission
Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN
December 15,2004

Ranking Member
Sincerely,
Michael K. Powell
Enclosure
Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3890
Before the
In the Matter of )
1
Rules and Regulations Implementing the 1 CG Docket No. 02-278
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 1
1
1
1
1
1
ANNUAL REPORT ON THE NATIONAL DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY
Adopted: December 15,2004 Released: December 15,2004
By the Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:
I. BACKGROUND
l. On March 11,2003, President Bush signed the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (Do-
Not-Call Act), authorizing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to collect fees for the implementation
and enforcement of a national do-not-call registry.’ In addition, the Do-Not-Call Act required the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) to issue final rules in its ongoing rulemaking
proceeding under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)* within 180 days of the Do-Not-Call
Act’s enactment and to consult and coordinate with the FTC to maximize consistency with the rule
promulgated by the FTC in 2002.3 The Do-Not-Call Act also requires the FCC to transmit an annual
report to Congress on the status of the national “do-n~t-call’~
regi~try.~This report is in response to this
requirement for fiscal year 2003 and reflects activity through September 30,2003.
2. On July 3,2003, the FCC released a Report and Order (Order) revising the rules on
telemarketing in compliance with the requirements of the Do-Not-Call Act.’ The Order revised the
existing TCPA rules and adopted new rules to provide consumers with several options for avoiding
unwanted telephone solicitations. Specifically, the Order establishes with the FTC a national do-not-call
registry for consumers who wish to avoid unwanted telemarketing calk6 Because of the Commission’s
1
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 108-10, 117 Stat. 557 (2003), to be codzjied at 15 U.S.C. 9 6101
(Do-Not-Call Act).
2
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394 (1991), codiJied at 47 U.S.C. 8
227. The TCPA amended Title I1 of the CommunicationsAct of 1934,47 U.S.C. 9 201 et seq.
See FTC rule 47 C.F.R. 9 3 10.4(b).
4
See generally Do-Not-Call Act, Sec. 4(b).
5
Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,CG Docket No. 02-278,
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 44144 (2003) (Order). The Commission delegated its authority to the Chief of the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau to issue the Report to Congress. Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14142, para. 217.
See Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14034-65,paras. 28-85.
broad authority under the TCPA, the national do-not-call registry covers all entities that use the telephone
to advertise, including those entities over which the FTC lacks jurisdiction, such as common carriers,
banks, credit unions, savings and loans, airlines, and companies in the business of insurance.’ The FCC’s
jurisdiction also extends to both intrastate and interstate telemarketing calls.’
3. The FCC and FTC jointly implemented a nationwide do-not-call registry following the
adoption of rules by each agency to protect consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls. The FTC
received funding to set up and administer the do-not-call registry, while both the FCC and FTC are
responsible for enforcement of the do-not-call rules, along with the states. Telemarketers are required to
pay fees to access the database and to “scrub” their calling lists of the telephone numbers in the database.’
4. The opening of the National Do-Not-Call Registry was announced on June 27,2003, by
President George W. Bush, FTC Chairman Timothy J. Muris and FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell.
That same day, consumers were permitted to begin registering their telephone numbers on the registry
online or by calling a toll-free number. Within the first three days of the registry’s operation, consumers
registered more than 10 million telephone numbers.
5. Several telemarketers filed separate actions challenging the FCC-FTC registry. U.S.
Security; Chartered Benefit Services, Inc.; Global Contact Services, Inc.; Infocision Management Corp.;
and Direct Marking Association, Inc., (“U.S. Security plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the Western District
of Oklahoma, challenging the registry adopted by the FTC on statutory and constitutional grounds.
Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc.; TMG Marketing, Inc.; and American Teleservices Association
(“Mainstream plaintiffs”) raised similar challenges in the District of Colorado. On September 23, 2003,
the court in U.S. Security entered judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that the FTC lacked authority to
promulgate those provisions of the TSR that pertain to the registry.” Congress acted quickly to overrule
this decision by enacting a statute ratifying the FTC’s authority to establish the registry.’‘ On September
25, 2003, the court in Mainstream entered judgment for plaintiffs there, holding that the registry violated
the First Amendment and enjoining the FTC from enforcing the rule provisions creating and
implementing the registry.12 Although the FTC was forced to temporarily shut down the registry due to
the court’s decision, the FCC’s rules nevertheless went into effect on October 1,2003. The FCC
announced that it intended to do everything legally permissible to enforce the registry and provide
consumers with the protections afforded by the national do-not-call list.
6. On October 7,2003, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the Mainstream
deci~ion.‘~The FTC was allowed to reopen the do-not-call registry on October 9 to allow consumers to
continue adding numbers to the list, and telemarketers were given access to the registry on October 10,
2003. The Tenth Circuit also denied a petition by the Mainstream plaintiffs to stay the FCC’s rules
pending appeal. On February 17, 2004, the Tenth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the national do-
’See Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14034, para. 27.

* See 47 U.S.C. @ 152.
“Scrubbing” refers to comparing a do-not-call list to a company’s call list and eliminating from the company call
list the telephone numbers of consumers who have registered a desire not to be called.
lo U.S. Security v. Federal Trade Comm ’n,282 F.Supp.2d 1285 (W.D. Okla. 2003).
See P.L. 108-82, 117 Stat. 1006 (2003).
l2 Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm ’n,283 F.Supp.2d 1151 (D. Colo. 2003).
l3 Federal Trade Comm ’nv. Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc., 345 F.3d 850 ( 1 0 Cir.
~ 2003).
2
not-call registry.I4
7. Pursuant to the requirements of the Do-Not-Call Act, this Report contains an analysis of
the "do-not-call" program established by the FCC and FTC as of September 30, 2003 (FY2003). This
report is submitted in accordance with Section 4(b) of the Do-Not-Call Act.'' Section 4(b) states:
(b) ANNUAL REPORT.-For each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007, the Federal Trade
Commission and the Federal Communications Commission shall each transmit an annual report
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report which shall include--
(1) an analysis of the effectiveness of the "do-not-call" registry as a national registry;
(2) the number of consumers who have placed their telephone numbers on the registry;
(3) the number of persons paying fees for access to the registry and the amount of such
fees;
(4) an analysis of the progress of coordinating the operation and enforcement of the "do-
not-call" registry with similar registries established and maintained by the various
States;
(5) an analysis of the progress of coordinating the operation and enforcement of the "do-
not-call" registry with the enforcement activities of the Federal Communications
Commission pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227 et
seq.); and
(6) a review of the enforcement proceedings under the Telemarketing Sales Rule (16
CFR 3 lo), in the case of the Federal Trade Commission, and under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227 et seq.), in the case of the Federal
Communications Commission.
11. THE NATIONAL DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY
A. Effectiveness of the Do-Not-Call Registry
8. As of September 30,2003, the rules establishing the national do-not-call registry were
not yet in effect. Beginning October 1,2003, telemarketers were prohibited from contacting numbers on
the list unless the call was exempted under the rules.
B. Number of Consumers Registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry
9. As of September 30,2003,51,968,777 telephone numbers had been placed on the

national do-not-all registry.I6
14
See Mainstream Marketing Services, Znc. v. Federal Trade Comm 'n, 358 F.3d 1228 (IO" Cir. 2004), cert. denied,
2004 WL 2050134 (U.S. Oct. 4,2004) (NO.03-1552).
See Do-Not-Call Act, Sec. 4(b).
16
There are now over 64 million telephone numbers registered on the national do-not-call list.
3
C. Number of Telemarketers Accessing the Do-Not-Call Registry
10. On September 2,2003, telemarketing organizations were given access to the national do-
not-call registry. The annual cost for organizations to access phone numbers in the registry was $25 per
area code, with a maximum annual fee of $7,375 to access numbers for the entire country, including U.S.
territorie~.’~There is no charge for companies to access the first five area codes of data. As of September
30, 2003, 1968 entities had paid $5,239,000 to access the registry data.
D. Coordination with the State Do-Not-Call Registries
11. In the Report and Order, the Commission determined not to preempt state do-not-call
lists, stating that “[nlothing that we do in this order prohibits states from enforcing state regulations that
are consistent with the TCPA and the rules established under this order in state We
acknowledged that the states have a long history of regulating telemarketing practices, and we believe that
it is critical to combine the resources and expertise of the state and federal governments to ensure
compliance with the national do-not-call rules. In fact, the TCPA specifically outlines a role for the states
in this process.’’ Section 227(e)(2) prohibits states, in regulating telephone solicitations, from using any
database, list, or list system that does not include the part of such single national database that relates to
that state.20 Thus, pursuant to this requirement, any individual state do-not-call database must include all
of the registrants on the national database for that state. We determined that the administrator of the
national database shall make the numbers in the database available to the states as required by the TCPA.
12. In addition, we believe that the most efficient way to create a single national database
will be to download the existing state registrations into the national database. The national database is
designed to allow the states to download into the national registry-at no cost-the telephone numbers of
consumers that have registered with their state do-not-call lists. We noted that a reasonable transition
period may be required to incorporate the state registrations in a few states into the national database. We
therefore adopted an 18-month transition period for states to download their state lists into the national
database.
13. We refer the Committee to the report transmitted by the FTC for the number of states that
had downloaded into the national registry the telephone numbers of consumers on their do-not-call lists as
of September 30,2003.
E. Coordination with the FTC on Operation and Enforcement of the Registry
14. In the Report and Order, we explained that the FTC’s adoption of a nationwide do-not-
call registry along with the Commission’s adoption of requirements that maximize consistency with those
adopted by the FTC create an overlap in federal regulations governing telemarketing activities. The
Commission directed FCC staff to negotiate with the FTC a Memorandum of Understanding between the
respective staffs to achieve an efficient and effective enforcement strategy that will promote compliance
with federal telemarketing regulations. In addition, we anticipate that, given the substantial gaps in the
FTC’s authority over the full range of telemarketing activities, our enforcement staff will focus
The FTC later proposed raising the access fees to $45 per area code of data with the maximum amount that any
entity would be charged becoming $12,375. See Telemarketing Sales Rule Fees, Federal Trade Commission, 69
Fed. Reg. 23701 (April 30,2004).
See Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14065, para. 85.
l9 See 47 U.S.C. $227(e) and (0.
*‘See 47 U.S.C. 9 227(e)(2).
4
particularly on those telemarketing activities and entities that fall outside the FTC's reach-airlines,
banks, credit unions, savings and loans, insurance companies, and common carriers, as well as intrastate
transmissions by any entity. For reasons of efficiency and fairness, Commission staff will work closely
with the FTC to avoid unnecessarily duplicative enforcement actions.21
F. FCC Enforcement Proceedings
15. The national do-not-call registry rules did not become effective until October 1,2003.
There are no enforcement proceedings to report as of September 30, 2003.22
111. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
16. This report is issued pursuant to the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 108-
10, 117 Stat. 557, and section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 5 227.
17. IT IS ORDERED that the Secretary SHALL SEND copies of this report to the
appropriate committee and subcommittees of the United States House of Representatives and the United
States Senate.
K. Dane Snowden
Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
will be detailed in our FY2004 Report, the FCC and the FTC have in fact entered into a Memorandum of
21 As
Understanding regarding enforcement of the Registry requirements, and the staffs of the two agencies have
coordinated their enforcement efforts to avoid unnecessary duplicative actions.
22
The FCC enforcement proceedings initiated since September 30,2003, will be described in our FY2004 Report.
5
(202) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN
4450 SOUTH RURAL R O A D
United statefi senate

SUITE 8-130
TEMPE,A 2 85282
COMMITTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS 5 3 2400 E A S T A R I Z O N A

e24 BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 1150
PHOENIX,AZ 85016
(602) 952-2410
+,I
C
l 450 W E S T PASEOREDONDO
$9 SUITE 200
C4
. TUCSON, A Z 85701
(520) 670-6334
(202) 224-7132
December 7,2004 (602) 952-0170
Director
Federal Commucications Cxnmissior!
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554-000 1 J
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, Maurice Coburn, who
has encountered a problem with his radio station being taken off the air.
CORRESPONDENCE TO:

4450 S. Rural Road
Suite B- 130
Tempe, AZ 85282
The response you provide will be most appreciated and will be foiwarded to my constituent.
Sincerely,
*=L
ohn McCain
Mzmg
Enclosure
MEMO
F
. COBURN
/ -
-- Honorable John McCain
SUBJECT- Urgent FCC Matter Regarding KVEZ-FM
D A T E December 3, 2004
the attached Memorandum explaines, the
As
Fcc is abut to illegally and in violation of the
clear intention of Congress, deprive Marlene and
Maurice Coburn of years of hard work and hundreds
of thousands of dollars in investment.
3 ~ this irattsr calls far an
It is ~ 1 2 that
inmediate adfirm request of reconsideration on
your part or our retirement is down the drain
without a just and proper cause.
Desperately,
$ % z U L A
Maurice & Marlene Coburn
MEMORANDUM REGARDING KVEZ-FM
THE FCC, IN I T S LETTER OF FEBRUARY 17, 2004, ORDERING KVEZ

PERMANENTLY OFF THE AIR, MISINTERPRETED THE TERMS OF 4 7 USC 312(g)
AND VIOLATED THE INTENT OF CONGRESS IN ITS PASSAGE OF THE TELECOM-
MUNICATION ACT OF 1996 WHICH INCLUDED SECTION 312(g).
1. Section 403 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (relied
on by the FCC in improperly vacating the license of KVEZ) was en-
titled "ELIMINATION OF UNNECESSARY COMMISSION REGULAION AND FUNC-
TION." (page 200 et seq, U.S. Code & Congressional Administrative
News, 104th Congress, second session, 1996).
2. House 2esolution 1555, Lhe precursor. of the Teleccmrnuni-
cations Act of 1996, stated as its Purpose and Summary, "FINALLY
THE BILL SEEKS TO PRESERVE AND TO PROMOTE THE COMPETITIVENESS OF
OVER-THE-AIR BROADCAST STATIONS." (page 4 8 ) The action of the FCC
in shutting down KVEZ ( f o r presumably failure to file an additional
form or request) results in the opposite of Congressional intent.
3. President Clinton's published statement upon signing the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 into law proclaimed: "IN THE WORLD
OF MASS MEDIA,THIS ACT SEEKS TO REMOVE UNNECESSARY REGULATION AND
OPEN THE WAY FOR FREER MARKETS." By its actions regarding KVEZ-FM
the FCC seems to be attempting to increase or expand its regulatory
powers rather than following the edict of Congress.
4. Both the United States Senate (in Section 303 of its Bill)
and the House of Representatives (in Section 103 of House Amemdment)
made it clear that it was Congress's intention to lessen regulation
of a broadcaster if it is determined that regulation is not neces-
sary for relieving discrimination or promoting competition. The
FCC has ignored the clear intention of Cogress in attempting to re-
move the license of KVEZ for a mere failure to file an additional
report or request after it had been verbally informed that itstrans-
fer request was complete.
5. For the FCC to deny that KVEZ-FM had been broadcasting its
signal during the weeks preceding the presumed deadline to be back
oA the air (as required by 47 USC 312(g).is rediculous when it had
been informed by both written and telephonic communications from
the owner of KVEZ that the station was back on the air and broad-
casting its signal 2 4 hours a day for weeks prior to the deadline.
6 . The FCC itself wps at fault, after being informed both in
writing a n d by telephon6 that KVEZ had resumed broadcasting its
assigned and licensed signal, for not having informed KVEZ prior
to the December deadline, that it wanted additional paper work.
(more)
7. The only violation by radio station KVEZ of either the law or FCC
rules was presumably its failure, unknowingly, to file an additional report or
request, the nature of which has yet to be explained by the Fcc, before it re-
sumed its broadcast schedule. Even when inspected by a field officer of the
FCC in February of 2004, there were no operating violations found after a
complete inspection of KVEZ studios, antenna site, and transmitter during its
broadcast operations.
8. KVEZ-FM was originally licensed and operated as a Native American
radio station, and it was only after years of operating at a financial deficit,
supported regularly by its present owners, and the necessity of its move from
its original antenna location by an increase in power causing interference
with other communications entities, that the present owners paid a substantial
sum to its Native American owners and proceded to replace improper equipment
and seek a substitute location for it transmitter and arltenna. Durinq j t s time
of broadcasting beginning in November of 2003 the station received nothing but
praise from area listeners and organization5. One of the protest letters sent
to the FCC, after KVEZ was summarily ordered off the air in February of 2004,
was 'sentby the Tribal Chairman of the Colorado River Indian Tribes, Daniel
Eddy, Jr. KVEZ, until it was summarily ordered to shut down by the FCC, was
broadcasting news, information, and entertainment to the local residents of the
Parker, Arizona Area which has only one other broadcast station licensed and
broadcasting its AM signal, KLZZ-AM. By ordering KVEZ off the air, the Fcc
has not only irreparably damaged its owners, but it has denied the local area
residents and visitors of an important source of information and entertainment.
9. To deny its owners their right to broadcast, the FCC has in effect
punished them (for no apparent fault except failure to fil$;l additional rqquekts
or report before recommencing its broadcast schedule), with no direct or indi-
rect damage to the public, in an amount greater than their unprecedented fine
of CBS for its national insult to the morals of America during the 2004 Super
Bowl broadcast. Station owners have borrowed money to hire a Washington law
firm, and pending a final resolution by either the FCC or the Federal Court,
they are denied income but continue the expenses of maintaing studios, antenna
site rental, and maintenance while valuable time passes.
IO. United States Courts have repeatedly taken the position that "A BROAD-
CASTING LICENSE IS A THING OF VALUE TO THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ISSUED AND VALU-
ABLE RIGHTS AND INVESTMENTS MADE IN RELIANCE ON A LICENSE SHOULD NOT BE DESTROYED
EXCEPT FOR THE MOST COMPELLING REASON." it is sbitted that the reasons thus
far stated by the FCC are neither m compelling nor within the intentions of
Congress in passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. S e e 86 Corpus Juris Sec-
undum 154, Curchill Tabernacle v. FCC, 160 F2d 244, 81 US App.DC 411, Evangical
Lutheran Synod v. FCC 105 F2d 793, 70 App.DC 270, and L. B. Wilson v. FCC 170
F2d 793, 83 US App.DC 176.
IN SUMMARY, THE FCC HAS ,(IN VACATING THE LICENSE OF KVEZ-FM) N ! VIOLATED
THE CLEAR INTENTIONS OF CGFJGRESS IN PASSING THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACE OF 1996,
AND IMPROPERLY AND ILLEGALLY DESTROYED THE WORK AND INVESTMENT OF STATION OWNERS
BEYOND REASON FOR WHAT W A S AN UNINTENDED ACT OR FAILURE ON PART OF LICENSEE.
Maurice W. Coburn
Owner of KVEZ-FM
Maurice & Marlenc'Coburn
7179 E. Belmont Ave.
P a r a d i s e Valley, AZ 8 5 2 5 3
phone 4 8 0 - 6 0 7 - 5 3 5 3
March 19, 2004
MEMO TO FILE
Maurice and Marlene Coburn, t h e owners of KVEZ-FM through
E a g l e Broadcasting Group, have b o t h been active in civic and
political. a f f a i r s .
Marlene organized a n d was President of the largest Repub-

lican Women's Club in the State of A r i z o n a , the London Bridge
Republican Women's Club. She h a s been b o t h a State a n d National
O f f i c e r of the Republican Womens Federation. S h e was the local
Campaign Manager for John McCain i n L a k e Havasu City when he first
ran f o r t h e United States Senate. She remains a Precinct Commit-
tee Person in Paradise Valley and is an officer of the Paradisc
Republican Women's Club.
Maury Coburn was both a Republican Precinct Committeeman a n d
served as Mohave County Republican Chairman. As a youth, Maurice
was chairman of the Cook C o u n t y Young Republican Organization in
Illinois a n d served on the Staff of Governor Ogilvie.
B o t h Marlene and Maurice have been active in many c i v i c and
community benefit organizations. They have h e l p e d raise funds f o r
campaigns and candidates.
As a radio and-Community television broadcaster, Maurice h a s
b r o a d c a s t countless school a n d community events at a loss in order
to serve t h e communities where they w e r e located---Parker, Lakc
Havasu City, Kinghan, and Mohave Valley.
COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES
Colorado River Indian Reservation
ROUTE 1, BOX 23-B
PARKER, ARIZONA 85344
TELEPHONE (928) 669-9211
March 17, 2004
Mr. Jerry Hale

KVEZ FM
1930 Mesquite Ave., 3A
Lake Havasu City, Arizona 86403
Dear Mr. Hale:
The Colorado River Indian Tribes, pursuant to your request, has sent letters to
the Honorable John McCain, the Honorable Jon Kyl and the Honorable Raul
Grijalva, on behalf of KVEZ FM to support its licensing issues before the Federal
Communications Commission.
I hope the letters add support to your efforts. If I can be of further assistance,
contact my office.
Sincerely,
COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES
Daniel Eddy, Jr.

Tribal Chairman
December 27,2004
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0403894

4450 South Rural Road
Suite B-130
Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Maurice Coburn, President
of Eagle Broadcasting Group, Ltd. (“Eagle”), licensee of former broadcast station KVEZ(FM),
Parker. Arizona. Mr. Coburn contacted your office regarding the status of KVEZ. I appreciate
the opportunity to respond.
As you are aware, the Communications Act provides that “if a broadcast station fails to
transmit broadcast signals for any consecutive 12-month period, then the station license granted
for the operation of that broadcast station expires at the end of that period, notwithstanding any
provision, term or condition of the license to the contrary.’’ On February 17,2004, the staff of
the Commission’s Media Bureau concluded that Eagle had not resumed authorized operations
because it was broadcasting from a site that had not been authorized by the Commission.
Therefore, as required by the Act, the staff determined that Eagle had forfeited its license for
failure to operate and call sign KVEZ-FM was deleted from the Commission’s database. Eagle
has filed petitions requesting that the staff reconsider its decision.
Please be assured that Eagle’s petitions are being reviewed carefully and a decision will
be issued as expeditiously as possible. For updates regarding the status of this matter, Mr.
Coburn may telephone the Media Bureau’s contact representative at 202-4 18-2730.
further assistance.
Sincerely,
Chief, Office of Broadcast License Policy

Media Bureau
241 RUSSELLSENATEOFFICEBUILDING
ARIZONA ( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN 4450 SOUTHRURALROAD

COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE, SUITE 6-130
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION TEMPE,A 2 85282
( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289
COMMITTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS 2400 E A S TARIZONA
BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 11 50
PHOENIX,A 2 85016
( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410
450 W E S T PASEOREDONDO
SUITE 200
TUCSON,A Z 85701
(520) 670-6334
December 16,2004 TELEPHONE FOR HEARINGI M P A I R E D

( 2 0 2 ) 224-7132
(602) 952-0170
Ms.Martha Johnston
Director
Federal Communications Cvmmksiun
Dear Ms. Johnston:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, Robert Coultard, who
has encountered a problem with Inphonic, Inc.
CORRESPONDENCE TO:

4450 S. Rural Road
Suite B- 130
Tenipe, AZ 85282
Sincerely,
John McCain
J Mlzmg
Enclosure

November 2,2004

Recently an attempt was made to victimize my wife and me through an internet ad-ware
spamming scheme.
A number of different orders were placed, using our email address, for cell phones and
cell phone accounts.
Most of the companies involved sent a confirming email to us. Upon realizing that there
was no valid credit card, legitimate signature, or other response from us forthcoming, (we
were on vacation during the attack), they nullified any “orders” in their system.
Unfortunately, T Mobile and their telephone shipper Inphonic, Inc., decided that
despite having any formal authorization from us, to open a cell phone account and
send us a phone anyway.
This involved a rather lengthy and tedious cancellation process on our part, since both T
Mobile and Inphonics. Inc. were reluctant, even recalcitrant. to close the account and stop
billing us.
We have recently received another bill from T Mobile (dated 10/16/04) necessitating
another phone call from us. This bill was received after we had closed our “account”.
The idea that anyone can own an account in someone else’s name without any formal
authorization is outrageous!
This highlights a two-fold problem facing all honest and ethical persons today.
That is, number one, the need for some kind of governmental regulation of the internet.
As much as mavens of the industry howl that it is not necessary, the industry has shown
itself incapable of policing the venue or, in many cases, even adequately protecting their
own subscribers.
The second half of this problem involves the idea that many companies seem to have
today that any sales tactic that increases revenue is OK. This is partially the result of
recent deregulations, where many companies no longer seem to feel any worry about how
consumers feel about them because the government says it doesn’t want to interfere in the
fair and free market.
Companies should fear retribution from the government. Government’s job is to protect
the people. Spamming and the opening of unauthorized accounts are unethical and
wrong.
Regulations, along with severe penalties for abuse, must be put into place to protect &
3
average computer user. f
(1
This, coupled with stringent enforcement, including sanctions against countries that wix
not rein hr abusive off-shore internet industries, is the only answer, if the internet is going
to be fit to use by average people.
Please notice the enclosures I have sent you confirming all of the above statements. I
Thank you for your time and your consideration regarding this matter.
Robert G. Coultard
1089 West Elgin St.
Chandler, Arizona 85224
(480-82 1-4269)
Dear CATHY COULTARD, September 20, 2004
Congratulations on your recent purchase for a new wireless phone from We Deliver Cellular! In an
effort to expedite your order, we shipped your phone despite our inability to collect the initial
pavment of $9.99 on the credit card YOU used to dace your order.
Payment is due upon txkeipt and may be made by check or valid credit card. See below for
details and instructions.
Please keep in mind that we will continue to attempt to collect on your credit card until you respond
with a new form of payment. In the event that this charge appears on your credit card statement,
return this form along Svith a copy of the credit card statement showing the charge and mark the
appropriate box a t the bottbm. +
Please note that you are s t i l l obligated to the Terms and Conditions of your Service Contract. A copy
-
of these terms is included in the info-rmation packet that came with your new phone.
If you have any questions regarding your order, you may contact our Customer Relations Department
toll free at (800)510-7319. We hope you enjoy your new wireless phone!
?--
-
Sincerely,
-- ,
Customer Relaticns Department
Please make check payable t InPhonic, Inc and $end payment to: i
InPhonic Inc.
Accounts Receivable
Attn: NCCT19
9301 Peppercorn Place
Largo, HD 20774 \'
City: State: Mobile Number: 1480) 516-2797

Zip Code: AMOUNT DUE: $9.99
a Bill my credit card: Visa/MC/Discovei-/Amex

111 Check enclosed (made payable to InPhonic, I n c )
According to my credit card statement, the charge has already been collected, enclosed is a copy of the
statement.
CC# : __ ExpDate: CVN#:
(3 digit code found on back of card)
Signature:
. -
SALES RECEIPT
Order #: 372115566
We Deliver Cellular
Welcome to our Wireless World!
I CUSTOMER INFORMATION
Your Mobile Number is. (480) 516-2797 8 Order Date: 09/18/04
\
Shipping Address: Billing Address:
CATHY COULTARD CATHY.COULTARD
1089 W ELGIN ST -- - 1089 W. ELGIN ST
CHANDLER, A 2 8 5 2 2 4 CHANDLER, A2 85224
-1
Phone: Samsung R225m
EQUIPMENTIPAYMENT INFORM4TION
e
.
z
1 I
Payment type:
Carrier: T-Habits sa:es wc2: $0.00

ESN: 010341000288619
I Electronic Serial Number)
'
,
Shipping:
_-
ProcessingFee: $0.00
$9.99
Activation date: 9/ 18/2004
Total: $9.99
'\ NOTE: This amount will appear on

your credit card statement as
\ "Wireless Phone Sale"
\ I EQUIPMENTMscouwT UrFoRlrrsTl<ml
Aq equipment purchase discount of $150 has been provided to the customer in exchange for activating
ahd maintaining a new, non-substitute T-Mobile Wireless mobile number on any commercially published
i -Mobile Wireless rate plan for a minimum of 181 consecut~ -ve days. Should this number disconnect
(permanently or temporarily, except based on the fault ofT-Mobile Wireless) from T-Mobile Wireless, or
if the customer's wireless service rate plan is changed to one of a lower service rate plan, within the
same time period (181 coIIGBcxlfive days), this discount Will be null and void and l
hcustomer must
reimburse this Authorized T-Mobile Wireless Representative $150. The customer herein provides
authorization for the $150 to be charged to the customer's credit card without need for further
approval; provided, however, the $150 Will only be charged if the monthly service rate is changed to one
of a lower monthly service rate or ifthe wireless phone bill is not paid for 181consecutive days.
Please retain this sales receipt as your proof of purchase for warranty or service work. Your sales receipt is your record of
warranty and must be present should any warranty service be required.
Thank You For Shopping With Us!

A GUIDE TO YOUR WIRELESS SERVICE
I Order #: 372115566 I
lSERVlCEPlAN DETAILS I
Your Mobile Numbe-r is (480) 516-2797
Activation Date: 9/18/2004
c
Monthly service rate: $39.99
Service Commitment: 12 Months
c; c
FJlinutes included in plan: 600 \
Additional Airtime minutes: $0.40
Nights and Weekend minutes: Unlimited Night & Weekends 1
ActivationFee: $35.00
Service plan: Get More k
Long distance per minute rate: $O.OO/min
Roaming per minute rate when leaving local service area: $O.OO/min
T-Mobile Early termination fee for canceling service: $200.00
Early termination fee for purchase discount: $150
\
NOTE: The first month's access fee and included minutes are pro-rated. This service plan may chan
T-Mobile for the most current information regarding your rate plan.
N/A - This feature does not apply to your servke.
y
Need Help? Who to Call'Wheir..l
1. When you first receive your phone from WeDeliver Cellular:
\\V
us
-
+
If You Have Questions About:
Returning or exchanging your phone

Ordering Additional Phones
Accessory Kit
Your Sales Receipt
Contact: We Deliver Cellular

..
http:/ /www. wirelessworldhe1p.com
1
4-r
2. After you start using your phone with T-Mobile:
If You Have QuestionsAbout:
Features like: Voicemail or Caller I D

Your rate plan
Your monthly wireless bill
Contact: T-Mobile
(800) 937-8997
. I 1 I . I . , , , ' , I . . I. ..
_-_
--- --
-1 ./-
Your Statement
Statement For: CATHY COULTARD
Mobile Number : (480)516-2797
Account Number: 3 6 9 5 7 7
lmporfant Information
This is your final bill for wireless
service and reflects all charges
applied to your account through
10/16/04. Any remaining credit
balances will be viewed for a refund
after 60 days from cancellation.
ISummary of Charges '-

I CATHY COULTARD
Previous Balance $ 1089 W ELGIN ST
Pmt Rec'd $ CHANDLER, AZ 85224-7568
Monthly Service Charges $ 25.47
Total Amount Due by 11/13/04 \
Monthly service charges from 9/18/04 - 10/1W04 ,
Service Plan Charges Adjustments Usage

Charges OneTime
Charges Taxes&
Surcharges Total
Charges
LJ.41
NW Get More wmts $ 21.33 $ (238.66) $ - $ 23500 Z
..W
7m
.
J l
OC 1-
PLEASE DETACH THIS PORTION AND RETURN WITH Y o w l PAYMENT PLEASE MAKE SURE ADDRESS SHOWS MROUOH WINDOW

Mobile Number: (480) 516-2797
Account Number: 369576083
T-MOBILE
PO BOX 742596
CINCINNATl,OH 45274-2596 and complete the reverse side
llll~lll~lllll~lll'llllllllllllllll~l,ll,,ll,lllllll For EasyPay Option - check box and complete the
0
reverse side
0 If you have changed your address - check box and
record new address on the reverse side.
$-. ..
Mobile Number : (480)516-2797
Account Number: 369576083
Customer Service Number 1-8o(F937-8997

Oct 18.2004 , Page 3 of 3
Account Service Detail

Amount Totals
Monthly Senrice Charges $ 21.33
Partial monthly charge for NW Get More w/Nts from 9118/04 to 10/02/04 $ 20.00
Partial monthly charge for NW Get More wiNts from 10/03/04 to 10/03/04 $ 1.33
Adjustments to Bill $ (238.66
Activation Fee Waiver $ (200.00)
CC Goodwill Credit ADJ $ (38.66)
One Time Charge ., $ 235.00
Contract Termination Fee $ 200.00
One time charge for Activation Fee , $ 35.00
Taxes, Surcharges and Assessments $ 7.80
Federal Excise Tax . $ 0.68
~ ~.
Federal Universal Service Fund - 0.79

State Sales Tax 3.15
County Sales Tax 0.40
Local Sales Tax 1.55
State 91 1 0.37
Regulatory Programs Fee* 0.86
'Fee we collect and retain to help cover our costs related to funding and complying with
government mandates, programs and obligations.
potal Charges $ 25.47 I

JAN 1 2 2005

Tempe, AZ 85282
Re: Informal Complaint 04-10138979
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Robert Coultard,
regarding the difficulties he is experiencing with the service and charges provided by T-
Mobile.
On December 22, 2004, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed T-
Mobile 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,
T-Mobile states that they investigated Mr. Coultard’s account and determined that the
allegation of fraud has been substantiated. As such, T-Mobile states that it has issued credits
to Mr. Coultard’s account for all charges associated with the account, in the amount of
$263.14. T-Mobile has confirmed that the account remains closed and reflects a zero balance.
Based on the information provided, the Commission does not plan to take any further action
with respect to Mr. Coultard’s complaint.
Sincerely,
I
l’y K. Dane Snowdeh’

Chief
Enclosure
“ I 1‘ .
December 24,2004
Martha Contee, Chief

Consumer Inquiries & Complaints Division
445 12’hStreet, SW, Room CY-B514
Re: Robert Coultard

IC NO.04-BO138979
T-Mobile Account No. 369576083
Dear Ms. Contee:
T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) is in receipt of your letter dated December 22,2004
regarding Mr. Robert Coultard’s above-referenced account.
T-Mobile has investigated Mr. Coultard’s account and determined that the allegation of
fraud has been substantiated. As such, we have issued credits to Mr. Coultard’s account
for all charges associated with the account, in the amount of $263.14.
T-Mobile has confirmed that the account remains closed and reflects a zero balance.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me at the address listed below.
Very truly yours,
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Maria Parker
Executive Customer Relations
cc: Mr. Robert Coultard

1089 W Elgin St.
Chandler, AZ 85224-7568
T-Mobile USA, Inc.

PO Box 37380
Albuquerque, NM 87176
“ 1 1‘ .
ARIZONA ( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN
- . 4 4 5 0 SOUTH RURALROAD
C O M M l l l E E ON COMMERCE. SUITE 6-130
SCIENCE, A N D TRANSPORTATION TEMPE,A2 85282
COMMIITEE ON ARMED SERVICES 1480) 897-6289

BILTMORECIRCLE
SUITE 1150
PHOENIX, A 2 8 5 0 1 6
(602) 952-2410
450 W E S T PASEOREDONDO
SUITE 2 0 0
TUCSON,AZ 85701
January 3,2005 ( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
( 2 0 2 ) 224-7132
(602)952-0170
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Darrell & Lula Henry who have
encountered a problem with the Federal Access Charge on their telephone service.
respond directly to Darrell & Lula Henry.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mxsh
Enclosure(s)

a-
/
JAN 2 1 2005
Control No. 0500040MA
Mr. and Mrs. Darrell Henry

620 E. Vekol Road
Casa Grande, AZ 85222
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Henry:
Thank you for your letter addressed to Senator John McCain, regarding your concerns
about the Federal Access charge listed on your telephone bill. Your letter has been forwarded
to the Commission for our review.

jurisdiction over interstate and foreign telecommunications service matters. It appears that the
issues briefly described in your correspondence regarding your postal mail service and health
benefits are within the jurisdiction of other agencies.
charge assessed by the government; it is a federally regulated charge imposed by local phone
companies and capped by the FCC. This charge is collected by local phone companies to
recover some of the costs of the telephone lines connected to homes or businesses. Local
telephone companies incur these costs regardless of whether the customer places or receives
long distance calls. The government receives no money from this charge. It is not a tax.
Mr. and Mrs. Henry Page 2

telephone bill. 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.
We appreciate your concern in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you
have further questions.
Sincerely,
\Ey K. Dane Snowded’

Chief
Enclosures
i
I
.-- 1 1‘
( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN
C O M M l n E E O N COMMERCE,
,:;>. 4450 SOUTH R U R A L ROAD
L,? SUITE 8-130
cc TEMPE,A 2 85282
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
<lL-7
:*,a.
r;z
-:, 2400 EASTARIZONA
C'*J
. . BILTMORECIRCLE
;2:: SUITE 1150
*;:r: PHOENIX, A Z 85016
(602) 952-2410
pl." 450 W E S T PASEOREDONDO
C'bd SUITE 2 0 0
TUCSON, A 2 85701
(520) 670-6334
TELEPHONEFOR HEARING IMPAIRED

( 2 0 2 ) 224-7132
January 19,2005 ,
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director:
1 wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, Maurice Coburn, who
has encountered a problem with his radio station.
CORRESPONDENCE TO:

4703 S. Lakeshore Drive
Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
I f you should have any questions in the meantime, you can reach my office at (480) 897-6289. I
Sincer ely,

JM/zmg
Enclosure
I , J,. .c,ryyIIIIIL
. .. ,
89/16/2884 88:38 F R O M TU-23 Lk Hauasu C i t y , !A2 TO 14888978389 . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . .P. . 01
Michelle Gramley
Office of John McCain
4703 s . Lakeshore Drive
Dear Michelle:
As suggested in our phone conversation on Friday, I: have .,
prepared a summary and urgent request f o r Roy J. S t e w a r t at, t h e

FCC. I f he decides that our request has merit, he undoubtedly'
h a s a u t h o r i t y to issue a temporary permit (if he is u n r i 1 i i n . g
to issue his broader opinion at t h i s time).
Since Roy Stewart's letter to Senator McCain was 6bvioug.l
not signed by him, it is questionable whether t h e matter has e
come to his personal attention!
If you c a n n o t g e t a satisfactory response from Roy St,ewar
Assistant, it may be necessary for Senator McCain to place a p,er-;': , .
L. i '
, .I.
'
, ..
sonal call to Roy S t e w a r t or Michael Powell---This because.we.ak

. . '
rapidly running out of t i m e for necessary action! , .,:: . .

. .
Thanks for your prompt attention- If I a m o u t when you &I

feel f r e e to call station manager, Jerry Halle (telephone ,928-85 ..
928-764-2340) for any questions or i n s t r u c t i o n s which.yau';'. ',
8 8 4 4 have
may or . , ;.
Respectfu i l y ,
. .
P.S. My Paradise Valley number is 480-607-5353.

89/16/2884 BB:31 FROM TU-23 Lk Hauasu City. FIZ TO 14888978389
January 18,2005
Roy J, Stewart, Chief

Broadcast License Policy
Washington, D, C. 2004
Re: KVEZ-FM, CN-0403894, URGENT
Dear Mr. Stewart:
On February 23, 2 0 0 4 , KVEZ-FM of P a r k e r , arizona, ceased
broadcasting its signal by Order of the FCC. T h a t Order was
issued under the theory that e v e n though w e had been broadcasting
2 4 hours a day and 7 days a w e e k , beginning November 22, 2003
(which broadcast activity had been reported to t h e FCC by letter
o f November 24, 2004), KVEZ violated Section 312(g) of the Tele-
communications Act of 1996 by n o t being on t h e air by December 21.
we believe that the FCC Order misinterpreted the intention
of Congress and improperly narrowed the meaning bf tbroadeasting
and/or transmitting asignal. Appropriate protests and l e g a l pe-
titions have been pending before the Commission since March of :2';6'04. '. .. . :'
.. ..
while we 'respect t h e right of the Commission to attempt ,to . . . ..
broaden the r e a c h o f Section 312(g), KVEZ is now in a Catch 22' sl'tu- : , 'i.;
ation because we are rapidly approaching the anniversary date of:;our'.! ;
being ordered off the a i r . unless this can be remedied, w e cou1.d I' :$
w i n our argument concerning section 312(g) as is affecting l a s t ' . . . . j( -$
year's order to cease broadcasting, but y e t be off t h e air for :a,ne. .::"
year prior to reaching a final decision. .. . ':.
In order that our legal rights, whatever they are, be preser.-.

ved, it is urgent that KVEZ be allowed to broadcast i t s s$gaal',ff.dr
a minimum o f 24 hours prior to February 23rd thus providing the ;;,
additional time apparently needed to obtain a final deterrninati;on . ,j.
from the FCC and t h e n , if necessary from the Court of A p p e a l s . ,:in. ' '
Support of t h i s limited broadcast p e r m i t , we remind you of this':.;:
' 1 , An inspection by one of your own f i e l d representatives . i h . ,,
Febrary of 2004, confirmed that, except for some final paperwork, :
d e s i r e d by you, KVEZ was broadcasting in full compliance w i t h aX.1
. .
aplicable FCC Regulations. , . .
2- After t h e filin3 of o u r 301 f o r an approval of .the ch.anged.

broadcast location, we w e r e informed by oreof your own staff persons
( I believe it was either Norm Miller or G l e n Greisman) that our,I'ap-
lication was all in order except that we should obtain a waivex':;.from
the F A A before construction. After obtaining such a waiver from.,the
%A and forwardllng to t h e FCC We assumed t h a t we were free to pibee&
with constructing our n e w facilities. Being s h o r t of money fo,,r,:ijur
neededequipment and c O n s t r l . l c t i o n costs we had no FCC attorney. ;;. ,
(rnorej . , .
Page 2, 1/18/05
R. J. Stewart
, .
I
3. N o w if additional paper work or a formal p e r m i t was
' needed by KVEZ befor commencing i t s broadcast operations, the
FCC had ample time to inform us of this fact after receiving o u r
n o t i c e d November that we had resumed broadcast activities. If
W E 2 had been promptly notified, either by letter or telephone
(rather than a telephone call from a Mr. Xwan congratulating us
on being on the air within the deadline) KVEZ could and would have
taken the necessary steps to see that we were not in v i o l a t i o n ,
and that we were broadcasting with approval prior to December date.
4. Prior to our going back on the air in November of 2003,
our station engineer, Jerry h a l e , searched the FCC data bank, a t
my request, and reported that there was apparently no f u r t h e r im-
pediment to our commencing broadcast a c t i v i t i e s with the prompt
notification to the FCC (as your records will show that we did).
5. The broadcast a c t i v i t i e s O € KVEZ from November of 2003
until February of 2004, when ordered off the a i r , was done w i t h
no harm to either the public or other licensed broadcasters, and
i t engendered only praise and thnks f r o m t h e community and local
leaders. If the license is now lost, years of hard work and savings
will have been l o s t to me and my w i f e who have served the community
of Parker and the Colorado River Indian Tribe with news and a window
to t h e outside world. Y o u r files will show even a letter from the
Tribal Chairman, Daniel Eddy, requesting o u r continued brodcasting.
.. .
. , .
. ....
, . So that both the FCC and KVEZ can retain their arguments for . ..
. .
. .:. :::' . . ' a. f i n a l legal determination either by the comiission or the Court . .j ;
.', '
'..'.':! of Appeals, it is urgent that KVEZ be allowed to broadcast its sig-,,'. :,:,. .
- ..:
, I . .
.. nal for a minimum of 2 4 hours prior to February 23, 20.05. . . . . . ;. ,

,
: .: .
. .. Respectfully, A
Maurice W. coburn
cc: Hon. John McCain

Hen. Jon Kyl
Hon. T r e n t Franks
Federal Communications Comm ssion
February 17, 2005 CN0500178

4703 South Lakeshore Drive
Suite 1

Thank you for your follow-up inquiry on behalf of Mr. Maurice Coburn, President
of Eagle Broadcasting Group, Ltd. (“Eagle”), licensee of former broadcast station
KVEZ(FM), Parker, Arizona. Mr. Coburn contacted your office concerning his request
for temporary authorization to operate the station’s facilities prior to February 23,2005,
the 12-month anniversary of Eagle’s cessation of operations. Mr. Coburn believes that
resumption of KVEZ’s operations is necessary to preserve Eagle’s pending challenge to a
previous Media Bureau staff decision which determined that the station’s license was
forfeited. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
As you know, the staffs decision was premised on Section 3 12(g) of the
Communications Act, which provides for the automatic forfeiture of broadcast licenses
upon failure to transmit broadcast signals for 12 consecutive months. However, Section
312(g) was amended as part of the Consolidated FY 2005 Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-
447). As a result of this amendment, it is not necessary for KVEZ to resume operations
by February 23,2005. The staff notified Eagle of the effect of this statutory modification
in a January 3 1,2005 letter.
For your information and review, a copy of this letter is enclosed. If the
Commission concludes that KVEZ’s license was not forfeited, any resulting 12-month
period of silence would not, under the revised statute, prevent the Commission fiom
reinstating the license.
I hope this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of

further assistance.
Sincerely,
Chiif, Office of Broadcast License Policy

Media Bureau
Enclosure
(202) 224-2235
5353 NORTH 1 6 ~ HSTREEl

CHAIRMAN
SUITE 105
C O M M l n E E ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE, 4703 SOUTH LAKESHOREDRIVE
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION SUITE 1
TEMPE. AZ 85282
(480) '897-6289
407 WEST CONGRESS STREET

SUITE 103
TUCSON, AZ 85701
(520) 670-6334
Februaiy 17, 2005 I ' TELEPHONEFOR HEARINGIMPAIRED

(602) 952-0170
Director
Consumei- and Governmental Affairs Bureau
345 Street, sIvA<
Washington. DC 20554-000 1
Deai- Director
1 wish to bring to your attention a matter conceining my constituent, Will Cauthen, who has
e;icountei.ed a problem with the Universal Service Access Mechanism
Plmse iii\ estigate my constituent's claim. within the existing rules, regulations and ethical
gi?idelilles. and probide me with a copy of the final decision. MARK ALL
CORRESPONDENCE TO
Attn: Kathryn Cunningham

Suite 1
Tempe. AZ 85282
7 he I espoiise qoti pi ovide w i l l be most appreciated and will be foiwarded to my constituent

If you should habe any questions in the meantime, you can reach my office at (480) 897-6289 I
look foiwai-d to your reply at your earliest convenience
Sincerely,
J6hn McCain
JMlzkc
Enclosure

3
Des DIVERSIFIED
C O M P U T E R S O L U T I O N S I, N C .
/
2 Senator John McCain
February 14,2005
/ United States Senator for Arizona

Tempe Office
4703 S. Lakeshore Dnve, Suite One
Tempe, AZ 85282
Senator McCain:
I represent Diversified Computer Solutions, Inc. a small, privately-owned technology business

headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia and with offices in South Carolina and Tennessee. I am
writing you out of utter desperation and frustration. I realize that your time is at a premium,
so I will get straight to the point.
Our company has participated in the Universal Service Access Mechanism, commonly referred to
as “E-Rate”, since the program’s inception. Payment for services rendered under this program
have always been less than optimal, taking sixty to ninety days on average from invoice to
payment. The past year, however, has been exceptionally trying. We are currently carrying
$448,899.42 in accounts receivable for program year six that are more than 120 days old. As of
today, we have many invoices that were submitted 123, 129, 147 and 183 days ago. This total
does not include invoices that we cannot yet submit due to the prolonged approval process.
I implore you to do whatever you can to resolve the system-wide problems that continue to
plague the E-Rate system. The E-Rate program is often in the news due to corruption and
malfeasance of applicants and service providers who squander the funds that are earmarked for
our underprivileged students. What is not widely discussed is small businesses driven into
bankruptcy due to the practices of the Universal Service Administration Company (USAC), the
Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of USAC and the National Exchange Carrier Association
(NECA). Because of the large amounts of long overdue receivables, we are often not able to pay
our own bills and we have had to go deeply into debt to creditors in order to remain fiscally
viable.
Thank you for considering our plea. Anything that you can do would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
I
I
-
Will Cauthen
Director, E-Rate Services
803.419.3501 x 303
wcauthen@goDCS.com
5575 PEACHTREE ROAD, ATLANTA, G A 3 0 3 4 1 ( 4 0 4 ) 23 1 - 5 6 6 8 FAX: ( 4 0 4 1 23 1-5573 WWW.DCSATLANTA.CDM

1 1 5 A T R I U M WAY, SUITE 1 2 5 , COLUMBIA, SC 29223 (8031 4 1 9 - 3 5 0 1 FAX: (803)4 1 9 - 3 5 0 5 WWW.DCSCOLUMBIA.COM
PD5T OFFICE BOX 2 1 4 1 6, CHARLESTON, 5 C 294 1 3 - 1 4 1 8 ( 8 4 3 1 722-1 1 6 9 FAX: ( 8 4 3 1 722-8980

April 21,2005

4703 S. Lakeshore Drive, Suite I
Tempe, AZ 85282
Attn: Kathryn Cunningham
Thank you for forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Will
Cauthen, Director, E-Rate Services for Diversified Computer Solutions, Inc.
(Diversified), regarding payments from the schools and libraries universal service support
mechanism, which is commonly referred to as the E-rate program.
The Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative

Company (Administrator) informs us that it has made payments to Diversified in the
amount of $515,016.80 for Funding Year 2003 (referred to as “program year six” in Mr.
Cauthen’s correspondence). This amount includes payments totaling $379,390.29 for
invoices that were in process for more than 120 days. There is only one remaining
invoice that has been in processing for more than 120 days, and this invoice is scheduled
to be paid shortly.
We appreciate your interest in the E-rate program. If you have any additional
questions about the program, please feel free to contact me at (202) 41 8-7400.
Sincerely,
V i c d S . Robinson
Deputy Chief
2 4 1 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
JOHN McCAlN WASHINGTON, DC 2 0 5 1 0 - 0 3 0 3
ARIZONA 1202) 2 2 4 - 2 2 3 5
:r*,..
!
5 3 5 3 NORTH1 6 STREET ~ ~
CHAIRMAN SUITE 1 0 5
COMMIITEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS PHOENIX. A 2 8 5 0 1 6
1602) 9 5 2 - 2 4 1 0
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 4 7 0 3 SOUTH LAKESHORE DRIVE
SUITE 1
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION TEMPE. AZ 8 5 2 8 2
(480) 897-6289
407 WESTCONGRESS
SUITE 1 0 3 STREET
TUCSON. A 2 8 5 7 0 1
(5201 6 7 0 - 6 3 3 4
March 9, 2005 TELEPHONE
FOR HEARING IMPAIRED
(602) 952-0170
Michael Powell, Director

345 12th Street, SW
\Vash,ngion, IIC 20554 dOOZ
Dear Mr Powell 59"

I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Dave Barbour who has encountered a
problem with telephone solicitation.
Because the situation is under your jurisdiction, I am respecthlly refening this matter to you
respond directly to Dave Barbour.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John McCain
JWtak
Enclosure(s)
PRINTEDON RECYCLED PAPER

From Dave Barbour
13601 E. Deer Pass Rd.
Dewey AZ 86301
Senator McCain;
Thank you for the response. I am enclosing some of the papers I have along with my permission
letter. John what I want is responsible and fair treatment. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights assures
that ALL laws will apply equally to everyone without exception only allowing for the president to
escape prosecution while he is in office of civil or some criminal acts. I could not find the response
letter fiom the National Comptroller of the Currency’s office but I was told verbally and I quote
“National Banks are not governed by anyfederal or local laws” by the AG’s office as well as the
NCC. I brought up about the federal consumer protection act which was violated in this case and I
was again told the FTC has no jurisdiction, even the SEC doesn’t as National banks are exempt by
“
congress”. If that is the case and indeed congress did pass that act then lets remove those laws Erom
the books and tell the world about it that dealing with these National Banks is caveat emptor, watch
your wallet and your kids. It is so obviously wrong to deregulate anything without fully doing it, but
to deregulate then grant exemptions from laws is offensive and immoral. The FTC just published a
report 1/31 that said banks and credit card companies operating as national banks were- major
source of complaints last year. Both the FTC and the Attorney Generals office said they can do
nothing as “congress has granted these banks total exemption”. If this is true then this congress has
failed miserably in their duties to the public.
I collected the phone number shown with some trouble using a special trace, (918)270-7459, the
many other calls came from the same area code and exchange with differing line codes. This fact
PROVES it was malicious and intentional, not an accident with “phone problems” as I was once told.
Further they now say they have “no office in Tulsa” yet the numbers are listed to Direct Merchants
Bank by the phone company. I can also supply statements, notarized if reguired, fiom my employees
stating they received recorded calls about “the debt of David Barbour” without concern of who had
answered the phone at my office. Recorded calls of this type violate FCC part 15 common carrier
rules and regulations let alone the Fair Debt Collection act of the FTC under the Consumer Credit
Act. The calls were originally made from Direct Merchants Bank and continued after Household
Credit Card Services bought them out. Household Now says they are “not a bank just Household
credit card services” in a call just received 2/20/05 despite after 2 years of chasing them I got “they
are exempt by act of congress as a national bank”.
John I had suffered a heart attack and had other medical problems, not a time to get calls at 6AM or
1OPM every day of the week, and often every 15-20 minutes. After calling them on Friday and telling
them when the payment would be made I received 8 calls on Saturday and 5 on Sunday and each day
some were at 6 or 6:30 in the morning. These companies are not alone in this practice as I received
numerous calls at my office from Capitol One Bank and others about employees, again without
thought as to who answered the phone.
I am not asking for anything other than just, moral treatment and correcting what has become a
national problem. I expect that the Federal Consumer Protection Act by congress will be enforced
against everyone without exemption in all cases. I can not afford an attorney for litigation living just
on SS payments alone. The debts are mine, I expect to pay them.
Page 1 of 1
From: COMPLAINT@FTC.GOV
To: dave2@diamondtouch.com
Date: 9/27/04 1:54:54 PM
Subject: Response to your complaint Ref No. 5049593
Thank you for visiting the FTC's web page and for using our NEW electronic Talk To Us form. Here's
what happened to your information after you sent it to us:
One of our consumer counselors reviewed the information you sent us. If it was related to the FTC's law
enforcement responsibilities, we entered it into our shared law enforcement data system. We share this
data system with law enforcement agencies throughout the United States and Canada. Attached is your
electronic response, which includes your reference number. Any enclosures can be found at
www.FTC.GOV under the News Releases, Publications, Speeches option.
Information from consumers like you helps Federal, State and Local authorities investigate possible
illegal practices and enforce our laws. Someone from the Federal Trade Commission or another law
enforcement agency may contact you if they need additional information to help them in an
investigation.
Thank you for using our Talk To Us form, and please continue to use the FTC's web page, www.ftc.gs
to get fkee information to help you avoid costly consumer problems.
file://C:\tmp\ELP5372.TMP 2/20/05
response.txt
September 27,2004
David Barbour
13601 E.Deer Pass Rd
Dewey, AZ 86327
Re: FTC Ref. No.
5049593
Dear David Barbour:
The Federal Trade Commission does not have jurisdiction over banks or credit cards th
at are issued by banks. You
should decide what kind of bank you were dealing with and file your complaint with the approp
riate bank regulatory agency:
1. If the bank has the word National or the letters N.A. in its title, the complaint
should be sent to Comptroller of the
Currency, Customer Assistance Group, 1301 McKinney Street, Suite 3710, Houston TX 77010, 1 (
800) 613-6743.
2. A complaint about a state-chartered bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve

System should be sent to the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Director, Division of Consumer and Communit
y Affairs, Washington, D.C.
20551, (202) 452-3693.
3. Complaints regarding state-chartered, federally insured banks that are not member
s of the Federal Reserve
System should be sent to the Office of Bank Customer Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corpo
ration, Washington, D.C.
20429, 1 (800) 934-3342.
4. Complaints about federal-chartered savings banks should be sent to the Office of

'tW Supervision, Division of
Cpnsumer Affairs, Washington, DC 20552, 1 (800) 842-6929.
We regret that we are unable to be of direct assistance to you in this instance.
Sincerely yours,
Consumer Response C
enter
Page 1
m
April 18, 2005
Control No. 0500590MA-Pol
Mr. Dave Barbour

13601 E. Deer Pass Road
Dewey, AZ 86301
Dear Mr. Barbour:
I have been asked to respond to your February 25, 2005 letter addressed to Senator
John McCain regarding debt collection calls you are receiving at your home and office. You
indicate that despite efforts to stop the calls by contacting the companies responsible for them,
you continue to receive them at all hours of the day. Your letter was forwarded to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) for our review, and I will try to shed
some light on the issues you identify in your letter.
Except as otherwise specified in the Communications Act, the FCC has jurisdiction
over interstate and foreign telecommunications service matters. In addition, the FCC is the
agency responsible for adopting rules to implement the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). Under the TCPA rules, callers may not make “telephone solicitations” to numbers
registered with the national do-not-call registry. While the TCPA rules prohibit the making of
“telephone solicitations” to numbers on the national do-not-call registry and require callers to
place individuals on company-specific do-not-call lists upon their request, the rules generally
do not apply to calls made for the exclusive purpose of collecting on a debt.
Many telephone-related issues are nevertheless subject to the rules of other agencies.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), for example, is charged with enforcing the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in unfair,
deceptive, or abusive practices, including over-charging, harassment, and disclosing
consumers’ debt to third parties. We note that you have raised your concerns with the FTC
and the Arizona Office of Attorney General and recommend that you continue to work with
them to determine whether the FTC or other agency can help resolve this matter. The FTC’s
Division of Financial Practices is responsible for enforcing the FDCPA.
If, after following up with the FTC, you continue to believe that a violation of the FCC’s
rules has occurred, you may file a complaint with us. 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. The
1
Mr . Dave Barbour Page 2
Commission has issued numerous citations against violators of the TCPA and the Commission’s
telemarketing rules. These enforcement actions can eventually result in monetary penalties of up
to $11,000 per violation. You may view the Enforcement Bureau’s web site
www.fcc. gov/eb/tcd/working.html.
at http: //www .fcc.nov/cgb. Information on all telecommunications-related issues can be
accessed via the Internet from the Commission’s Home Page located at http://www. fcc.gov.
Information is also available by calling toll free 1-888-CALL-FCC. TTY users may call 1-
888-TELL-FCC.
I appreciate your concerns. If you have any further questions or require additional
Sincerely,
Jay Keithley
Acting Chief
Enclosures

(202) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN
' 5353 NORTH1 6 STREET
~ ~

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS SUITE 105
PHOENIX, A Z 85016
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES I (602) 952-2410
I ,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, ' 4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE
DRIVE
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION < SUITE 1
TEMPE, AZ 85282
(480) 897-6283
a,
j I/ 407 W E S T CONGRESSSTREET
SUITE 103
TUCSON,A 2 85701
( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
F O R HEARING IMPAIRED
TELEPHONE
April 25, 2005 I

,
Director
Cunbumer aid Gc,veinmcntal kffaiils Eul calr
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Maurice Coburn, who has encountered a
problem his radio station.
Because the situation is under your jurisdiction, I am respectfblly referring this matter to you
respond directly to Maurice Coburn.
Thank you.
Sincerelv.
John McCain
m m g
Enclosure

April 21, 2 0 0 5

4 7 0 3 Lake Shore Drive
Tempe, Arizona 8 5 2 8 2
Re: Eagle Broadcasting/FCC
Dear John:
Despite its promises to have given us a final decision by
March 31, the FCC remains silent. The Amendment passed by t h e
Congress to Section 3 1 2 ( g ) of the Communications Act of 1 9 3 4
(effeetive December 8 , 2 0 0 4 ) should have allowed the FCC to re-
instate our license and halt our continued forced silence.
Your continued assistance is sincerely appreciated.
Sincerely,
Enclosure: KVEZ Memorandum filed March 21.

- STAMP&
RETURN
Before the
In the Matter of )
)
Eagle Broadcasting Group, Ltd. 1 File No. BPH-200202 1SABM
1
Licensee of Station KVEZ(FM) 1 -
RECEIVED FCC
Parker, Arizona )
Facility ID #35 119 1 MAR 2 1 2005
TO: Chief, Media Bureau
SUPPLEMENT TO
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Eagle Broadcasting Group, Ltd., (“Eagle”), licensee of FM broadcast station
KVEZ, Parker, Arizona, by counsel, hereby supplements its petition for reconsideration
of the decision by the Media Bureau’s Audio Division to dismiss the application for a
minor modification of the facilities of KVEZ and to declare the station’s license expired
and forfeited pursuant to Section 3 12(g) of the Communications Act. See Letter to Eagle
Broadcasting Group, Ltd. (Aud. Div., Feb. 17,2004) (the “Letter”).
As the Audio Division is aware, effective December 8, 2004, Congress amended
Section 312(g) of the Communicaticns Act of 1934, as amended (the ‘‘Ac~’~).’The stat-
ute, as amended, now directs the Commission to extend or reinstate broadcast licenses as
appropriate “to promote equity and fairness.” Thus, the stated basis for the Audio Divi-
sion’s decision that KVEZ’s license avtomatically expired as a matter of law because
KVEZ was allegedly “silent” for 12 continuous months no longer obtains. Rather, Con-
1
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Public Law 108447, $213 (December 8,2004).
2
gress has directed the Cornmission to apply equity and fairness in its decisions regarding
silent stations. Moreover, station KVEZ has never been silent for 12 continuous months.
As applied to the facts of this case, principles of equity and fairness require reinstatement
of KVEZ’s license.
When the Audio Division, in the Letter, attempted to apply Section 312(g) to
KVEZ, the Audio Division took the position that the Station’s broadcasts since its return
to the air on November 22, 2003 were not “authorized” transmissions because Eagle’s
site change application had not been granted. The Audio Division reached that conclu-
sion even though Eagle’s owner in good faith believed that the application had been
granted, and even though there is no dispute but that Eagle would have been granted spe-
cial temporary authority to operate as it did if Eagle requested STA. Clearly, Eagle
would have filed such a request if it had known that an STA request was necessary. The
Division, feeling perhaps that it had no warrant to consider the equities in Eagle’s favor,
held that Eagle’s transmissions did not interrupt the perceived 12-month period of “si-
lence” attributed to KVEZ. Eagle then filed the pending petition for reconsideration.
Si55on 312(g) was amended by the enactment on December 8, 2004 of Public
Law 108-447, popularly known as the 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act. As
amended, section 3 12(g) now reads (amended text in italics):
If a broadcasting station fails to transmit broadcast signals for any consecutive

12 month period, then the station,license granted for the operation of that broad-
cast station expires at the end of that period, notwithstanding any provision,
term, or condition of the license to the contrary, except that the Commission
may extend or reinstate such station license if the holder of the station license
prevails in an administrative or judicial appeal, the applicable law changes, or
for any other reason to promote equity and fairness. Any broadcast license re-
,
... .. .
.i .- ”. - ..._”.. .. . . . ..
3
voked or terminated in Alaska in a proceeding related to broadcasting via

translator, microwave, or other alternative signal delivery is reinstated.
This amended language effects a substantial change to the application of Section
312(g) to silent stations. Previous language gave the Commission a basis on which to be-
lieve that it had “no discretion or obligation to consider” the circumstances of a station’s
silence.2 Revocation proceedings for silent stations were deemed unnecessary, consider-
ing that licenses “expire as a matter of law” at the conclusion of 12 months’ ~ilence.~
Clearly, Section 312(g) can no longer be viewed as an automatic death sentence for a
broadcast station that has been silent for a year or more (to say nothing of stations whose
perceived “silent year” was only the product of a construction of what it means to
“transmit broadcast signals” at odds with the plain meaning of those words). Rather, the
Commission is directed to extend or reinstate licenses “for any . . . reason to promote eq-
uity and fairness.” In short, Idaho Broadcasting cor^.^ and its progeny no longer can be
said to govern the instant situation.
“Equity and fairness” are not defined by the Act. Therefore, the plain meaning of
these words must be applied in giving effect to the amendment. ‘‘Equity” is “a body of
legal doctrines and rules developed to enlarge, supplement or override a narrow rigid sys-
tem of laws.’ Equity serves to leaven the rigidity of the common law in order to avoid
See Implementation of Section 4030) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Silent Station Authorizations), 1 1
FCC Rcd 16599,n 3 (1996); Idaho Broadcasting COT., 16 FCC Rcd 1721 (MMB 2001); OCC Acquisitions, Inc.,
17 FCC Rcd 6147,6151, n.14 (2002), affdper curiam, OCCAcquisitions, Inc. v. FCC, CaseNo. 02-143 (D.C. Cir.,
May 5,2003). Fort Myers Broadcasting Company, D A 04-3197 (October 6, 2004).
Id.
Idaho Broadcasting Corp., 16 FCC Rcd 1721 (MMB 2001).
’, Webster’sNinth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1984.

4
injustice. Equitable maxims were developed in order to assist chancellors in equity, or
other adjudicators serving as such. Certain of those maxims are relevant to the Division’s
consideration of KVEZ’s petition for reconsideration:
0 Equity looks to the intent rather than to the form.

Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done.
0 Equity imputes an intention to fulfill an obligation.
0 Equity abhors a forfeiture.
Applying these maxims to KVEZ, the intent of Eagle supports preservation of its
license notwithstanding the vicissitudes it encountered in the course of its efforts to im-
plement the site change. There can be no doubt but that Eagle reasonably believed that
the Division had granted a construction permit for the site specified in Eagle’s Form 301
application. Eagle followed proper procedures in securing the permission of the appro-
priate officials to use the land at the Buckskin Site. It applied for the construction permit.
It obtained a “determination of no hazard to air navigation” from the Federal Aviation
Administration. It notified the Commission when construction had been accomplished
and when program testing commenced. When a member of the Commission’s staff called
to remind Eagle that its license would soon expire if KVEZ did not return to the air, Ea-
gle candidly informed the staff that KVEZ had already returned to the air. This reaction
was consistent with Eagle’s belief that it was proceeding properly and doing what the
FCC would want it to do.

5
Equally clearly, Eagle intended to fulfill its obligation to serve Parker, and acted
with the salutary objective of local service as its first priority. KVEZ ought to have re-
ceived a permit in due course following its removal of the only known impediment (FAA
clearance) to the grant of the application. The Division’s unreasonable delay in acting on
the modification application militates against the harsh result found in the February 17,
2004 Letter. Eagle was merely confused regarding the status of its permit and neglected
to seek STA before airing broadcasts that would toll any 12-month silent period . Under
these circumstances, to conclude that Eagle’s license expired and that the entire project
must come to naught is an exaltation of form over substance.
Importantly for this case, equity disfavors forfeitures. Time-honored principles of
equity permit a court exercising equitable jurisdiction to excuse a lapse in order to avoid
a forfeiture. UNTJM Lye Insurance Company v. Ward, 526 U.S. 358 (1999).
The Commission has, on occasion, cited “fairness and equity” as reasons for for-
bearance. For example, station KNAK, owned by a blind licensee, did not respond to a
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture. After a subsequent Forfeiture Qrder affirmed
the assessment of a $7,000 forfeiture, the Enforcement Bureau reviewed information con-
tained in a petition for reconsideration and properly rescinded the forfeiture “under prin-
ciples of equity and fairness.” Sam Bushman, 17 FCC Rcd 24808 (Enf. Bur. 2002).
Years before the Commission determined that the factors of “equity and fairness” to a sta-
6
tion’s employees, as well as the agency’s general equitable responsibility to permit con-
tinued service to residents of a station’s service area, supported a decision to let the licen-
see continue operation pending completion of appellate review. RKO General, Inc., FCC
82-104 (1982). More recently, principles of equity and fairness, albeit applied sub silen-
tio, governed the Commission’s decision to extend the construction permit for Station
KWKM. KM Radio of Si.Johm, I9 FCC Rcd 5847 (2004).
In view of the foregoing, and for the reasons specified in Eagle’s Petition for Re-
consideration, Eagle asks that the Division grant reconsideration of the February 17, 2004
Letter, reinstate KVEZ’s permit application and the underlying license, grant special
temporary authority to broadcast from the site specified in the permit application, and
process its permit application to grant.
Respectfully submitted,
EAGLE BROADCASTING GROUP, LTD.

n ,
By:
Barry D. W d d
Paul H. Brown
WOOD, MAINES & BROWN, CHARTERED

1827 Jefferson Place, NW
, (202) 293-5333
Its attorneys
Dated: March 2 1, 2005

May 23,2005
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0500947
Mr. Maury Coburn

President
Eagle Broadcasting Group, Ltd.
1930 Mosquite Avenue
Suite 3A
Lake Havasu City, Arizona 86403
Dear Mr. Coburn:
inquiry regarding the status of several petitions for reconsideration that Eagle Broadcasting
Group, Ltd. (“Eagle”) has filed with the Commission requesting that the license of former
broadcast station KVEZ(FM), Parker, Arizona be reinstated. Specifically, you indicate that
recent legislation amending Section 3 12 of the Communications Act of 1934 should result in
reinstatement of the station’s license. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
As you are aware, the staff of the Commission’s Media Bureau determined that KVEZ’s
license had been forfeited for failure to operate. Eagle Broadcasting has filed three Petitions for
Reconsideration concerning the staffs decision. In addition, Eagle submitted a request for
special temporary authorization on January 25,2005. More recently, on March 2 1,2005, Eagle
supplemented its pleadings with arguments concerning the effect that a 2004 amendment to
Section 3 12(g) of the Communications Act would have on this proceeding.
All of Eagle Broadcasting’s pleadings have been consolidated and the staff has referred
this matter to the full Commission for review. While I am not aware of any commitment to
resolve this matter by a specific date, the Commission and its staff generally issue decisions as
expeditiously as possible.
Page 2-Mr. Maury Coburn
I hope that this information is helpful. Please be assured that all of the information
provided by Eagle Broadcasting is being reviewed carefully. For updates regarding the status of
this matter, you may telephone the Media Bureau’s contact representative at 202-4 18-2763.
Sincerely,
Media Bureau
241 RUSSELLSENATE OFFICE BUILDING
JOHN McCAlN WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0303
ARIZONA (202) 224-2235
5353 NORTH
1 6 STREET
~ ~
CHAIRMAN SUITE 105
United States Senate PHOENIX,A Z 85016
( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410
k,,,
TELEPHONEF0a’V:ARING IMPAIRED
(602) 9 5 2 - P O
May 2,2005
Director
Offce of Legislative Affairs
Dear Director:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Ronald Wagner, who has encountered a
problem with fax spam.
respond directly to Ronald Wagner.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
@ *cL
-
John McCain
JM/zkc
Enclosure

MOUNTAIN VISTA SUPPLY INC
4108 La Linda Way, Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
Phone 520-459-0002 Fax 520-458-3472
FAX TRANSMTrrAL FORM

Date: April 29,2005
To: Senator J o b McCain
From: Ron Wagner, President
Subiect: FAX SPAM
My company, as well as many others, is frequently besieged

by unsolicited faxes as noted by the examples I am including
with this memo. This wastes paper and cartridges, as well as
frustrating me to no end. An individual within the marketing
arena has told me that the message at the end of these faxes
offering to remove our fax number is often there to entice us
to confirm the fax number they reached. In other words,
there is no intent to remover our number at all, but continue
to send this junk to us.
There is a “donot call” list for phone solicitations. What can
be done about these faxes? Is there a will within the beltway
to challenge this garbage and stop this practice?
Respectfully,
~..... ” _ _ ” . . . ___ -. . .
To: CEO Page 1 of 1 5:12:39AM, 5/2/2005 27 737920736 MINERALS & ENERGY
CORPORATE TEL NO: 011-27-737920763

DIRECT 7EL NO: 011-871-762-604470
DIRECT FAX NO: 011-871-762-
604471
02-05 -05
STRICTLY CONFlDENTIAL & mam.

CHAIRMAN/CEO,
I am Dr Smith Kanelo, a native of Cape Town in South Africa and I am a Director of Project
Implementation with the South Africa Department of Mining & Natural Resources. First and
foremost, I apologize using this medium to reach you for a transactiodbusiness of this magnitude,
but this is due to confidentiality and prompt access reposed on this medium. Be informed that a
member of the South Afi-ica Export Promotion Council (SEPC) who was at the Government
delegation to your country during a trade exhibition gave your enviable credentials/particulars to
me. I have decided to seek a confidential co-operation with you in the execution of the deal
described hereunder for the benefit of all parties and hope you will keep it as a top secret because
of the nature of this transaction.
Within the Department of Mining & Natural Resources where I work as a Director and with the
cooperation of four other top officials, we have in our possession as overdue payment bills totaling
Fourteen Million, Two Hundred Thousand U. S. Dollars ($14,200,000.) The said funds represent
certain percentage of the total contract value executed on behalf of my Department by a foreign
contracting f i i , which we the officials over-invoiced to the tune of Fourteen Million Two
Hundred Thousand United States Dollars [uS%14,200,000,00]. Though the actual contract cost has been
paid to the original contractor, leaving the excess balance unclaimed.
Since the present Government is determined to pay foreign contractors all outstanding debts, so as
to maintain cordial relationship with foreign governments and non-governmental agencies, we
included our bills for Approvals with the Ministry of Finance and the Contract Payment
Committee of the Reserve Bank of South Africa. We are seeking your assistance to front as a
beneficiary of the unclaimed funds, as we are not allowed to operate offshore accounts. However,
the approvals will be secured on behalf of you/your company.
I have the authority of my partners involved to propose that should you be willing to assist us in
the transaction, your share of the sum will be 30% of the $14.2 million, 60% for us and 10% for
taxation and miscellaneous expenses. The business itself is 100% safe, on your part provided you
treat it with utmost secrecy and confidentiality. Also your area of specialization is not a hindrance
to the successful execution of this transaction. I have reposed my confidence in you and hope that
you will not disappoint me. Endeavor to contact me immediately through my direct TeVfax
numbers above whether or not you are interested in this deal. If you are not, it will enable me scout
for another foreign partner to carry out this deal I want to assure you that my partners and myself
are in a position to make the payment of this claim possible provided you can give us a very strong
Assurance and guarantee that our share will be secured and please remember to treat this matter as
very confidential matter, because we will not comprehend with any form of exposure as we are still
in active Government Service and remember once again that time is of the essence in this business.
I wait in anticipation of your fullest co-operation.
Yours faithfully,
Smith Kanelo.
The CRUDE Report TO Be Deleted, Cali 1-888-336-7148
Oil Could HIT SlO5.00 a Barrel!

Goidman sees oil price SUPER SPIKE'
TRTTOY /\hlERIC.IT\"ENEllC;1; C.'QRP.
to $105 a barrel. UPDATE 3 Symbol: OTC: TRAE
-
NEW VW)K (ACW; C i picas have entered the sarty stagta of taaing that caua
Current Price; $0.36
iBPd !o a 'SUPER SPIKE' w
i!h thr potential ta mwr p r i m to $106 per b w d
anough lo meaningfilly reduce energy consumdan according I:, a Gddrnar
Sachs analysis. STRONG SHORT TERM
The ca4 W l c h would maan a mssib16 daubllna of all pdcrrr trow their
$wr# &e back abovs $55 ~ pbrr r d fur Ihe t i r d 6me in a woo&. OUTLOOK: $2.87
Tre c&ad foi May &livery was las! quoted up 2.4 percent at $55.30,
earlier !ouched a high 07 S55.55. The strehgth in oll aernand and ecmbmic (pw4-1, REASONS TO OWN THIS STOCK TODAY!
espedaily the Uri!ed Slates and China. ~ollowinya year of $40-$51! Po: b r e i
irl
'PI11 611has surptlsed us .. ?ne reasor fa tnis adjustment to vie@ is mat persistsn: MI. Guidrv condnued io state, 'Wa m i l d like dl :nvestra
h.gh Prices are ~rnpmingU'te f!naxial positilr cf key a! e;rporti~cotmries and C- rww. in
.~d
cwld serve !a keep potential rerdulkm at bay,' sad andys! A ~ L CMud. F h t Flym Me ma! u ~ l k e l yof rltuallona IIM tell below El? 2
sBnlor marl:at analyst at Alaron.coin, said 5'05 dl Is technical); posslbie but nor Mr4. triton Amorican Enwav would rtill mahe c
likely :or at least 3 years and only if a major supply dsrwbon. such as a halt to QrQfut
Mlpoi~frornSautl Araaia, occurred. If Ob H:ls %105.0Cper bailel, lrrvestas rnuested In TRAE
'Tha lmina at rho rsporf war aqndupivi .b the r a i l & ' & n n s a ~ d . ~'It'# iurt could reap by owniw the Cmanis Sioci
n o t h o r ~ J & n a , Thrrr'c no daubt um're in P nw bull marhot fof as Cil d Natura! Gas prices c m l m to rise!'
aude dl.'tkrs's gclq to be Uenienaous deinarrd Qrwthir, the late third and the
It's the stnaH to inadivtr s i r lwrpendenl Oil & GAS
wrrn qsiier of his y w . That's going to wt me preelrcers or crude oil In an D.plorahon companies that will b e f i ! #le TI& from rising
extrendy thallengng position i:i terms of meeting hat dmand, and hat's what is
being priced In tigM nw *C&M hn Ihc 2M3J Prices have surgsd
Oil i3 Natura! Gas pncesi!
weer a fufmst last reek by Goldma!i Sachs bank that oi/ could spike above $iX! TRAE d ~ l ytargets astlng 'capped proven u16Ht'' with
as dabat dernir)d growh shim supply capacity. HUGE RESERE2 dready in plaoe fur Re-Entry prqrckl
OUR FAVORITE FAST GROWTH COMPANY O r a d d 8 (38s WAl U l . ThM Well Is pUIIImlh 1.2 mllllo_h_
wME feet d 00s DW 8# through the meter, th&
h r tavwite fast g:owk Oil & GAS Eslaation Company with a huge short term mom-
potavtal is Triton Ammriisrr Enargy Gorp' based cui of Houston TA. Which O!L PRICES
,A~ELIKELY TG. CONTINUE w r i s HI;
he&$ on the ' o w &e couixef' rxr%ngr unde: h e hading syrnbcl MC TRA€
WORLD DEMAND Jd$=&LOW EVEN FASTER THAN
TRlT'ON Reports Zapata County Gas Well Producing 1.7 WFECTED;
Million Cubic Feet of Gas Per Day! Market A&lSorS hibaled cwetcge and Ur. kif! Hetlcrberr:
comrms a wtltlva OUUOCC on THAE tasaa 'm his mal@!:
iiOUSl(jN--(SUSINE66 WIRE) T r i m American Enefgy Capp. ( O X : TRAE) is of the Corqpany's projected growth and kitldanenlals. Mr,
pleased IPannounce President rtid GEG Loris Guidfy. R s bem faahlrud in Y Hdlsbsrg'r price brgd of $2.87 indicates a strong
intet'vler w m The Wdl 3 s e t Rspor!ef. me Wal! Street Repotter is viewed sy me! chort-twm outlook
83,XOmmyJt, bokers. portfolio m e n w r s and high net worth investors.
I;utl;g 11s !nkwIew, Mr. 3u;Qy stated, 'Ow Chlnpany Ititends lo rtl-clnler 5 well$ in EDITORS OPINlON: oil 8 ~iztura~
h a price3 l a v e
Zapa:a County TX Cut of h e x wefls CUI Big Money Hekw IS with (rbf 3raclella hem con9nuoLlsly rising over [he past year. @l&u&& rwnt
Gas well #*. T&I well is puliinp In g
-,Ia* Bor day throuu analysis report PII a SUPER.8PIKE in Oil Prices i$ a very good
the meMt.:_Bmed on the lnCf6bSed ieyenues gene'aled from tws well, WB will ba wdicaiion h
tat GI Prices wll not be coming down any time sow.
ilMe to bring addflonal wells on line at LI fasbr rate, prepae audled findnc:ds T P X is zggressivdy drilkw for CId & ka!ural Cas in South Texas
maj cf sdwdule anc potentially skip over the eulietin board e x c h a w to tha and i$ NCbY positon 10 catawt its revmu86 by leaps snu
AMERlCAN STUCK EXCHAHW.' bounasl TAIL ia.ou1 Fivoritc faat P r W compmy
CHOICEPLAN
0 0
All of Our Plans include : If you recelve Social Security
*Dr. Visits, "Accident Protection,"Vision, Income, get your
*S urgica I procedures, prescription drugs
"24 hour nurse hotline for $5 each1
*Air Ambulance, and much more! ($79.95per month)
SUBSCRIBER ONLY $79.95 Optional Stand Alone Plans:

SUBSCRIBER & DEPENDANT $89.95 RX Card.
Accident a1
FAMlLY $99.95 Injury Policy
Disability Income Insurance
*FREE DENTAL
4I us TOLL FREI!?
list of benefits, p4ease ca
For a FREE Non-Obli ation uote and corn lete
1-888-678-075 1
ACT NOW WHILE PLANS ARE STILL AVAILABLE! ENDS FRIDAY!!
.SHOULD YOU WAVE RECEIVIDTHIS FAK IN ER m
r
iPLE ASC ACCEPT OUR APOLOGY AND
CONTACT OUR TOLL FREE FAX REMOVAL NilMBER IMMEOIATECY: 866-360-4856
.
.-I
9
-I
=i
. >
.u
-4
Cruise Bonus TTme!!!

-J
.
n
-4
t
2n
3
EMERSON,
Durincl the month of April receive a 50% cruise
!f
n
r
9 tarwet bonus on all orders $5,000 anb above. No
-
D
D
f
4
e limits and no restrictions!!!*
c
m m n k : Place a $7,500 d e r and recehfe a total

cru'ke Credit of $lL250 toward dealer's 2005-
2006 mise target=
c
C
c
I
c
d
c
C
C
Ir
.
l'lY-uJ JilJam p. 1 01 I
f
Stock News Alert r /
Watch as we initiate Coverage on Coldwall Inca'sUndervalued Prke
This entire month we are Profiling (OTC: CDWLPK) as our next HUGE GAINER!!
I SYMBOL: OTC: CDWLPK

Recommendation: STRONG BUY
Fridays Closing Price: S .65
Investment Conslderatlons
To Be Removed, CALL 1-888-333-7148
.. .
- - .
7- Day OPEN ENROLLMENT by Friday with NO HEALTH QUESTIONS
MONTHLY PRICE COVERS

ENTIRE FAMILY FOR
MONTH
CALL TOLLmFREE TODAY !

1(800)913-0755
Mon=Fri 7am - Bpm (CST)
88 Habla Espanol
(tan o r i m seguro sotld)
1 If you ha& receivwj ttis in mor ofwlsh to ba rsmovwd lrom ou‘ da!crbese. ploa6e c s Y tdl free: -
l(800) 755-2071 1
Acquisition Stock Alert: GPKE
Under tho now rtwcture GPKE will begln t6 sequlra a plpeljno of ccunpanlos whlth It hiis
researched over fhs past several months. Qraystone's first subsidicrry is Qray Pubtlshlng d Media,
Inc.. ...,,.. d S 8 wblch &br mom newt announcmml
Graystone Park Enterprises, Inc. Graystone Park Enterprises, Inc.
Opens the Doors to Entrepreneurial Launches Its First Digital
Freedom Distribution Web Site of Case Briefs
for the Law Student Market
NEW YORK, NY--(MARKFI WlRE)-Apr 19,2005 --
Graystone Park Enterprises, inc. (Other OTC: GPKE.PK -
NEW YORK. NY-(MARKET WIRE)-Apr 20,2003 -
Graystone Park Enterpikes Inc.'s(Other
News) annwnced today that it has completed its holdings 0TC:GPKE.PK - N~ws)vvhollywmed subsidialy. Gray
Company formation.
Publishing 6 Media, IN., founded by a veteran e
publishing executive. announced today that it has
Under the new B ~ I U C ~ UGPKE
~ bill begir! to acquire a released the first titles on its dighal dktribution 6
pipeline of companies which it has researched over the commerce Web site, www.eCasebfiel%.~~. GPKE
past sweml months. Graystone's first subsidiary is Gray
has been instrumental in the release.
Publishing 8, Media. Inc. Gray Publishing is a leader in
digital disrribution of academic content to the higher
education market. its current f w s is tho digkal The web she mkas available for sale the most
distribution of law student materials. Wth the assistance popular band of digital a s e brrefs for law students
of GPKE Gray Publishing is expected to ue profitable by under the brand name,Casebriefs(lI4). Casebrrefs are
August 2005. GPKE will file to make Gray Publishing a abridged versions of law cases for law school courses
publicly traded company later this year. allowing law students, for the first time, to obtain study
aid materials convenient to their personal study habits,
David Gray, CEO of Gmystone, states, "This is one of bcit and to manipulate and customhe subject matter as per
a f w opportunities for growth companieato obtain their professor and ther cwn particular needs.Being
develsprnent and funding in the post bubble era." Further digitally published allows Casebrbk content to be
stating, "GPKEworka with owner managers from 8tafI-UpS accessed anytime, anywhere. be updoled
through to established multi-million doilar companiesto instantaneously,and it provides an interactive control
accelerate businem growth and wealth creation." panel which enables the user to link other necessary
informlion into ?hetext such as Web sites. and other,
Once ready, Graystone subsidiaries will be bunched out addilinal relevant documts.
of GPKE on the pink sheets exchange by way of a
dividend to irs shareholders. This allws Tor the subsidiary David Gray. CEO of GPKE, stated. 'This is an
10 have additional apportunities to fund its growh by excellent example of how our management adds
trading as its cwn enthy strategic value to growing companies.' He futher
slates, 'Wih GPKE's extensive network of #rategic
GPKE Is stlll trading over-the-counter. This m a n 6 that partners, Gray Publishing is poised to lead this market
the traditional invwtment community doesn't follow It in its space."
and m o s t malar brokerage firm@and InSUtUtIOflal
investors can? yet invest in It. Thls ISGREAT NEWS fot
our readers, because they can invest in GPKE betore
mainstram investors.
QUALITY HEALTH CARE IS JUST A
PHONE CALL AWAY!
NEW PLAN, MORE OPTIONS!
(This is not hswanoe)
Primary Care Physicians e Air 8r Ground Ambulance

Hospital and Sur$$&
Prescription Drug benefit
Accident Protection
.
6
e
Urgent Care
Virtually no paperwork
Pre-existing Conditions
Choose y o u own DR.! hnmsdiately Covered
Maternity Covered NOW!
Think you can't afford quality health care?

Think again!
Lowest prices. Quality Coverage.
This promotion has a limited number of
applications.
Oger Ends this Friday!

1-877-599-0022 Tollhe
SHOULD YOU H.4VE RECEIVED THIS F A X IN ERROR PLEASE ACCEPT OUR
APOLOOY AND COXTACT OUR TOLL FREE FAX REMOVAL NUMBER
IMMEDIATELY: 1-800-505-3085
... 1c __I. - . .
The CRUDE Report TO ~e Deleted, call1-888-336-7148
Oil Could HIT S105.00 a Barrel1

Goldman sees oil price 'SUPER SPIKE' TRTTOS .MWRRICAN ENERG\' CORP.
to $105 a barrel UPDATE 3 Symbol: OTC: TRAE
NEW YOtlK (AFX) Oil piwe have entsred the earty sbags d trading loat xuld Current Price; $0.35
lead to a 'SUPER SPIKE' Mth the bbMhdll to m ~ v ~ to SI06 pqkmd.
enough to rneaninpfully reduce energy consum>tion. according to 61 Goldman
Gwhs an8IysL. 1 STRONG SHORT TERM
Tho csll, whiffhwbu(4: m m 8 Doslble doubling d ail ptfcea. fm'ramff
s;urrentle@/. wtt vudr kc4 US DW b& for the first h e in I w&. IOUTLOOK: $2.87
me cortrad for May delivery was last quoted up 2.4 pe!cmt zt $55 30, hWQQ
eariier touched 8 rlgh 19355.55. The strenglh in oll demand and ocs~omicg3u/lh. E,ASONS TO OWN THIS ST.OCK.TODAY!
esr;ecially ir?the United SbCo and Ctina. folowing 8 year of $40-550 per barei
Wi al h--, awprizd us The raasin far h'aaqustmeqt in view Is that pNSiStMIt
I~
MI. Guidrv contlnued !a state, 'We wodd !.Ne dl ~f#&lFns
high mces we i m r o u i the~ financial prwitim of hey oil exportinQ cornties an7d lo be m e t0 QUr mogt recent&- i f
muld sarve tu keep potential re-Jdubona1 bay,' Jmd andyst b unMur& PKl Fiynn the most unllKL~alrltudonr if oil #I b d w @G.
senlar inarket analyst z;t N#im.cOm, mid $:of, oil is tehnka!ly passlcle bul not brd, TlitondlA m
- ab'I1 make 1
likdy for at least 3 years and Only if a major suclply disrupbn. PU& 89 a halt to R
am
kqmrts froin Saudi Arabia, octurrea. If Oil Hits %'105.0@per barrel. Investus invested in TRR
I AE
Th.a mil m of (he report wee canduaive to the rally.' FImn r r l d . 'Wc iurt could reap MGE GAlN6 by owning the Conwanys Sioci;
-
anothgl^rpeJsn (0 be loncl. Th&J&ubl w're In a nm b u u m as Oil d Naturai Gas prices conbnue to rise!!
-
aruds oil ' tmre's going to be Wi!IewiOUs bmand grarlh in me iale Mrd am the
fourth quarter of this year. That's golng to put the prodcrcers or crude oil !n an
lls !he small to dum w e lndependeht Oil & GAS
Eqlcraoon companies hat wiit k e f ! the mwt worn rising
extremely chdkngino pasiticn in twms of meetinp that demand, and that's what is
beiw pticsd in righl nhnr & ' +o ham Th. Drdp Rcparl2M5" Prices have suigea
Oil 8 Natural Gas onoes!l
31ncea 6rec;est hst we& W Wdmw Sacns bank that oil could spike ebove $1 OC ?RAE only ratgets W$bng 'capped proven wells' 31th
as gabal aetnand gtowlh swains sllpdy capacity. HUGE REIERMS dready I: place for Re-Entry projectd
~ UI. mk well ir pulling in f.1. mllllch
Cracidlr ( 3 well
OUR FAVORITE FAST GROWTH COMPANY y b i a feet of 00s per.dov thrwah the meter, hi
itur k v d e fast g ~ w t hck! 8 GAS Eqlwation Cornpar?ywi(h a h ~ g es k r t term HUGE irlEpmiMLLcyMy# lor YRAE
potenhal is "Triton Amerlan Enugy Corp' based cut of Houston TX. Which C!C PRICES ARE LlKELY TO CONTINUE RISING AS
trades on me ' o w the counter' exchange undo: me trading s~!nbol07C!TRAE WORLD DEMA@ W U GROW EVEN FASTER M A N
=TED!
TRITON Reports Zapata County Gas Well Producing 1.7
Million Cubic Feet of Gas Per Day! Market A&isofS inlhalea cwerage end Mr. JeP HHleDerg
eonfirms a p a s i l k ouOoolc on ?RAE based on his analfik
3OUS'TCK-(BUGINEBS WIRE) Triton Amerian Energy Cop. (OTC; TRAE) is of t% Company'a projected growth and t n d m t a l s . Yr.
pleased lo announce FreaJent a i d CEO. LoLis Guidw, has been featured in an Hcllebrrg't price W O G l of P2.87 indicates a Strong
interwleru with The Well SVeer ~eporrsr.The W&I See! Ryorter is viewed DL 3veI rhort-tm OUlloOh
B I J X O andvs:, brokers. pwtfolio rnenagsrs and high net worth ~ ~ ~ S t O i S .
Curin! M6 Interview, M:. Qu!dryslatwid'Our Company Intends lo rwnler 5 wells In EDITORS OPINION: Oil 8 Natural G ~ Sprices khVL.a
zapata county, TX. Out of t n e i wells our Big M a ~ Haker
y is wilh ouf ascldla been Conhnuomly nslnq web rhe past yeor. -ha want
G s well U? I 1,2 miItion -fi D or d- andyrls report an I SUPER-SPIKE in. Otl Prices s a VMYp o d
tho mater.' 08x4 on me Increased revenues generated from this wen, we wlll De indicalioq that Oil P r i m will not be coming dawn any time soor
% to bting addtional werrs on lim a! a fasler rate, prepare auuteu ilmncials ?RAE ts aggressively billing for Oil & Natural Gas in South Texas
ahead of schedule and potential!y skip over the bullelin board exchange to the anc is N W in pouton to catapcll 11revwues by leaps and
AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE.' baunds! TRAE is wr fmverik frnmowh barnmny
r. L I L
CINCO DE MAY0 SPECIAL

only $301!
Package IncIud es:
Cancwn Mexico - 6 Days 5 Nights (A//-Ioc/usive!)
- Meals, Drinks, Entertainment Included
Orlando Florida as a BONUS!
Our Experlenccd Staff Will Help You Through Every Step of Your Vacation
Giving You the Best Worry Free Vacation Experlence Possible
ban't Forart! Mothrrs Day i s 5/8!
LIMITED PACKAGE
AVAILABILITY
1-800-675-5173 Reservation Code: CbM 0471
To na longer recaivs thsba requested pmmotlons in the htura, plaasa call 1-860-x)7~1057
IT1 39Vd A l d d f l S VISTA NIW

I -
Kindly give this FAX to; Business Owner, Human Resource Director
or Personnel Manager
Do you want to increase Business

Sales without breaking the bank?
-----
9 Fax Back wupons provide outstandingsales lcads
eMail:
We ALSO offer the lowest priced BULK EMAIL Advertising which provides
you with Custom Targeted WEBSITE ViSlTORSl Our Advertising Production
Costs are lower and RESPONSE rates are higher!
Fast Back To 540=840=0502

JUN 9 2005
Mr. Ron Wagner

Mountain Vista Supply Inc.
4108 La Linda Way
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
Dear Mr. Wagner:
over unsolicited facsimile advertisements you are receiving. Your letter has been forwarded to
the Commission for our review.
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. The
TCPA prohibits the use of “any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to
send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine. ” The TCPA applies only
to facsimile messages that constitute “unsolicited advertisements,” which are defined as “any
material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services
which is transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express invitation or
permission.” See 47 U.S.C. 0 227(b)(l)(C) and 47 U.S.C. 0 227(a)(4). The statutory
prohibition applies to such advertisements sent both to residential and business facsimile
numbers. In July 2003, the Commission amended the facsimile advertising rules so that all
entities that wish to transmit advertisements to a facsimile machine must first obtain permission
from recipients in writing. However, based on additional comments received since the
adoption of the July Report and Order, the Commission determined to delay the effective date
of some of the facsimile advertising rules, including the elimination of the “established
business relationship” exemption, until July 1, 2005. Enclosed is a copy of the Commission’s
recent Order, released on October 1, 2004.
Complaints received by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau regarding

alleged TCPA violations are forwarded to the Enforcement Bureau (EB), which may take
enforcement action against alleged violators. We have forwarded your complaint to EB.
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
Mr. Ron Wagner Page 2
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 against 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.
marketing communications to which they object, and the actions consumers can take to reduce
the number of solicitation calls placed to their homes. You 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.
at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb for additional information. In addition, you may wish to view the
Enforcement Bureau’s web site at http://www .fcc.gov/eb/tcd/working.html for recent
Commission TCPA enforcement actions.
questions.
Sincerely,
Jay Keithley
Deputy Bureau Chief
Enclosures
‘T 1
WASHINGTON, D C 20510-0303
ARIZONA (202)224-2235
5353 NORTH 1 6 STREET

~ ~
CHAIRMAN SUITE 105
COMMITTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS PHOENIX,A 2 85016
(602)952-2410
C O M M l n E E O N ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE, 4703 SOUTH L A K E S H O RDRIVE
E
SCIENCE. AND TRANSPORTATION SUITE 1
TEMPE,A 2 85282
(480)897-6289
407 W E S T CONGRESSSTREET
SUITE 103
TUCSON,A 2 85701
(520)670-6334
TELEPHONEF O R H E A R I N Gl M P A l R E D
(602)952-017R
May 23,2005
Director
Eederai Communications C o m s s i o n
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning lvfelbaMcCarter who is concerned about
the charges fi-omher phone company.
respond directly to Melba McCarter.
Thank you
Sincerely,
@ *cL
John McCain
JM/ztm
Enclosure

May 12,2005
,. I .
.1 :.
5 15 E Carefiee Hwy
PMB #402
Phoenix, AZ 85085
Senator McCain
5353 No. 16thStreet
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Senator McCain,
I am writing in regards to the Dial Around Phone Companies. The one I have is World
Exchange Communications - phone#1-800-569-8700. That number services several
different communication companies. I have been told they are not governed by anyone. I
have to use them because I cannot afford (being retired) to use any of the other phone
companies. I have a Missionary Daughter in Australia who serves Indonesia and other
Asian countries. To talk to her is very expensive if1 do not use the dial arounds. They
charge ifthere is no answer. They use to give you credit if you called and told them you
got no answer. Now they say they do not do that anymore. They charge .10 minute
without anyone answering the phone. They also charge for a low usage fee of 2.50 plus
universal charge and Federal excise tax. They say you have to make at least 3.00 a
month of long distance calls in order to not be charged 2.50 low usage fee. I cannot
believe a company can do this to us. Please do investigate them and hopehlly get them
governed like the rest of the telephone companies. Appreciate all you can do to help us.
Thank You,
Melba McCarter 4mLY&

phone no. 623-465-4663
fax no. 623-465-4405
m
JUN 1 4 2005
Control No. 050 1124/kah
Ms. Melba McCarter

515 E. Carefree Hwy
PMB #402
Phoenix, AZ 85085
Dear Ms. McCarter:
Thank you for your letter addressed to Senator John McCain regarding the difficulties
you are experiencing with WorldxChange Corporation (WorldxChange). Your letter has been
forwarded to the Commission for our review.
We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by you to WorldxChange and
directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed
WorldxChange to send you a copy of the response that the company submits to the
Commission. You may obtain information regarding your 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). You should mention your informal complaint number, 05-
B0176778, and the congressional tracking number listed at the top of this letter to facilitate a
prompt response to your inquiry.
'
Sincerely,
t k Jay Keithley V
Deputy Bureau Chief
1
SEP 2 6 2005
Ms. Melba McCarter

515 E. Carefree Hwy
PMB #402
Phoenix, AZ 85085
Dear Ms. McCarter:
This letter is a follow up to our letter dated June 14, 2005, regarding your concerns
regarding the difficulties you were experiencing with WorldxChange Corporation (Acceris).
On June 29, 2005, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed Acceris to
information. Enclosed is a copy of the company's response. In their response Acceris states
that you used their dial around service, 10-15-335, to make long distance calls. Acceris' dial
around product includes a $2.50 per month low usage fee that is applied to the accounts of dial
around customers who are billed by their Local Exchange Carrier and who do not bill at least
$3.00 per month. Acceris apologizes for the inconvenience, however considers the fees valid
charges.
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 you
and Acceris to resolve your 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 8 1.717.
If you are not satisfied with the service provider's response to the inbrmal complaint,
or with the staff's disposition of your complaint the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 0 1.720,
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.
T
Ms. Melba McCarter Page 2
You may also choose to continue to work directly with Acceris to resolve your
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,
EYysP
D.
Jau
bJ
Thomas Wya
Deputy Bureau Chief
Enclosure
1 T
i
4cceris d_i -
FCC - MAIL-
Tel BS8.541.5700
Fax 858.566.6523
July28,2005
L. BocANEcru
JOHNNIE
BYFacsimile and Overnieht Courier 92.771 .M49
JOHNNIEBOCANECRA~CCERIS.COM
i Ms. Martha Contee

Federal CommunicationsCommission
i Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
445 12th street sw
ROOIII4-C763
Re: IC Number: OS-BO176778

Ms.Melba McCarter
1 Dear Us Contee:
I This letter is to inform you that Acceris Communications Corp. (“Acds”) is in &pt
of the above-referencedcomplaht filed with the Federal CommUnications Commission
(“FCC”).The complaint alleges that AcCeris incorrectly billed complainant for service.
Please see Acceris’ response below:
Acceris’ has completed its review of Ms. McCarter’s account. Ms. McCarter used
Acceris’ dial-around service, 10-15-335, to make a long distance calls. Accens’ dial
around product includes a 52SO per month low-usage fee that is applied to the accounts
of all did-around customers who are billed by their local exchange carrier ((ZEC”) and
who do not bill at least $3.00 in toll usage in a calendar month. This policy became
effective October 1,2003. Ms. McCarter was assessed a low-usage fee four (4) times.
Acceris discloses the terms of this dial-aroundservice on the company’s website

(www.acceris.com). The low-usage fee is also specifically disclosed when a customer
cuntacts the customer service departmentto initiate service. Acceris’ customer service
departmentencourages customersto select a plan offered by the company (‘clplan’7)
which allows the customer to be billed automatically using a d i t d. This plan does
not incur the law-usage fee.
Acceris apologizes for any inconvenience that this matter may have caused Ms.
McCarter. However, Acceris considers these fees as vdid charges.
I
Ms. Martha Contee
July 28,2005
Page 2
Should your office have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel Eree to
contact the undersigned.
-' . M-
I
cc: Ms. Melba McCarter

Ms. Linda Freeman, Federal Communications Cornmission
Office of U.S.Senator John McCain
r
ARIZONA (202)224-2235
5353 N O R T H16 STREET

~ ~
CHAIRMAN
Wnited state5 Senate

SUITE 105
COMMITTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS PHOENIX, AZ 85016
C O M M I T E E O N ARMED SERVICES
(602)952-2410
COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE, 4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE

DRIVE
TEMPE, A 2 85282
(480)897-6289
407 WEST CONGRESS STREET
SUITE 103
TUCSON, A 2 85701
(520)670-6334
TELEPHONEFOR H E A R I N GIMPAIRED
May 31,2 (602)952-0170
Ms. Martha Johnston

Director
F L L~1C G G ~ ~ ~ JCuliiIirisslvii
~ ~ G L I ~
Dear Ms. Johnston: v

I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Emilio Soto who has encountered a
problem with his long-distance charges.
respond directly to Emilio Soto.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
M X C S
Enclosure(s)

q $;'
I
Emilio Soto ' ?&

:
Avondale, Arizona 85323-7084
emil2548@cox.net
623-536-6185
May 23rd,2005
RE: MCI Long Distance
Senator John McCain

2400 East Biltmore Circle, Suite 1150
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Your Honor,
Attached, please find a copy of a letter I have sent to the Federal Communications
Commission. Wherein, I have experienced a problem with MCI and I believe that MCI
Long Distance has violated some federal law or regulation. I do not believe that any long
distance company should have the ability to impose whatever charges and surcharges they
see fit to impose ( in addition to those already paid to the preferreNprimary carrier)
without informing the consumer prior to connecting a long distance call. The consumer
having selected hisher long distance carrier with respect to acceptable charges should
prevail. It is amazing to think that it could have been AT&T and they would have seen fit
to charge $4.00 a minute and imposed a $10.00 surcharge just for the connection.
If no federal law or regulation exist, I believe that one should be enacted. It is hard for me
to believe that the American public has not been protected by our congress.
I respectfully request that you address this issue and provide me with a response.
Thank you.
Page 1 of 1
Emilio Soto
Avondale, AZ 85323
623-536-6185
May 16,2005
RE:MCI Long Distance Dispute

1919 M Street N W
Washington DC 20036-3505
On this date I received a phone bill fiom w e s t my local telephone company. Included in this
bill was a charge to MCI Long Distance for a collect call my wife received on April 20*, 2005. I
have enclosed a copy of that statement. We were charged $15.44 for a 7 minute collect phone
call fiom Colton, California
We subscribe to long distance service through Qwest at amte of .15 cents aminute. The call
should have cost $1.05. We also pay the monthly Qwest long distance charge of $1-13. W e also
pay our taxes, fees & surcharges for the luxury of having telephone service.
After vie- my bill, I telephoned Qwest and spoke to Luis at 1-800-244-1 111. He told me that
west had mthing to do with the charges made by MCI. Now this is strange, because it was
included in their phone bill. Qwest is or was negotiating the purchase of MCI. I told him I
wanted to ptest the charges. He said that west did not have anything to do with the long
distance call, because it was forwarded through MCL I would have to call 1-800-444-3333 and
discussthe dispute with MCI. If1 did not pay the MCI charges on the payment, it would not
disrupt their services to my home. He was finn on my having to call MCI and letting them know
that I was disputing their charges.
I then telephoned MCI and spoke with Chad at approXimatey 1850 hrs (PST). He told me that
he was in the residentialseMce for MCI and there was nothing he could do or note in their
system, because I did not have an account with their company. I would have to speak to someone
in their 800 line service department. He then had a subject who identified himself as Matthew
come on the line, I explained to Matthew that we had our long distance service provided by
Qwest and that our rate was 15 cents a minute. When his company called on April the 20&
asking my wife if we would accept the collect call, she was not told the call was going to cost us
$2.15+ a minute. I told him that had they made my wife aware of this,she would not have
accepted the call. I was calling to protesttheircharges. Matthewtold metheir was a $4.99(?)
access fee, then their was some other fee, and the call was actually one dollar and some cents per
Emilio Soto
Avondale, AZ 85323
623-536-6185
minute. I told him that I did not have a problem with paying a reasonable rate for the collect call.
Ifthey pro rated the call, I was willing to pay, but I was not going to pay as it stood- He said he
was not in a position to do anything for me. I told him to let his company know that I was not
going to pay their charges. I was not going to be raped by them. I had a problem with MCI
digging in my pocket.
I am writing this letter to you in order to find out ifit is legal to do what they have done. I am
also interested inknowing as to what I and the Americanpublic can expect. Are these
Companies allowed to charge any rate they want. What would I have expected if it had been
AT&T, Sprint or any other company. Why do I pay one company surcharges and access fees,
only to be hit with these charges by another company. The statement that I received fiom my
phone company is not ikmized as to the MCI charges. Can any long distance provider just
provide a long distance service without going throughmy selected long distance company?
I am not asking you for legal advice. It is impossibleto deal with CoTpofBfio~~~, where there
board of directors is shielded by the first line of employee that dismisses you with an apology or
a lack of ownership for the actions of his employer. I am asking you for direction to this issue
andor your assistance. At this point,I don’t know what to exptxt from either of these two
companies,or any other cmmpany/corporation in the future.
Please respond to letter in a timely manner.
Thank you.
Emilio SO
cc: Senator McCain & Representative Grijalva
EMlLlO SOT0
Account No: g23-536-6185-150R
For quecltionr, oall 1 800 244-1111
www.mcl.com
Page 5
of chargis
MCiLm Distance 14.99
TotrlLng Dlstance 14.98
Taxes
FederalExcise Tax .a
Total Tax08 .4!i
Total MCl Amount $15.44 I

MCI Dab Tim. P b Numkr Type Minutes Amount
L O n ! l D ~ 1.~ AprP
~ 1057A ToLlTCHFLDPK A2 623 536 6 1 1
Collwt Fr COLTON CA 309 S12 9215 F 7 14.99
I MCI Long Dl&encr 7 $14.99 I

7lthportlon ofyow bin Is pmvideti us a service to MCI.
7?mIs no connecUonbetwean Qwsst and MCI.
m
JUL 5 2005
Control No. 05012461aw
Mr. Emilio Soto

Avondale, AZ 85323
Dear Mr. Soto:
Thank you for your letter to Senator John McCain regarding the difficulties you are
experiencing with MCI. Senator McCain forwarded your letter to us for handling.
We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by you to MCI and directed the
company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed the company to send
you a copy of the response that the company submits to the Commission. You can obtain
information regarding the status of your 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 1-888-225-5322. TTY users may call 1-
888-835-5322. You should mention your informal complaint tracking number 05-10177351
and the Congressional tracking number indicated at the top of this letter to facilitate a prompt
response to your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Jay Keithley
Deputy Bureau Chief

ARIZONA
(202) 224-2235
5353 NORTH1 6 STREET~ ~

CHAIRMAN
SUITE 105
PHOENIX,A 2 85016
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES (602) 952-2410
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 4703 SOUTH L A K E S H O RDRIVE

E
TEMPE,A Z 85282
I (480) 897-6289
* - 407 WEST CONGRESSSTREET

SUITE 103
TUCSON,A2 85701
(520) 670-6334
June 27,2005
(602) 952-0170
Director Thomas Wyatt

445 12th Street, SW
Dear Mr. Wyatt :
I am inquiring about the status of my request made in my letter of May 18*, 2005 regarding
my constituent, Myra Jane Shafer .
Please provide me with an updated status of this inquiry so that I may reply to my constituent.
Please mark the envelope to the attention of Alexia Korte :
Offce of Senator John McCain

407 W. Congress Street
Suite 103
Thank you for your cooperation. I look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Mtak
Enclosure(s)

Senator John McCain
4SO W. Paseo Redondo, #200
Tucson,AZ 85701
! -
i
Oear Senator McCain:
1 am a constituent who lives in SaddleBrook, AZ just north of Tucson. I have

received a letter from the Architectural Landscaping Committa which is a
part of Homeowners Association #2 in this age-restricted community. The
relocate a satellite dish that was mounted on
cppariy wbo installed it for us. 1 also was
he" WO
ears and was the director of television development for NASA.
ulas well, and felt we were right in our decision of where to
locate the dish, I am undar the impression that a perm cannot be levied a
fine of any Mnd by these associations.
I am appealing to you and your Staff t o tell me what my rights are in this
matter. The FCC was contacted in 2004 to render a ruling to us and, to my
-
knowledge, after perusing the file we never received that ruling, If I h ad
-
lots of money and the psyche and physical energy to fight this I would (I
have cancer and health Is marginal),
1 .
-
Time is somewhat critical here I just want to know what my legal rights are
Tucson, AZ 85739
Ph: S20-816-0392
Fax: 520-81 84392
e-mail: ishafe@aol.com
July 26,2005
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0501383

407 West Congress Street
Suite 103
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Myra Jane Shafer of Tucson,
Arizona, regarding the Commission’s “Over-the-Air Reception Devices (“OTARD”) rule. I
Pursuant to section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission has
adopted rules concerning the installation of devices, such as small satellite dishes and television
antennas, designed to receive video programming and certain data services. Specifically, among
other things, the Commission’s rule prohibits restrictions that impair the installation,
maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. These antennas include
direct broadcast service (“DBS”) satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39”) in diameter
(larger in Alaska), TV antennas, and antennas used to receive multichannel distribution service
(MMDS).
As Ms. Shafer discusses in her correspondence, her late husband, Mr. Robert J. Shafer,
filed a Petition for Declaratory Rulinq (“Petition”) with the Commission regarding the antenna
installation policies of the SaddleBrooke Homeowners’ Association #2 (“HOA”). Specifically,
the Petition asserts that the HOA’s restriction concerning the installation of a satellite dish on the
roof of the Shafer’s residence is not consistent with the Commission’s OTARD rule. Ms. Shafer
also indicates that the HOA recently notified her that she would be subject to financial penalties
if her satellite dish was not relocated by a specific date.
Pursuant to the OTARD rule, an entity seeking to enforce restrictions concerning the
installation of permitted antennas is required to suspend all enforcement actions pending
completion of the Commission’s review. The requirement to suspend enforcement activities
applies unless the antenna installation is in an historic area or raises legitimate safety concerns.
Based on the information available, Ms. Shafer does not reside in an historic area and the HOA
has not alleged that the satellite dish is not safe. Therefore, the staff of the Commission’s Media
Bureau recently sent a letter to the HOA reminding the Association that enforcement efforts
concerning Ms. Shafer’s satellite dish must cease until the pending Petition is resolved. For your
review and to provide Ms. Shafer with additional information, I have enclosed a copy of the
staffs letter.
Page 2-The Honorable John McCaiii
further assistance.
Sincerely,
hkd
Michael S. Perko A.
Chief, Office of Communications and Industry Information
Media Bureau
Enclosure
JOHN McCAIN
UNITED STATES SENATOR
4703 South Lakeshore Drive, Suite 1
(480) 897-6289 J FAX (480) 897-8389
DATE: 2-26~03~
FAX ##
FROM:
-Senator John McCain -Deb Jacobus

-Tom McCanna __. Donna Kenny
-
6 h u c k Coolidge
I
I
Other: -
7Pages Includir)g Coyer

Y
. -
bd6Z
0ii91/2085 08: 58
_-
%YAGER
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
TO: Michelle Gramley
FAX #; 602 952 8702
FROM: Mark A. Voigt
FAX #: 480-946-0637
DATE: July 21.2005
PAGES: Including the transmittal sheet:

COPY TO FOLLOW: D Yes rn No
MESSAGE
Michelle, here is the background on the FCC grant request that we discussed yesterday.
Thanks for you help.
-
Voyagar Inmstrnent Propeftiee 6900 East Second Street S d s d a l o , 85251
0 Phone (480) 9489635 0 FAX (480) 946-9637 0
ZOOQ
- -- __ - XVd 6P:60 S O O Z / 9 Z / L O
July 21,2005
The Honoablc John McCain

5333 Nonh 16"' Street
'Phocnix,Az 8501.6
Att: Ms Michelle Gramley
Deax Senator McCain.:
I am the President of the Bond of directors for Accel School which was fomerly h o w n as the Latch,
Scbool.with cnmpuscs in Phocni,x43d in Tmpc Lo acrvc scvmly mon.mlly nnd physically cballcapd
sludcnts. We applied for an FCC g.anr program. in early 2003 to find computer and.communication
equipment at ow various facilities. "Ihc grant requen is still pending and we would like you
FCC in a timely fashion.
q your officc in
ast comstmndence regardine this request both with rlie FCC as well a
is a point where the do not need any addition31 information &om us and we are just
cision that is now going on two year$ to receive. Thank you so much for your past
nd hapefilly you can help U8 gut 3 find drciaiokl on.the request.
f Accel School Directors
XVd 6P:60 S O O Z / 9 Z / L O
Mark Voigt
From; Mark Nadel [Mark,Nadcl@fcc.gov]

Sent: Thursday, July 07,2005 7:30AM
To: MarK Voigt
subject:2
-
c 2)
Mark
-
I &ish that I could be more helpful. but all that 1 can share with you at this time is what you already know your
appeal is being processed, we do not need any fudher information tram you, and I cannot give yuu ally firm
estimate of when a decision on the Latch School appeal will be released. I'm sorry, but I hope it will be finished
very soon.
1 hope you had a nice July 4th weekend and that your summer continues well.
Mark
*** Nan-Public: For Internal Uec Oialy *"
----Original Message-----
From: Mark Voigt [maiIta;mvoigt@voyagerproperties.com J
Sent: Friday, July 01,2005 1:20 PM
to;Mark Nude1
Cc: gbaxter@accei.arg;'Connie Laird'
Subject: Tracking # 328123
Hello Mark. My name Is Mark Voigt and I am the President of the Board for Latch (ACCEL) School in
Phoenix. AZ. I know you all are busy but it has been a long time for this particular grant being in your
system. What is the status and is there anything we can da to move the process forward? 1 guess m e
case has been in the system for quite same time and has been assigned to several people at the FCC.
Should wc bc talking ta arneone else or do you nnad same more information from us to get some type of
closure?
Thanks tor you rime and please let me WIUW. Have a nice holiday weekend. MAV
Mark A. Volgt
Voyager Inuestment Properties, LLC
mvoIgt&voyagerproperties.com
Phone: 460.848.9636
Cell! 480.363.6072
Fax; 480-946-9637
6990 East Second Street
Scottsdale, A 2 852515305
Www.voyaRe.rproperties.c.om
7/13/2005
P O 0 @J
XVd 6b:60 S O O Z / 9 Z / L O
October 8,2003
??le Il.onora.blcJohn M c C h
2400 E.Arizona Biltmore Circle, Suite I. 150
Phoeniy AZ 85016
Dear Senator McCnin,
As you may remember3LATCH School, Inc. is the largcst, private, mn-profit school
Arizona serving studenrs with disabilities. W c senm o w 200 s t u d m t s f h m32 public
school d i n k t s within Maricopa County. In the past, you and Mrs. McCain have very
pt~rcrouslycomnhted to ow school. I sm writing today to request your awistmcc with
a matter very critical to LATCH School.
Inthe ycar 2002,LATCH School filed for a grant fkom thc Schpols & Libraries Division
for funding for netwoxlcing our three major campuses. These funds are available fiom the
F.C.C. and the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Adminisuatllon
Company. LATCH School has twice been denied fundug by this agency, and we bave
filcd twu appeals with the F.C.C.
LATCH School would like to rcccive assistance in expediting the awed with the F C C .
as timing inthis matter is critical. LATCH School is currently constructing a ncw rmin
campus with ocrupancy scheduled for December. 2003. The requested pant funds
would greatly increase our ability to network ow campus for our students as well as
improve our tclephone and video equipment.
In contacting the F.C.C.last week, we were told that LATCH School is number 257 of
370 cages awaiting assignment to an attorney fbr review. MdiLiudJ.y, wc WZ-C told that
we should not look for a decision until March of2004. The guidelines, as spelled out
undm h i s prugrauh aatc that the F.C.C. d l respond within 90 days, and the F.C.C.hm
had OUT second appeal since May 20,2003.I have included a copy ofthe items in
question,and our position in tbe May appwl letter to the F.C.C.
We were originally denied f i m d h g based on our request for P.C,cards and fimding for
our Preschool equipment. We appealed this decision on August 1,2002 spelling out that
the ineligible items o d y represented 29.6% o f the total requested dollars. Most
importantly, we advised the Schools and Libraries rhai the Iist5ng o C h Presch001 &ould
read K-12.As LATCH School is a special education school.and s a v e s students &om 3-
22, wc were not aware that thc Schools and Libraries Division would c0nSicfe.r 115 a
Preschool! Unfibrtunately, we were denied fundisg with the decision Stating that “Since
XVd 6P:60 S O O Z / 9 Z / L O
Preschool-Kindergartenstudents and ficilities are not eligible to receive e-rate finding in
Arizona, the wireless LAN for the Pre-K campus you refaenced on the Item 2 1
attachment was deemed inel jgible.”
At DO time did the S.L.C. review process indicate they understood us to be a s p a i d

education school which, of course, we are. Under Title 15, the law requires that children
with special UUECZS $La1t k h education at the agc ofthrcz, and LATCH School serves a
small percentage of children, ages three IO six, as well as a significant number of older
students.
Our first appeal was denied by the Schools & Libraries based on the above statement, and
LATCH School has filed a second appeal (the May 20,2003letter) to the F.C.C.
Enclosed you will h d a complete package of all the documentation reference this case. I
hope you will assist US in getting resolution to this a p p d as quiokly as possible as we
need the grant funds during the construction that is occurring this fill.
I dmply appreciate any assistance that you can give us.
Sincerely,
Connie Flctcber Laird

Executive Dirmtor
Ocrober 24,2003
Connie Fletcher
Executive Director
Larch Schoal, Inc.
8 145 Noflli 27th Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85051
Doar Connie:
1 want to take this opportunity to hank YOU for your lcrter of October 8,2003.
Your situation is in the jurisdiction of tha Federal Communication Commission. Therefore, 1

have forwarded your lamer t o the Director of Legislache Airairs of the Federal Communication
Comxnission.
Connie, I do hope YOLK situation can be rcanlved favorably.
& *cL
Sincerely,
ohn McCain
United Stotes Scnaror
JM/zkp
.'I-; - 0I3 Q(=
August 16,2005

Thank you for your July 26,2005 correspondence regarding the concerns of your
constituent, Mark Voigt, President of the Board of Directors for Accel School (Accel).
Specifically, you inquired about Accel's appeal of a decision regarding the schools and
libraries universal service support mechanism, commonly referred to as the E-rate
program.
I recognize that, as you have noted, Accel's appeal to the Commission has been
pending for some time, Please be assured, however, that we are making every effort to
resolve the issues raised in Accel's appeal in a timely and equitable manner, given the
volume of appeals currently pending before the Commission. Although I cannot
comment on the merits of the appeal while it is under review, I can assure you that we
will give full consideration to the arguments made in the appeal and reach our decision as
quickly as possible. Once issued, a copy of the decision will be sent directly to Accel.
We appreciate your interest in the schools and libraries program. If you require
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the Telecommunications Access
Policy Division at (202) 41 8-7400.
Sincerely,
I i
' 6 " *A42 u * _I #*
I , _ r
Vickie S. Robinson
Deputy Chief
JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
ARIZONA
(202) 224-2235
5353 NORTH1 6 STREET

~ ~
CHAIRMAN
Wnited State5 Senate

SUITE 105
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS PHOENIX, A Z 85016
C O M M l n E E ON ARMED SERVICES (602) 952-2410
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE DRIVE

TEMPE, A Z 85282
(480) 897-6289
407 WESTCONGRESSS T R E E ~
SUITE 103
TUCSON, A 2 85701
(520) 670-6334
TELEPHONE FOR HEARING IMPAIRED

(602) 952-0170
August 10,2005
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Sandra Hatcher who has encountered a
problem with the enclosed document.
respond directly to Sandra Hatcher.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jzhn McCain
M Z C C
Enclosure

Sandra Hatcher
1639 E. Desert Lane
Phoenix, AZ. 85042
(602) 323-5155
August 5,2005
Senator John McCain

Fax #: (602) 952-8702
Yesterday, August 4,2005 I received a call &om a man who had a thick accent
prevalent to the people of India. He called himself Malcolm Knight. Mr. Knight
called to idorm me that 1 had just been awarded five thousand dollars grant money
from the U.S. tax dollars and it could even be as much as twenty-five thousand tax
dollars. He stated that a package of infomation would be mailed to me and that I
was to 511out the infomation back to him and he alluded that 1 would receive the
five thousand dollars, and possibly more. Each time he gave a bit of idormation
he would state my name, and ask me to affirm that I had heard and understood
what he was saying. I would never say “yes” and when he would again ask if I had
heard and understood I would say ‘?.unhurn”. Each time that I spoke or asked
questions I could hear my voice echo clearly.
1 became wary of this call and asked him for a call back number and the agency he
worked for. The information Mr. Knight gave me was:
l(877) 709-9987
Us.Government Grant Information Guide
This is probably nothing to be wary of, but I would appreciate it if your office to
check this out for me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sandra Hatcher
m
AUG 3 1 2805
Ms. Sandra Hatcher

1639 E. Desert Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85042
Dear Ms. Hatcher:
Thank you for your letter to Senator John McCain, regarding your concerns about
receiving a telephone call that appears to be an attempt at fraud. Senator McCain forwarded
your letter to us for handling.

jurisdiction over interstate and foreign telecommunications service matters. Many issues,
however, fall under the jurisdiction of other agencies. You should contact the United States
Secret Service by writing to the United States Secret Service, Financial Crimes Division, 419
Task Force, 950 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001-4518. You can visit their web site
at htm://www .secretservice.g;ov/financialcrimesshtml for additional information concerning
this type of fraud.
questions.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Wyatt J
Deputy Bureau Chief

- 1 T
JOHN McCAlN SENATEOFFICE BUILDING
ARIZONA
CHAIRMAN @3 N”s”,:H~I;; STREET

COMMITFEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
COMMITFEE ON ARMED SERVICES

United States Senate 8
CP
PHOENIX, A 2 85016
(602) 952-2410
*
e-4703 SOUTH LAKESHOREDRIVE
SUITE 1
TEMPE,A2 85282
(480) 897-6289
407 WEST CONGRESSSTREET

SUITE 103
TUCSON,A Z 85701
August 1 1,2005 (520) 670-6334

(602)952-0170
Ms. Martha Johnston

Director
Dear Ms. Johnston:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning William Wayne who has encountered a
problem with the Federal Communications Commission.
Because the situation is under your jurisdiction, I am respectfdly referring this matter to you
respond directly to Mr. Wayne.
Thank you
Sincerely,
f l WZL John McCain

M X C C
Enclosure(s)
-II_--_
8-82-2885 4:22PM ~ FROM MR. RADIO 928 763 2786 P. 1
VIA FACSKMlLE
July 26,2005

Fax: (602) 952-8702

-
1 need your assistance. I’mhaving a -oblem with the Federal Communications
Commission. I have filed a request fc license revocation of call signs KNLW614
and KNLW615. These are site specil :.licensesbelonging to Contact
Communications in Las Vegas, NV, vned by Bob Bliss. I first filed this request
on Septcmber IO, 2003.
According to FCC rules, if a license Bnot constructed and operated within one
year o f the grant it can be revoked, I new that these licenses were not
constructed because Mr. Bliss agreed 1 sell the channels to ma in April, 2000
with the understanding that 1 would h ve to constnict them before the purchase to
make the sale legal. He then decided ot to sell the channels but wanted to be my
partner. After trying to purchase thes channels from MT. Bliss 1bought them in
the FCC Auction in 2001 and the lice pes were granted to me on July 30,2002. I
waited until September 2003, monitoi d the channels, filed the revocation action
and constructed the channels. After r xiving the notice ofrevocation action I
had filed Mr. Bliss constructed the cb ulels. This has made the system useless to
him and 1.
T realize that you cannot do anything i bout thc FCC’s regulations and their
decisions, but the problem that I’mnc J having is my lawyers have told me that
the FCC does not like to ,revokelicen: :sand that they may never make a decision.
My lawyers have contacted the FCC c k a and their response was: “No decision
has been made yet”. Normally, I coul wait for this decision, but I’m going to
retire aftw more than 30 years in this lsiness. I have a contract for the sale of
my busincss and this matter has comp cated the closing of the sale and will affect
the final sale price. All of the comme ts for both parties have been submitted to
the FCC. We just need the FCC to m, [e a decision.
-
% # 4
5010 50. Decafur Blvd.. Sulte 0 -L& Vega5
1738 nlahway 95 -Bullhead Clty. AZ 8644
3509 Marlcopa Ave. sbke’navasu Clty, A2 86406 -(
-
(702) ~ - P A G (72451
18
763-4433 800-83k-W64
C FAX (702) 873-1566
*FAX ( 5 2 0 ) 763-2786
!O) 680-4333* 800-643-3232* F A X (520)680-4512
8-82-2885 4:23PM FROM MR. RADIO 928 763 2786 P. 2
. .
The Honorable Jon Kyl j Page 2
My request is: “Is there anything YOL ofiice can do to expedite the decision
from the FCC?” I realize that your of :e cannot influence the decisions made by
the FCC,we just need to get a decisio from them.
Any help your office can offer in this alter is greatly appreciated. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if you have any uestions. My office number is (928)763-
4433 and my home number is (928)76 -2302.
Thank you.
Sin erely,
7 3 ‘
WLZLIAM WAYNE’
President
JON KYL STATE OFFICES:
ARIZONA 2200 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD
SUITE 120
730 HARTSENATEOFFICEBUILDING
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
(202) 224-4521
United Statm Senate

(6021 840-1891
COMMITTEES
1315 NORTH ORACLE ROAD
FINANCE SUITE 220
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0304 TUCSON, AZ 85704
JUDICIARY
(520) 575-8633
CHAIRMAN
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE August 16,2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Congressional Legislative Liaison
Dear MS. Atkinson:
The enclosed information is sent for your consideration. Please forward to me the
necessary information for response to my constituent, William A. Wayne.
Please reply to the attention of Jonathan Babbitt of my staff in Phoenix. Should you wish
to convey it instead via electronic mail attachment on agency letterhead, please do so at:
Jonathan-Babbittakyl.senate.gov.
Naturally, I do not expect any action to be taken in this matter that would contravene
existing rules and regulations.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
JON KYL
JK: jb
enclosure
http://www.senate.gov/-kyW
Jon KyI
ARIZONA
~W~CAMEJEACKRVM
NITE 12Q
PHOENlXAZ85016
730 HARTSENATE
om- BUIUJING
United States Senate (602)e40 -189 1
FAX (602)
957- 6838
(202)224-4621
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0304 STATE OFFfcEs:
C o h 4 M m
m"cE
NDlClART
1 2 2005 (820)575.8833
FAXX520)707-3232
731s NORTH ORACLEmm
INlELLIGENCE sum 220
PwoYeNATuRAL TucsoNru85704
RESOURCES , " ~
. PRIVACY ACT CONSEW F O d

. ., .. -
TO WHOM IT CONCERN: . - . - DATE
Zn accordance with the provisions of Public Law 93-579(The Privaoy Act of 1974), I hereby
give my conseat for information concerning me to be firrnished to Seaator JOEKyl. I request that any
relevant informationhe may require in order to assist in tespondhg to my inquiry,as his constituent, be
provided to him in accordancewith the provisions of the law.
~.
To begin yo& .-
FEDEWAGENCY INVOLVED:
SOCLALs~cuRITi NUMBFR
CIVIL SRRVICE CLA& NUMBER:
VElTM"S CLAIMNUMBER:
BRANCH OF SERVICE: RANK
ALIEN REGISTRATIONNUMBER:
DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH. fT/x7//ve c
de
IF REQVESmG HELP ON BEHALF OF ANO- GIVE THE AEOVE INFOIUVlATION FOR

THAT PERSON. HIS/HERNAME:
HAVE YOU CONTACTED ANOTHER CON~XESSIONALOFFICE? /'YES NO
WHOSE? 5 e M Tb-y YNC C ~ l n
Briefly explain the problem or information desired. Attach a separate sheet ifnecessary. Be
sure to include necessary information and send documentation, if available.
SIGNATURE
Note: Residents of Cochise, Pima and Santa Cruz county should returnthe completed form to Senator
Kyl's Tucson office; residents of all other Arizona counties should return the completed form to the
Phoenix office. The address of each state office is at the top of this form.
MEMORANDUM
Jonathan D. Babbitt
Constituent Service Representative
U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (602) 840-1891
1. Is there a scenario to expedite a decision?

2. Can you give Mr. Wayne a timeline for a decision?
3. Where and whom can he call for regular updates?
September 20,2005
Mr. William Wayne

President, Mr. Radio
1738 Highway 95
Bullhead City, Arizona 86442
Dear Mr. Wayne:
This is in response to a request by Senator John McCain that we respond to your July 26,2005
letter to the Senator regarding a request you submitted to the Commission for the revocation of certain
licenses. In your letter, you state that you filed “a request for license revocation of call signs KNLW614
and KNLW615 ... site specific licenses belonging to Contact Communications in Las Vegas, NV, owned
by Bob Bliss” on the basis that Contact had failed to construct these licensees. You further state that your
request occurred after an unsuccessful agreement to purchase these licensees from Mr. Bliss, and after
your subsequent purchase of these same channels at auction in 2001. According to your letter, you were
then granted your licenses in July 2002. After monitoring use of these channels until September 2003,
you filed your request with the Commission and constructed the channels. After receipt of your
revocation request, you allege that Mr. Bliss also constructed the same channels. You ask for an
expeditious decision on your request in light of your current plans for retirement and sale of your
business.
We first wish to clarify the legal standards that apply in this case. The pleading you submitted to
the Commission is an informal request for an investigation into whether the licenses have automatically
cancelled. Under Commission rules, the construction period for site-specific stations like KNLW614 and
KNLW615 is one year.’ In addition, if a commercial paging station like KNLW614 or KNLW615 ceases
operations for 90 continuous days, that station is deemed to have permanently discontinued operations
under Commission rules.* If a licensee fails to meet its construction deadline or if a station permanently
discontinues operations, as defined under Commission rules, the license automatically terminates without
specific Commission a ~ t i o n .The
~ initial burden of proof is on the party alleging that an authorization
cancelled automatically and, if the Commission finds that the complaining party has made a prima facie
case, we seek a response from the licensee. You allege in your informal complaint that Contact
Communications had not constructed its stations and that the stations had permanently discontinued
operations. In your informal request and in your letter, you state that you are the geographic area licensee
to whom the spectrum would automatically revert under Commission rules if the licenses have
automatically terminated.
Finding the evidence you provided in your initial informal request insufficient for purposes of
pursuing an investigation into whether Contact Communications had failed to construct its licenses or
whether the stations had permanently discontinued operations, we directed you to provide specific
47 C.F.R. 0 22.51 1.
47 C.F.R. 0 22.317. The only exception provided in this rule is where the licensee has notified the Commission
prior to the end of the 90-day period and provided a date on with operation will resume, which date must not exceed
an additional 30 days. Id.
47 C.F.R. 0 1.955(a)( 1).
information in an effort to develop as complete an evidentiary record as possible. After requesting an
extension of 30 days within which to respond, you provided enough additional information for us to
pursue the investigation. We then sent Contact Communications a letter seeking specific information
regarding your allegations, directing the licensee to provide a response within 30 days. After also
receiving an extension, Contact Communications submitted its response to our inquiry. While Contact
Communications’ response would typically be the final pleading in this type of proceeding allowing
Commission staff to render a decision, you then filed a reply to that response. Contact then filed its
response to your reply, and you filed a second reply to Contact’s response to your first reply.
We are currently reviewing the facts and arguments presented in the supplemental pleadings with
an eye towards moving forward to a decision in this matter. We would like to note that we were unaware
of your personal situation and can appreciate the information you have provided in your letter about your
plans for retirement and the sale of your business.
I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions at this time, please do
not hesitate to contact me at 202-418-0698.
Sincerely,
gdmd<
Mobility Division
Wireless TelecommunicationsBureau

Washington DC 205 10-0303
ARIZONA (202) 224-2235

~ ~
SUITE 105
Wnited States Sen@e

CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS PHOENIX, A 2 85016
(602) 952-2410
C O M M l n E E ON ARMED SERVICES
8 4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE DRIVE
SUITE 1
TEMPE,A 2 85282
( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289
SUITE 103
TUCSON, A Z 85701
(520) 670-6334
1602) 952-0170
August 10, 2005
Ms. Martha Johnston

Director
Dear Ms. Johnston:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Minh Van Tran who has encountered a
problem with his internet charges.
respond directly to Mr. Tran.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
fl John McCain
M X C S
Enclosure(s)
-
!
!
PaymentOne.com
MlNH VAN TRAN

For questions, call 1 888 296-8076 www.paymentone.com
Enhanced Telecommunications Services and Products
The charges on this portion of your bill are for

non-telecommunications services and products. You have the right to
dispute these charges, if you feel they are not legitimate. Neither
local nor long distance services can be disconnected for nonpayment
of these charges. The service providers that bill these types of
charges may employ other agencies to collect these charges, even if
Qwest has previously adjusted them from your bill.
Miscellaneous No. Date Item Amount
Charges and
Credits
The following transaction is billed on behalf of:'
AMERICA ONLINE
For questions & rates, call 1-888-839-8458
AOLOnlineService - 28.90
AOLOnlineService - 28 .GO
Tax Code Explanation:
09 - Tax Exempt Including Surcharge
I PavmentOne.com-Spec Svcs Misc Charaes and Credits $57.80 I
This portion of your bill is provided as a service to PaymentOne.com-Spec Svcs.
There is no connection between Qwest and Payment0ne.com-Spec Svcs.
Q we s t. 42
Sprrl? of Ssrwcr"
TWS PAGE INCLUDES THESE QWEST SERVICES: MtNH VAN TRAN

Account Mmber: 602 249-3589 686R
6flfOME INTERNET 0 LOWG'DISTANQ WIR€L€SS OKilTALN
Customer Service 1 800 244-1 111 Visit www.qwest.com
item Rate Subtotal

Home Telephone
Charges from Mar 10 to Apr 09
Basic Services
1 Residence Line 13.18
Optional Servlces
1 Cine-BackerfMOptional
Insids Wire Rdpair Plan 4.7s
$17.93
Taxes, Fees & Surcharges

The following charges are permitfed by local, s!ate and federal
governments. f o r more information, visit our website at
www.q west.com.
Federal Excise at 3% .6Q
State Sales at 5.6% .74
Regulatory Surcharge at .I9% .Q3
Thischarge recovers the amountQwest is assessed by the
Arizona CorporationCommission. This assessment funds the
corporation commission, enabling it to peribrm its lawful duties.
County Sates at 7% .m
City Sales at 4.7% .e
State 91 1 at $ 3 7 per access line .37
This surcharge, funds the cost of providing emergency .
services communications systems in your communi&.
Federal Universal Serv Fund at 10.7% .87
This charge recovers the amount Owest contributes to
the Federal Universal Service Fund. This fund helps
keep local phone rates ahbrdable for all Americans.
Telecommunication Relay Service Fund at 1 . l %
This charge funds relay centers that help hearing and
speech-impaired customers make a m receive calls.
Federal Access Charge 6.30
This charge, allowed by the FCC.covers'partof the cost Ibr
providing access to and maintenance of the local nehvork.
1. . $9.56
Total m e s t Home Service $27.49
I
i
. . .l_l___ _.I* " . ._ . . .--. . ..-. . /

P.O. Box 310 Collection Service Bureau
Scottsdale, AZ-85252-0310 I
4335 N. Wells Fargo
ADDRESSSERVICE REQUESTED www.csbpayweb.com
(480)-467-23551 800-824-4889 Ext. 355
Client: uswo13
June 20,2005 Account #: 206819-7
Desk #: DL1 *
Creditor: QWEST COMMUNICATIONS
#BWNFTZF
#CSB6392757205069# 206819-7 / R01 Creditor Ref. #: 6022493589686
MlNH VANTRAN Total Balance Due: $160.70
2914 W CLAREMONT ST
PHOENIX AZ 85017-1629
11ll1ll1l1l11llllll1llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
RE: MINWVANTRAN
MINH VANTRAN
Dear MINH VANTRAN:
Your creditor, QWEST COMMUNICATIONS has assigned this account to us for collection.
This communication is from a debt collector. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any
information obtained will be used for that purpose.
Unless you noti@ this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity
of the debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notie this office
in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice, this office will: obtain verification of the debt
or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you
request this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice, this office will pro-Jide you
with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
If you would like to pay by credit card please return the bottom portion of this notice with the
completed information. You can also pay this account online at www.csbpayweb.com.
Return this portion of this notice with your payment.
Client: uswo13 . ' 1

June 20,!2005
Account #: 206819-7
Desk #: DL1 If paying by credit card (check one):
Creditor: QWEST COMMUNICATIONS
Creditor Ref. #: 60224935p9686 ww 0 Mastacard 0
Total Balance Due: $160.70
Re: MlNH VANTRAN
MlNH VANTRAN Card#. - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3 Digit Security Code (back of card) *
Exp Date. Amount: $
Signature.
Collection Service Bureau
P.O. Box 310 Print Name: '
Scottsdale, AZ 85252-0310
11ll11l1l1lll1l1l1l11,,1,111,,,,,11,1,,1llllllllllllllllllllll
CSBR01-620A200096JXO3-296
SEP 7 ?om
Control No. 050167Uaw

Thank you for your correspondence on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Minh Van Tran,
regarding unauthorized charges on his telephone bill by America Online, Inc. (AOL).

jurisdiction over interstate and foreign telecommunications service matters. Many telephone-
related issues, however, are subject to the rules of other agencies. The subject of Mr. Tan’s
correspondence indicates that it is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission.
Therefore, we have forwarded copies of his correspondence to the Consumer Response Center,
Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20580 for its
review and appropriate action. Mr. Van Tran may contact them toll free at 1-877-382-4357 or
visit their web site at www.ftc.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.
Mr. Van Tran’s state consumer protection office may also be of assistance. He may
contact them by writing to the Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection &
Advocacy Section, 1275 W Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926 or by calling toll
free 1-800-352-8431. Their web site is www.ag.state.az.us.
Although we cannot assist Mr. Van Tran at this time, letters from consumers such as
Mr. Van Tran’s may provide valuable information that may be used to develop or support
regulated Commission initiatives for consumers. Enclosed is information regarding cramming
that Mr. Van Tran may find helpful. We appreciate your inquiry. Please do not hesitate to
contact us if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
\ 4-
Thomas D. Wyatt’),
Deputy Bureau Chief
Enclosure
cc: Federal Trade Commission
I - 1
JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSELLSENATEO F F I C EBUILDING
ARIZONA INGTON. DC 20510-0303
( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
a 3 5 3 N O R T H1 6 STREET
~ ~
CHAIRMAN

SUITE 105
COMMITFEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE O N ARMED SERVICES ( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410

COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE, -4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE DRIVE
@ TEMPE, A Z 85282
(480) 897-6289
ct
cL 407 W E S T CONGRESSSTREET
SUITE 103
TUCSON,A2 85701
(520) 670-6334
August 11,2005
( 6 0 2 ) 952-0170
Thomas Wyatt
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554-000 I
Dear Mr. Wyatt :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Margaret Thornton who has encountered
a problem with charges on her Qwest telephone bill.
respond directly to Margaret .
Thank you.
Sincerely,
JM/tak
Enclosure( s)
- I_ __
Margaret Thornton
925 N. 3d Ave.
Tucson, AZ 85705
July 28, 2005
Senator John McCain

Re: Federal Access Charge on telephone bills
I have called Quest twice and the FCC once and also contacted the
Arizona Corporation Commission about the Federal Access Charge that is
listed on all of our phone bills, everywhere. If a residence or business has
more than one phone line, the $6.30 is charged for every line. Quest
employees have been taught that this is a federally mandated tax or fee
that is passed on to the federal government. The FCC denies that and it
is clearly stated on the phone bill that this is "allowed" by the FCC. The
second Quest employee I spoke to had to admit, after searching the
internet, that this money is not passed on to the government.
I would like to know where this money goes. Supposedly it is for

line maintenance and in my case this charge is 35% of my total bill. The
Public Utilities Division of the Arizona Corporation Commission had no
information except a couple of newspaper articles they forwarded to me
regarding other complaints about phone company fees.
Pkxme took into this. Certainiy someone muat k n o w w)me #e

money goes. Thanks for your help with this.
Sincerely yours,
Margar& Thornton
Ms. Margaret Thornton

925 North Yd Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85705
Dear Ms. Thornton:
Thank you for your letter addressed to Senator John McCain, regarding your
concerns about the Federal Interstate Access charge on your telephone bill. Your letter
has been forwarded to the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau.
The FCC Interstate Access charge (also called Federal Subscriber Line charge)
is not a charge assessed by the government. It is a federally regulated charge collected
by local phone companies to recover some of the costs of connecting telephone lines to
homes or businesses. Local telephone companies incur these costs whether the
customer actually place or receives long distance calls. The government receives no
money from this charge. It is not a tax.
The FCC capped the subscriber line charge fbr primary residential lines to
ensure that all Americans can afford at least a minimal level of basic telephone service.
This maximum subscriber line charge is a subsidized rate because it does not cover the
local telephone company's average costs for those lines. For the largest local
telephone companies that provide service to over 90% of the telephone access lines in
the country, the subscriber line charge cap for primary lines is $6.50 as of July 1,
2003.
The second and any additional telephone lines connecting consumers' residential
telephone service to the telephone network are called non-primary lines. Effective July
1, 1999, FCC rules require incumbent local telephone companies to use a service
location (address) definition, meaning that any additional line billed to the same address
is considered a non-primary line, subject to a higher subscriber line charge cap, even if
the bill is in a different name at the same address.
The FCC increased the maximum amount that incumbent local telephone
companies may charge for additional lines to $6.07 per line per month. Starting July 1,
2000, through June 30, 2005, the subscriber line charge for non-primary residential
lines is capped at $7.00 per line per month. If the telephone company's average
interstate costs of providing the line are less than $7.00 per month, however, the
incumbent local telephone company can only charge the residential consumer the
amount of its costs.
- 1 1 1
Ms. Margaret Thornton Page 2

telephone bill. The Commission seeks to ensure that consumers are fully informed about their
choices in telecommunications services. The Commission has available an e-mail service
public notices, among other consumer information. To subscribe you should visit the FCC
Consumer Registry at http://www. fcc. gov/cgb/contacts/.
Information on all telecommunications-related issues can 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. Additional
information on telecommunications issues is also available to you by calling the Commission’s
Consumer Center toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC. TTY users may call 1-888-TELL-FCC.
questions.
Sincerely,
\ ‘Y
Thomas D. Wyatt 3
Deputy Bureau Chief
Enclosure
I - 1 1
. ARIZONA WASHINGTON,DC 20510-0303
(202) 224-2235

~ ~
CHAIRMAN
SUITE 105
PHOENIX,AZ 85016
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 4703 SOUTHLAKESHORE DRIVE
SCIENCE. AND TRANSPORTATION SUITE 1
TEMPE,AZ 85282
(480)897-6289
407 WEST CONGRESS S T R E E T
SUITE 103
TUCSON,AZ 85701
(520) 670-6334
TELEPHONEF O R HEARINGIMPAIRED
August 17,2005 (602) 952-0170
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, Robert Cherner, who has
encountered a problem with his business.
CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Chuck Coolidge

Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
Sincerely,
*=L
JM/zcc
Enclosure
~ _ ” -- I_--” -
Silver & Cherner, Ltd
Facsimile Transmission
To: Senator John McCain
From: Bob Cherner
Fax: 602-952-8702
Date: 8117/2005
No. of Pages: (including cover sheet) 3
Subject: Problem with Phone Provider Vonage
10221 N 3Zd Street Sulte D

Phoenix, Arizona 85020=3849 Phone: 602-998-2220
F a : 602-998-2330
-. -. - I 'd 9 P L O 'ON
Silver & Cherner, Ltd
August 17,2005
Senatar John McCain

2400 E. A 2 BMrnore Circle, Suite 1150
Phoenix, AZ 55016
Deer Senstor McCain:
X would appreciate your assistance in filing a complaint concernlng the portabllKy of an '800'
number. In May my company, Sllver & Cherner Ltd, took over management of a
professlonal associatlon named "Women in Health Care (WiHc)". A t that time WlHc had the
phone numbers 602-218-5413and 888-662-4953. These numbers ware oflered through
Vonage, a VoIP provider, The Former manager helped me obtain "ownership" of these
numbers, and Vanage bllled my credft card approprfately.
A m m t h later we made the decision to have the service transferred to Qwest as that was
the provider that our other phone services. Qwest had us slgn the approprlste paperwork,
and within a few weeks the 602-218-2413number was coming through Qwest. Since that
tlme, over a perlod o f at least two months Vonage has returned the request t o port the
number due to "account variances". After three tlmes of thls I had a customer sewice staff
member read every plece o f information on my Bccount, it was the same as we had been
submitking.
Monday the 15th I again called Vonage. This tlme I was transferred to a Sean who told me
that Vonage does not transfer 500 numbers at all. Thls is contrary t o Nuhat 1 had been told
by a t least 5 people at Vonage, and by Qwest employees. While we are tlylng one more
request I am certaln that it will not work,
Ovar the last Pew weeks when 1 tried the 888-662-4953 number the recording sald It was
disconnected. Today when I crled It 1 learned that the number has been glven to an
indlvidual just three days ago,
1 did speak to an individual at the FCC about thls, He indlcated that Vonage may not be
regulated by the FCC. when Qwest was working with me on thls the 888 number was listed
to Global Crossing, WDen 1 call them they Immediately glve me a message that I should
contact Vonage.
Please let me know It' the FCC does regulate Vonage and how I cnn get our 600 number
back.
I look forward to hearing what you can do to help US.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Chernsr
10221 N 32ndStred Suite D Phone: 602-996-2220

Phoenix, Arlzona 88028-3849 Fax: 602-996-2330
." ,.- ... . .. - .

"111~
"....._._I_ I."...__- - ~ . . I
PRIVACY ACT CONSENT-Fm
bate-August 17,2005
To Whom it May Concern:

In accordance with the provisions of Public law 93-579 (The Privacy Act of 18741, hereby
give my consent for information concerning my flle be furnished to my Senator, John
McCain.
I have discussed my Case with 3enPtor John McCain and/or hlo ropresentativo(s), and
request that any relevant information he may requlre in order to ssaist in responding lo
my inquiry, 0s his constituent, be provided to him in accordance with the provisions of
the law.
Name (in full):-Robcrt Cherner 4
Complete AddreSs:-OFF: 10221 N 32ndSt Ste D Phoenjx, AZ 85028

(please print)
Phone (day);_602-996-2220 (night):-W2496-2M9
If this problem invalvca either the social Securlty Admlnistratlan, the OMce of Personnel
Management, the Military, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor or the
EEOC,p l w e provide the following where approprlats;
Govomment agency involved:
8oclal Securlty
Number:
Civil Seevlce Claim

Number: d
Veteran Claim
Number:
Branch of
Senrice:
Data and Place of

Birth:
Mllltary
Rank;
Complete addreaa for Home of

Records:
Other Numbera 1Uentifylna your

caae:
Signature
your situation.)
WdZO : & GOOZ I[' '9flV

MAY 5 2006

Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
This letter is a follow up to our letter dated September 14,2005, regarding your
constituent, Mr. Robert Cherner, and the difficulties Silver & Cherner Ltd. was experiencing
with porting their 800 number from Vonage to Qwest.
On September 28, 2005, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed
Vonage and Qwest to satisfy or answer the complaint based on a thorough review of all
relevant records and other information. Enclosed are copies of the companies’ responses. In
their response, Qwest offers to initiate a conference call with Vonage to verify the information
listed for the toll free number. Qwest also indicates it will try again to port the number using
the new information. Based on the information provided, the Commission does not plan to
take any further action with respect to Mr. Cherner’s complaint.
If you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not
Sincerely,
Erica H. McMahon
Chief, Consumer Policy Division
Consumer 8z Governmental Affairs Bureau
Enclosures
1
617 14th Sect Nw. Suite 950
Washington, E€ 20005
Spirit af Service'"
Ms. Martha Cantee

445 12" Street, SW
CY-BS23
Re: -
Cherner, Robert M. IC# WB0192553
Notice of Informal Complaint Service Date 09/28/2005
Dear Ms.Contee:
This letter is submitted in response to a complaint filed with your office by Mr. Robert M.Cherner. h
the complaint, Mr. Cherner indicates that his porting request for toll-free number (888) 662-4953 did not
happen in the time frame expected and, in fact, had still not occurred at the time of submitting the
complaint.
Qwest apologizes for the inconvenience and frustration arising from this situation. The customer's
number has not been ported. Qwest submitted seven requests to Global Crossing as the toll-free provider
for Vonage and all of the requests were rejected due to incorrect infomation. Qwest can have a sales
professional contact the customer and initiate a three-way conference call with Vonage to verify the
information they have listed for the toll-free number. If the customer still wants the service, and if it is
available, Qwest will try again to port the number using the new information. The undersigned has left a
message for Mr. Cherner with this information.
If you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
V snoaaeruNb
TW
O N wA EE
w e cow-
2147 IWto27 E&m NJ 08817 k): ~ 5 2 8 2 W D f W
732287.9119
October 8,2005 i!
I
United SWcs C)ovcmmcnt
i Fderal Communications Commission
Consumer and Govermnedd lbfkb Bureau
Conmmer Inquiries and Complaints Divhion
445 12* S b * SW,CY-B523
Washington, M: 20554
To Whom It May Conccm:

retched fjcom Robert
This is in rcspontse to the h p l a i n t (05-BO192553)
Cherner.
Please advise Mr.Chernajthpt at this time we are not able to port toll
numbem in or out of bur V o w service.
We apologize for any inconvenience this m y have m u d and look

bmmrd ta serving Mr.Chemer more effkiently in the future.
sincerely,
RuJsell Allaman
Executive Rcaponse Team
. . - .
1 I'
I 1' .
!
!
I
I
I
I
i
;
i
9
.*." .
1
1'
,i
. . .. -
1'
1
: -
. ,_ .
1'
SEP 1 4 2005
Control No. 050 1774kah

Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Robert Cherner, regarding the
difficulties Silver & Cherner Ltd. is experiencing with porting their 800 number from Vonage to
Qwest.
inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Mr. Cherner to Vonage and
Qwest and directed the companies to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed
Vonage and Qwest to send Mr. Cherner a copy of the response that they submit to the
Commission. Mr. Cherner 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). Mr. Cherner should mention his informal complaint number, 05-
B0192553, 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 carrier
practices that may violate the Communications Act or other federal or state regulations. Letters
from consumers provide valuable information that is frequently used to develop or support
Commission initiatives for consumers and for enforcement purposes.
We appreciate your inquiry and hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Wyatt.
Deputy Bureau Chief
1 1
/13/2005 13:52 FAX @loo1
%- - 5
JOHN McCAIN @oJ$qy p

(480) 897-6289 I FAX (480) 897-8389
@
p9
5~
DATE: : 7 - ; 7 6 & 0 ~ j 9-/3-05-
/
FAX ##
FROM:

-Tom McCanna -Donna Kenny
-
6 h u c k Coolidge
Other: - -
7Pages Includina Cover
.. . - _.
..- .
RECEIVED TIME S E P . 13. 4:29PM PRINT i I M E S E F . 13. 4:31PM

09/13/2005 13:52 FbX
@I002
07!E1/20(35 08:SB 4808746679 VOVAGER PACE 81
~ Y A G E R
TO: Michelle Gtamley
FAX #: 602 952 8702
FROM: Mark A. Voigt
DATE; July 21,2005
PAGES: Including the transmittal sheet:
COPY TO FOLLOW: 0 Yes W No
MESSAGE
-
Voyager Inmstment prowflies * 6906 !East Second Street. Scdsualo. AZ 85251
0 Phone (480) 9489835 0 FAX (430) 946-9837
RECEIVED TIME S E P . 13. 4 : 2 9 P M PRINT TIME S E P . 13, 4:31PM

..
.%
3
E
k
c.
d
E
f
@I004
P4GE 03
Yugt! 1 01 1
Mark Voigt
From: Mark Nadel [Mark.Nedcl@fcc.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 07,2005 7:30 AM
To: Mark Voigt
J ; 2-<
Subject:
Mark
-
I wish that I could be more helpful, but all that I can share with you at this time is what you already know your
appeal is being processed, we do not need any further information tram you, anu I cannot give yuu ally firm
estimate of when a decision on the Latch School appeal will be released. I'm sorry, but I hope it will be finished
vcry :om.
I hope you had a nice July 4th weekend and that your summer continuer well.
Mark
Non-hb!ic: For Internal Wee Ody ***
----Original Messaqe-----
From: Mark Voigt (rnailto;mvolgt@voyagerproperties.com]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 1:20 PM
To; Mark Nadel
Cc: gbaxter@accel.org; 'Connie Laird'
Subjecl: Tracking # 328123
Hello Mark, My name Is Mark Voigt and I am the President of the Board for Latch (ACCEL) School in
Phoenix, AZ. 1 know you all are busy but it has been a long time for this particular grant being in your
system. What is the status and is there anything we can do to move the pracess fornard? 1 guess the
case has been in the system for quite some time and has been assigned to several people at the FCC.
Should wc b c biking to wvoone else or do you need some more informatian earn us to pet some type of
closure?
Thanks tor you lime ana please let me KIIUW. Have a nice holiday weekend. MAV
Mart A. Volgt
Voyager Investment Properties, LLC
mvoig@voyage rpropert1es.com
Phone; 480.946.9635
Cell! 480,363.6072
Fax: 480-946-9637
6900 Cast Second Street
Scottsdale, A2 85251-5305
www.vova~e,rp~~~erties.~.Qm
7/13/2RECEIVED TIME SEP. 13. 4:29PM P R I N T TIME SEP, 13, 4 : 3 0 P M

I-xl_ -_ L_- - I . -
09/13/2005 13:52 FAX @lo05
07/21/2605 08: SA 31308740678 VOYAGER PAGE 04
October 8,2003
T4c 1J.onora.bIcJohn McCain

2300 E.Arizona Bikmore Circle, Suite I. 150
P h o m i ~AZ 85026
Dear Senator McCaia
As you may remember, LATCH School, Inc. is the largcst, private, non-profit school h
Arkom servmg studas with disabilities. We setw o v a 200 ShJdZbss from 32 public
school districts within Maricopa County. In the past, you and Mrs, M c W have Very
g~~~cxously coutributed to our gchool. I a m writhg today to request ynur msisttance with
a tmtter very critical to LATCH School.
h the ycar 2002,LATCH School filled for a grant *om the Schools & Libraries Division
for funding for networking our three mjor campuses. These funds are available &om the
F.C.C. ad the Schools and Libraries Division of tbe Universal Service Adminisuation
Company. LATCH School has twice been denied funding by this agency, and we have
fdcd two appals with the F.C.C.
LATCH School would U e to rcccive Dssistance in expediting the appeal with the F C C -
as timing in this matter is Critical. LATCH School is currently constructing a ncw main
c q u s with occupancy scheduled f x December. 2003. The requested grant funds
i
would geatly increase ow: ability to network out campus for OUT students as well as
improve our talephone and video equipment.
In contacting the F.C.C. last week, w e were told that LATCH School.is number 257 of
370 cases awaiting aszigmment to an anomy for review. Arldi[iuilalJ,y,w c were toId that
we should not look for a decision until Much of 2004. The guidelines, as speled out
undrnr hiti program, state that thc F.C.C. will respond within 90 days, and thc F . C C h m
had our sccond appeal since May 20,2003. I have included a copy of the items in
question, and o w position in the May rrppcal letter to the F.C.C.
We were originally d&ed funding based on our request for P.C. cads and funding for
ow Preschool equipment. We appealed this decision on August 1,2002 spelling out that
the ineligible items only represented 29.6% ofthe toral requested dollars. Most
hportantly, we advised the Schools and Libraries that the listjng dLhc Praschool should
r e d K-12. As LATCH School is a special education school and serves students fiom 3-
22, we wzrc not aware that thc Schools ~ n Ldibraries Division would consicla 11s a
Preschool! Unfbrtunately, we were denied fundipg with the decision statjng that “Since
R E C E I V E D TIME S E P . 13. 4:29PM P R I N T TIME SEP, 13, 4:30PM

-- __- -_1 “ _ _ ) _ _ I -
_I_i_-__
- I
@I
006
VOVAGER PAGE a5
I .
PreschoolXimiergartenstudents and kilities are not eligible to receive erate hnding in

Arizona the wireless LAN for the Pre-K campus you refwend on the Ttem 2 1
attachment was deemed inel jgible.”
At no time did the S.L.C. review process Miate they understood us to be a spccial
education school which, of coursz, we are. Under Title 15,the law requires that children
wilh spL;iJ zlncds sku1 their education at the agc of t b , rind LATCH School serves a
small percentage of children, ages three lo siy as well as a 3i.gnificarztnumber of alder
studmts.
Our fist appeal was denied by the Schools & Libraries based on the above statement, and
LATCH School has filed a second appeal (the May 20,2003letter) to the F.C.C.
Enclosed you will find a complete package of all the documentation reference this case. I
hope you will assist us in gettjng resolution to this appeal as quickly as possible as we
need the grant funds during the construction that is occurring this €all.
1 deeply appreciate any assjstance that you can give us.
Sinc,ercly,
Comic Fletcher Laird

Executive Director
RECEIVED TIME S E F . 13, 4:29PM PRINT T I M E SEP. 13. 4:30PM

” ~- I
09/13/2005 13:53 FAX a007
F V I ~ X / ~ E@a:
*
r. . . --I ESB
I~ VOYAGER PAGE 85
COMMlllEE ON bRMfP B E A W E 6
r.nwwmS O N MDIAN WPAIRS
October 24,2003
Connie Fletcher
Executive Director
Latch School, Inc.
8 145 Nonli 27th Ave
Phomix, AZ 85051
Dear Connie:
1 want to cake this oppodunity to thank you for your h e r of October 8,2003. I
Your situation is in che juTisdiction ofthe FederAl Communication Commission. Therefore, 1

haw fonwded your latter to the Director of Legislative Affaire ofthc Fedoral Communication
Commission,
Connie, I do hope your situation can ba tarrnlved favorably
Sincerely,
ohn McCain
mcL
United States Smutor
CflnlCnflm RECEIVED TIME S E F . 13. 4:29PM

.._
.. .... .. . . . . ^ " -
241 RUSSELLSENATEOFFICE BUlLOlNG
ARIZONA (202)224-2235
Q
.
I

~ ~
CHAIRMAN SUITE105
COMMllTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
Unit4 PHOENIX,AZ 85016
(602)952-2410
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE. 4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE DRIVE

TEMPE,A2 85282
(480) 897-6289
407 WESTCONGRESS STREET

SUITE 103
TUCSON.AZ 85701
(5201 670-6334
TELEPHONE FOR HEARINGIMPAIRED
September 23, 2005
Director
Federal Communications Comrmssion
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Maurice Coburn who has encountered a
problem as described in his letter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John McCain
JMIZCC
Enclosure
. .

Hon. John McCain
241 Russell Office Building
Re: KVEZ-FM, Parker, Arizona
Dear John :
It's an old statement, but none-the-less true, "Justice
Delayed is Justice Denied." For nearly a year and a half we
have been trying---with your help and that of expensive FCC
attorneys---to get an unfair Order of the FCC regarding KVEZ
either reversed or fairly amended. Even if they had given an
adverse final ruling a year ago we would have had time to take
it to the D.C. Court of Appeals for the justice deserved. We
can't get a Final Order which means we cannot, waiting such,
take any adverse ruling up on appeal.
The Amendment to Section 312(g) of the Communications Act
of 1934, passed by Congress effective December 8, 2004, should
have clarified and solved our dispute, even if there were prior
questions of clarification.
Please give us some suggestions as towhat we might do to
reverse an unfair FCC Order of 2004 taking KVEZ off the air and
financially ruining a community business properly serving the
citizens of Western Arizona.
Thanks for your continued interest and help. Marlene and
I will be forever grateful.
t
Sincerely,
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253

October 24,2005
lN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0501914
Mr. Maurice W. Coburn

Dear Mr. Coburn:
inquiry regarding the status of several petitions for reconsideration and related pleadings that
were filed with the Commission by Eagle Broadcasting Group, Ltd. (“Eagle”) concerning the
license of former broadcast station KVEZ(FM), Parker, Arizona. I appreciate the opportunity to
respond.
As you are aware, pursuant to section 3 12(g) of the Communications Act, the staff of the
Commission’s Media Bureau determined that KVEZ’s license had been forfeited for failure to
operate. Eagle Broadcasting has filed three Petitions for Reconsideration concerning the staffs
decision. In addition, Eagle submitted a request for special temporary authorization on
January 25,2005. More recently, on March 21,2005, Eagle supplemented its pleadings with
arguments concerning the effect that a 2004 amendment to Section 3 12 of the Communications
Act may have on this proceeding.
this matter to the full Commission for review. Please be assured that the information provided
by Eagle will be reviewed carefully and a decision will be issued as expeditiously as possible.
I hope that this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of
fbrther assistance with this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Roy J. Stewart
Senior Deputy Chief
Media Bureau
ARIZONA (202) 224-2235
Q
~ ~
CHAIRMAN
Wnited States; Senate

SUITE 105
COMMITTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS PHOENIX, A Z 8 5 0 1 6
( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410
SCIENCE, A N D TRANSPORTATION R
b-
4703 SOUTH LAKESHORED R I V E
SUITE 1
TEMPE, AZ 8 5 2 8 2
( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289

SUITE 103
TUCSON, A Z 85701
(520) 670-6334
September 21, 2005
(602) 952-0170
A
Ms. Martha Johnston

Dear Ms. Johnston:
1 wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Sally Downey, with the East Valley
Institute of Technology, who has encountered a problem with her application for a radio station
on the EVIT campus.
respond directly to Ms. Downey.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
M X C C
Enclosure(s)

September 1,2005
3 IS SUCCESS The Honorable John McCain

C/O Paul Hickman
5353 North 16th Street
Suite 105
SUPERINTENDENT
Sally E. Downey, Ed.D. Dear Senator McCain:
CAMPUS DIRECTOR
Janet K. Cox, fd.D. The East Valley Izstituts cf Technology (EVIT) is a h i n t
Technological Educational District (JTED) formed under AZ
15-391 and as such is a political subdivision of the State of
Arizona. EVlT is governed by a nine member board whose
GOVERNING BOARD members are elected by sub-districts. The EVlT school
district extends from Ahwatukee to Gold Canyon and from
President Fountain Hills to Queen Creek.
James D. Dickey
Clerk EVlT teaches students skills and trades that are marketable
Dolores M. Watkins in today's economy. EVlT offers over 45 occupational
George A. Grexa
training programs in subjects that include culinary, auto
mechanics, welding, cosmetology and radio broadcasting.
A. Keith Crandell, Ed. D.
It is with the radio broadcasting course that we seek your
Norman L. Colbert
help. In December 1999, we submitted to the FCC an
Garry D. Hays application for a radio station on the EVlT campus. In April
2000 all new non-commercial educational station license
Christine M. Post
requests were frozen until new regulations are adopted.
Gilbert J. Swanson Twice a year from 2000 to the present time, we have
checked on the station application only to find that nothing
A. Russell Nielson has moved fGWaid or changed. Belcv~is a timeline of
events.
1. September 1999 - Presented to EVlT Board and asked for $50,000

for application, transmitter and tower for radio station
2. December 1999 - Application for station completed by Hatfield and
Dawson (Engineering firm) and submitted to F.C.C
3. January 2000 - Application tendered for filing with F.C.C.
4. April 2000- All new non-commercialeducational station license
requests frozen until new regulations are adopted.
5. Twice a year from 2000- present radio station application checked
on with F.C.C. and Hatfield and Dawson
6. Spring - 2005 we were advised that the F.C.C. may finalize
regulations by the end of the year or spring of 2006 and we would
have to resubmit application for radio station but should have first
1601 West Main Street priority
Mesa, Arizona 85201 7. This is not a LPFM station
(480)461-4000
FAX: (480)467-4089
www.evit.com
We realize that the application and license process takes
time but we feel that five years is an excessive amount of
time. During this time EVlT students enrolled in our Radio
Program are being denied the "hands on" experience that a
live radio station would afford.
As you can see we have quite a dilemma and we

respectfully request your assistance with this matter. We
y j ~ & J be trd!!! n
J
r
+af11I
d'""''"'
fy +nln f+f pi! 222 renrjer,
p'
Sincerely,
n
9 * ~ * ~ ~
Sally E. Downey, Ed.D. -
SuperintendenVCEO
SD/BS
October 27,2005
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0501959
Sally E. Downey, Ed.D.

Superintendent/CEO
East Valley Institute of Technology
1601 West Main Street
Mesa, Arizona 85201
Dear Dr. Downey:
inquiry concerning the status of an application filed by East Valley Institute of Technology
(“EVIT”) to establish a new noncommercial educational (“NCE”) radio station. I appreciate the
opportunity to respond.
As discussed in your correspondence, EVIT submitted its application to the Commission

on January 28 2000, shortly before a freeze on the filing of NCE applications became effective.
As a result, EVIT’s application has not been subject to competing applications and petitions to
deny as required by the Commission’s rules. The freeze was implemented in April, 2000, after
the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding to revise its procedures for selecting among
competing new NCE station proposals. In this rulemaking, the Commission determined that
applicants, such as EVIT, would be considered along with any mutually exclusive applications
submitted in the first NCE filing window. To date, the Commission has not established a date
for a filing window because of intervening litigation challenging the Commission’s NCE
selection criteria. Although this litigation was recently resolved, prior to opening a NCE filing
window, the Commission will consider several hundred pending NCE applications that already
have been subject to the procedural requirements for competing applications and contested
pleadings. At the time a NCE filing window is opened, EVIT will need to amend its pending
application to demonstrate EVIT’s qualifications in accordance with the new NCE procedures.
You may wish to monitor the Commission’s web site (http://www.fcc.aov/mb/audio)for

information concerning NCE filing windows and other information that may be of interest to
EVIT.
Page 2-Sally E. Downey, Ed.D.
m h e r assistance.
Sincerely,
- -
Media Bureau
a
/19/2005 10:09 FAX
'
@I
001
JOHN McCAIN
(480) 897-6289 / FAX (480) 897-8389
FROM:

-Tom McCanna -Donna Kenny
-
6 h u c k Coolidge
Other: -
7Pages lncludina Cover
F i E C E I V E D TIME OCT, 19, 1 2 : 4 5 P M PRINT TIME OCT. '19. 1 2 : 4 8 P M

10/19/2005 10:09 FAX
@0 I0 2
0 7 , ! ~ 1 / 2 6 8 5 69: 50 4988746679 VOYAGER PAGE 61
i'
%YAGER
TO: Michelle Gramley
FROM: Mark A. Voigt
i-Ax #: 480-946-0637
DATE; July 21.2005

PAGES: Including the transmitla1 sheet:
COPY TO FOLLOW: Yes No
MESSAGE
voyager lnmstment Prupertiee 6900 East Second Stroet 0 Smttsdale. Af 85251

Phon0 (480) 9$6-9535 FAX (480) 946-9037
RECEIVED TIME OCT. 19. 1 2 : 4 5 P M PRINT TIME OCT. 19. 1 2 : 4 7 P M

10/19/2005 10:09 FAX
@I003
, 07/21/2095 OR: 5 0 ~SQWQO~;~II PAGE 82
July 21,2005
T ~Honorable
E John McCain
5353 Norrh I 6d'Srreer
'Phocnix.Az 8301.6
Att: Ms Michelle Gtamlcy
Deru Senator McCain:
I am the President of the Board of directors for Accel School.which was formerly know as the Latch,
S~hoolWith campwcs in Phoenix and in Tmpc to sen-c 9 ~ v c x l ymwtdJ,y and pb.j.sically cbnilcn&d
students. We applied for an FCC ganr program in,w l y 2003 ta fund computer and communication
equipment at OUT various ficilitic3. Thc grant request is still pending and we would like you
e FCC in.n timely fashion.
ayt carrespoxldence regarding this request both with the FCC as well.as your office in
is a point where the do not need any additional inf'mation &om us ond.we are just
on two years u)rcccive. Thnnk you so much for you,rpast
UB got a Anal decision om the request.
,
of Accel Scbool Dircnors
R E C E I V E D TIME OCT. 19. 1 2 : 4 5 P M PRINT T I M E OCT. 19. 12:47PM

@ I
004
VOYAGER PAGE 93
Page I 01 1
Mark Voig t
From: Mark N,adel[Mark,Nadcl@fcc.gov]

Sent; Thursday, July 07,2005 7:30AM
To: Mark Voigt
subject: ~
76
Mark
-
I wish that I could be more nelpful, bu( all that 1 can share with you at this time is what you already know your
appeal is being processed, we do not need any further information tram you, and I cannot give you ally firin
estimate of when a decision on the Latch Schoal appeal will be released. I'm sorry, but I hope it will be finished
vcry soon.
1 hope you had a nice July 4th wsekend and that your summer continuer well.
Mark
*"* Nan-Public: For Xnremsl Usc Oiily q r r
----Original Message-----
From: Mark Voigt [mailta;mvolgt~vayagerproperties.com]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 1:20 PM
lo: Mark Nude1
Cc: gbaxter@accel.org; 'Connie Laird'
Subject: Tracking # 328123
Hello Mark, My name Is Mark Voigt and I am the President of the Eaard for Latch (ACCEL) School in
Phoenix, AZ. I know you all are busy but it has been a long time for this particular grant being in your
system. What is the status and is there anything we can do to move the process forward? 1 guess the
case has been in the system for quite some time and has been assigned to several people at the FCC.
Should wc bc blking to 6otmone slse of do you need game mare information from us tr) get some type of
closure?
Thanks tor you tif'fle ana please let me kriuw. Have a nice holiday weekend. MAV
Mark A. Volgt
Voyager lnvestmant Properties, LLC
mvolgt@voyagerpropertPes.com
Phone: 480.946.9635
Cell: 480.363.6072
Fax: 400-946-9637
6900 East Second Street
Scottsdale, A 2 852515305
w.voyagerpropeTfies.c.om
7/13/2fiECEIVED TIME OCT. 19. 1 2 : 4 5 P M PRINT T I M E OCT. 19. 1 2 : 4 7 P M

10/19/2005 10:09 FAX
@I
005
07b21/2005 08:58 &30874ErSiR
. - VOYAGER PAGE 84
Ootober 8,2003
Tlie ITonarablc John McCriin

2400 E.Arizona Biltmore Ckcle, Suite 1.150
Phoeniy AZ 85016
Dear Senator Mccdn,
As you may remember, LATCH School, Inc. is the largest, private, non-profit school in
Arizona serving students with disabilities. WGserve ovcr 200 studcnts &om32 public
school distxirts witbin Maricopa County. In the past, you and Mrs. McCain have very
gmcroLlsly contributed to our school- 1 sm writ-mg today to reqiiest ymir awistmce with
a matter very critical to LATCH School.
ln the year 2002,LATCH School filed for a grant 50m thc Schools & Librari,esDivision
Tor finding for networking our thrclc major campuses. These funds are available ikom the
F.C.C. and the Schools and Libraries Division oftbe Universal Service Administration
Company. LATCH School bas twice been denied finding by this agency, and we have
filed two appeals witb.the F.C.C.
LATCH School would B o to rcccive nssktance in expediting the appaaI with rhe F C C .
as timing in this matter is critical. LATCH School is currently construdng a ncw rnain
campus with occupancy scheduled for December, 2003. The requested grant finds
would greatly increase our ability to network our car;nlpus for our students as well as
improve OUT telephone and video equipment.
In contacthg the F.C.C. last week, we were told thRt LATCH School.is number 257 of
370 cases awaiting assignment to an attorney for review. Arlditiudy, w c wcrc told that
we should not look for a decision until March of2004. The guidelines, as spelled out
unda LMJprogram, state that thc F.C.C. will respond within 90 days, and the F.C.C.ha4
had ouf sccond appeal since May 20,2003. I have included a copy of the items in
question, and aur position in, the M a y appeal letter to the F.C.C.
We were originally denied funding based on our request for P.C. cards and funding for
OUT Pmchool equipment. We appealed this decision on August 1,2002 s p e b g out that
the ineIigible items only represented 29.6% ofthe total rquated dollars. Most
importantly, we advised the Schools and Libraries That the listing d t h e Preschool should
read K-12- As LATCH School is a sgecial education school arrd serves students &om 3-
22, we were not awnre that thc Schools and L i b r i e s Division would c d e r IN a
Preschool! Unfortunately, we were denied fbnding with the decision stating that “Sjnce
RECEIVED T I M E CCT. 19. 1 2 : 4 5 P M PRINT TIME OCT. 19. 1 2 : 4 7 P M

I.. . .... . . . ..~_.__I__-_^-._,..._ .
I
x . ^ ” . . .. . .. ._”
10/19/2005 1O:lO FAX @ I
006
67(21/2685 08: 58 4QB874@679 ‘JOY AGER PAGE 65
Preschool-Kindergarten students and kilities are not eligible to receive erate finding in
Arimoa, the wireless LAN for the Re-K campus you referenced on the Item 21
attachmem was deemed indjgibk”
At no time did the S.L.C. review process indicate t h y und,erstoodus to be a special

education school which, of course, we are. Under Title 15, the law requires that children
wilh special uds start &eir education at tbe agc ofthrcc, and LATCH School s e w s B
small pcrcentage ofchildxen, ages three to six, as well as a significaa number of older
stud&ts.
Our fist appeal was denied.by the Schools & Libraries based on the above statement, and
LATCH School has filed a second appeal (the May 20,2003 letter) to the F.C.C.
Enclosed you will find a complete package ofall the documentation reference this case. I
hope you will assist us in getting resolution to this appeal as quiokly as possible as we
need the grant funds during the constNction that is occurring this Wl,
I deeply appreciate any assistance that you can give us.

Sincerely,
Connie Fletcher Laird

Executive Director
RECEIVED TIME OCT, 19. 12:45PM PRINT TIME OCT. 19. 1 2 : 4 7 P M

BO07
4r30137406713 VOYAGER PAGE 135
October 24,2003
Connie Fletcher
Executive Director
Latch School, Inc.
8 145 North 27th Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85051
Dear Connie;
1wmt to take this opportunity to thank you for your letter of October 8,2003.
Your situation is in the jurisdiction of ihs Federal Communication Commission. Therefore, A

have f o w d e d your lener to the Director of Legislative Affairs of the Frdcral Communication
Commission.
Connie, I do hope your situation can ba rsmlved favarably.
Sincerely,
@W c L
ohn McCsin
JMhkp
pnn IcnnM R E C E I V E D T I M E O C T , 19, 1 2 : 4 5 F M

Congressional
f'~''~''o ~~ Telephone Close-Out
E Pj Telecommunications Access Policy Division
"4,
USA
Control No. O S - OaO(oG,

Date Due: 11/09/2005
Congressional Office: McCain
Name of Constituent: Mark Voigt
Telephone #: 480-897-6289
Date Call Placed: 10/20/2005 Time: 5:30 p.m.

Date received returned call: Time:
Additional Notes:
Ruth Yodaiken spoke with Chuck Coolidge to explain that the appeal was still pending
and that we cant discuss the appeal while it is pending. He said he had not received
our earlier response to that effect, and asked that it be faxed to his attention.
Date info e-rnailed/mailed/faxed: Faxed tostaffer

Coolidge a copy of the August 16, 2005 letter from TAPD to McCain (0501506).
JOHN McCAlN Q 2 4 1 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
ARIZONA 2% WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0303
(2021 224-2235
CHAIRMAN 5 3 5 3 NORTH1 6 STREET ~ ~

SUITE 1 0 5
Wnited Statu Senate

i3 PHOENIX, A Z 8 5 0 1 6
&
COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE, 4 7 0 3 SOUTH LAKESHOREDRIVE

SCIENCE, A N D TRANSPORTATION SUITE 1
TEMPE, A 2 8 5 2 8 2
(480) 897-6289
4 0 7 WESTCONGRESSS T R E E T
SUITE 1 0 3
TUCSON, A2 8 5 7 0 1
(520) 670-6334
T E L E P H O N EFOR HEARING IMPAIRED

(6021 9 5 2 - 0 1 7 0
November 16,2005
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning David Bley who has encountered a
problem which is stated in his letter.
respond directly to David Bley.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
W John McCain
JM/zjw
Enclosure

EVENTS AT COX CABLE
05 16 BF% 4;5t
On Wednesday, Nov 9,2005, when I attempted to log onto one of my stock accounts at
tdwaterhouse.com I received an error msg indicating an empty account balance. I called
waterhouse and asked them if they could check my account. They told me everything was OK
and when I tried again the inquiry seemed to go through. When I tried the next account I had the
same problem - another call and it too went away. However, I was never able to access the last
account even after several tries. I have used webbroker for at least 8 years and I have never seen
such suspicious activity. I called the security department and put them on the alert for my
accounts.
Later that day I logged onto my Cox Webmail account to read my mail. Imagine my surprise to
find my mailbox contained not just my email but also that of a person I had never heard of, Debbie
A. Bley. I had no trouble opening her mail with my password. I called Cox at 6235941000 to
find out what was going on. I initially spoke to someone named Diedra. She never answered my
question directly, but said she would give me a new user name which I could initiate with the
password “password” and then change. Before I could say anything and without warning she
erased all my emails. I was upset. I asked her to leave the account alone until I could download
my email, some of which had legal implications. She refused and said it was done. I protested -
erased files are recovered all the time, but entails work by a computer forensic expert. She just
stonewalled me. I asked her name - she refused. I ask for a Cox corporate number - she refused.
She rehsed to talk to me and her supervisor came on the line, Heather.
I got the same runaround from Heather. Every time I asked a pertinent question, she wouldn’t
respond - just dead silence. Finally she said Diedra told me that she was going to erase my email.
Then I got mad. I told Heather that was a lie and all she had to do was listen to the tape of our
conversation - again with the silence. After more silence I asked her her name. She rehsed, said
she wasn’t in Arizona, I couldn’t do anything about it, said I was abusive and hung up.
As a condition of service Cox demands your social security number. I believe they also may have
my private password, the same as used on my brokerage accounts because I have found keystroke
recording programs on my computer. As a final insult they blocked access with my new
username.
Since service was started I have been subject to frequent service outages. IMMEDIATELY
aRer one tech came out my computer disk was destroyed and had to be replaced at a cost of
63 1.OO. They denied culpability - “it was just a coincidence.” What happened was he failed to
follow Cox’s own procedures and disconnect the computer before working on the line.
The signal on the line remains a problem and can be out for hours.
The impression I have gotten from the people I talked to is that Cox is a private company with a
monopoly and are above the law. Can this be true?
PRIVACY ACT CONSENT FORM
TO WHOM I
TM Y CONCERN:
In accordance with the provisions of Public Law 93-579 (The Privacy Act of 1974), I hereby give
my consent for informationconcerning my file to be fiunished to my Senator, John McCain.
I request that any relevant informationhe may require in order to assist in responding to my inquiry, as his constituent,
be provided to him in accordance with the provisions of law
NAME (InFull): b Nu; & 11\*A% %\e\?

COMPLETEADDRESS: >gg h'.b&%'&
fLoeLc't< A F k
F < d 8-
OTHER NAMES RELATING TO YOUR CASE:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING WHERE APPROPRIATE:
GOVERNMENTAGENCY
INVOLVED
SOCIAL SECURITYNUMBER
CIVE SERVICE CLAIM NUMBER
VETERAN'S CLAIMNUMBER
BRANCH OF SERVICE:
DATE & PLACE OF BIRTH.
mrrmyRANK:
COMPLETE ADDRESS FOR HOME OF RECORDS:
SIGNATURE (required) \1Icau.z

PLEASE USE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM FOR THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS
OF YOUR SITUATION
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Third P w Name: Tempe Office /AideInitials:

DEC 8 2005
Mr. David W. Bley

785 E Windmere Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85048
Dear Mr. Bley:
Thank you for your letter to Senator John McCain regarding the difficulties you are
experiencing with your Internet service provider, Cox Communications (Cox). You indicate
that you are unable to log onto a web site, that you cannot access your mail box and email, and
that you have frequent service outages. Your correspondence was forwarded to the Federal
Communications Commission's (Commission or FCC) Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau for handling.
Although we appreciate the concerns raised by you, DSL and Internet access services
are information services that Cox does not have a public utility responsibility under the
Communications Act to offer to consumers. In the existing market, consumers have a choice of
Internet service providers and can switch providers if they are dissatisfied with the availability,
price, or features offered by any particular provider. At the same time, however, consumer
protection remains a priority for the Commission, and we recognize that we have a duty to
ensure that the consumer protection goals in the Communications Act are met. We have thus
recently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to determine whether we should regulate
broadband Internet access service, whether provided via DSL, cable modem, or other
technologies, in areas such as consumer privacy, billing, and notice regarding general service
discontinuance. The Commission will receive comments from the public on these important
issues during the first quarter of 2006. Enclosed is information that you may find helpful.
You should continue to contact your Internet service provider to submit inquiries and
complaints. Your state consumer protection office may also be of assistance. You may contact
them by writing to the Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection & Advocacy
Section, 1275 W Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926 or by calling toll free 1-800-352-
843 1. Their web site is www.ag.state.az.us.
Mr. David W. Bley Page 2
Although we cannot assist you at this time, letters from consumers such as yours 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,
Jay Keithley
Deputy Bureau Chief
Enclosures
I
ARIZONA
(202) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN
C O M M l n E E O N ARMED SERVICES Wnited $5tateii Senate
COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE, AKESHORE DRIVE
WEST CONGRESSSTREET
S U I T E 103
TUCSON,A 2 85701
November 2 1,2005 (520) 670-6334

(602) 952-0170
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
Refer to: Account Number 480 855-8858 127R
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, illiam Selby, who has
encountered a problem with his phone bill.
CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Jana Pierce

Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
Sincerely,
&y*=A John McCain

JM/zjp
Enclosure

W. Lawrence Selby November 16,2005
2223 W. Myrtle Dr.
Chandler, AZ 85248-4128
(480) 855-8858 05FJOV 21 pjj I : l]b
Senator John McCain
4301 S. Lakeshore Dr.
Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
I am writing this letter in the hope that you can help me with the fraudulent charges on my phone
bill; the charges were incurred in the following manner;
My niece who is in the Job Corp at Curlew, Washington called on the dates listed on the attached
phone bill, when I picked up the phone to answer it I was offered the option of accepting or
rejecting the call from Theresa Selby. Nothing more was said and I accepted the calls not
knowing that at a facility where the government is helping kids to achieve goals in acquiring
academic skills as well as trade skills, so that they may become productive citizens or be eligible
to be inducted into the U.S. Army, would allow a phone contractor to gouge the kids and their
relatives.
I was billed $88.90 for 19 minutes of talk time, this works out to $4.68 per minute which in my
opinion is pure theft. I ask my niece at the time how much the calls were costing me and she
said it was $0.50 cents for 3 minutes, which would seem reasonable since my current phone
plane lets me make calls for $0.05 cents per minute.
My niece is not the reddest apple in the barrel but she is still a lovable person, and kids who have
difficulty learning or are not street wise should not be taken advantage of, and with fraud and
theft like this it is difficult to stay in personal contact with her, as it presents a great monetary
hardship to me.
If I were told the cost was $4.68 per minute I would have declined the call and made other
arrangements to stay in contact with her.
I contacted Gregg Schermerhorn on 10/15/05, at Qwest billing and he said he thought the
charges were outrageous advising me to contact the FCC, and also noted on my bill my anger
about said charges.
I contacted Merita of LEGACY LD INTL INC, employee # 285 on 10/15/05 and she in a
challenging manner told me if I didn’t like the charges that I could contact the FCC, at this time I
ask her why the charges were astronomical and she again reiterated that I could contact the FCC.
Apparently the FCC condones this behavior, I maintain that the bill should be reasonable or the
charges per minute given to me before I ever accept the call.
I then contacted your office on 10/15/05 and a very nice individual told me to write you a letter
detailing what happened along with a copy of the bill.
On 10/16/05, I talked to Susan, employee 0756 at Qwest, telling her I wanted to dispute the bill
and at t h s time she told me to pay only the Qwest charges and not those for LEGACY INTL LD
INC. I again tried to call LEGACY LD INTL INC and negotiate the charges in order to avoid
going to all of the trouble I am going through, this time I reached Carlos, employee #285, and
again told him the charges were unjust because I was not told what they would be, he replied that
I did not listen long enough and that if I had I would have been told the charges, this is a totally
different story than that of Merita. I told Carlos that the only question I was asked was "Will you
accept a collect call from Theresa Selby, press 2 to accept, press 2 to decline. Carlos also told
me that he didn't care if I contacted the FCC or Senator John McCain; I was still going to pay the
charges. The following information can be used to contact;
LEGACY LD INTL INC
U. S. Billing
PO Box 292442
San Antonio, TX 78229
Phone: (888) 5 11-0734
(800) 533-42 18
I detest thieves and liars, and sincerely hope you can help me with this problem. I must also
thank you for the many times you have helped me in the past, thank you seems somehow
inadequate.
Sincerely; A
@y&*
Larry Selby
P. S. They have done the same thing to my brother, Joey W. Selby, 2627 Terrace St., Bremerton,
WA. Phone (360) 792-0467 my brother talked to his daughter for 209 minutes at $2.27 per
minute for a grand total of $473.58, he lives hand to mouth on social security supporting two
daughters and his wife who is also in ill health.
What a wonderful world, the longer I live the more people want to do nothing for their money
and the rip offs and scams proliferate!
Page 11 of 11
For questions, call 1 888 511-0734 http://www.billview.com/zpdll
Long Date Time Place Number Type Minutes Amount

Distance
The followlng transaction Is billed on behalf of:
LEGACY LD INTL INC
1. Oct 07 5:lO P To CHANDLER AZ 480 a55 8858
Collect Fr CURLEW WA 509 779 4031 F 7 24.70
2. Oct 22 9:14 P To CHANDLER AZ 480 a55 aa5a
Collect Fr CURLEW WA 509 779 4031 H 6 23.60
3. Oct 29 1.29 P To CHANDLER AZ 480 a55 a858
Collect Fr CURLEW WA 509 779 4031 H 6 23.60
Type of Call Codes:
-- -
F Day Station Operator or Calling Card Rate
-
H Nght Station - Operator or Calhng Card Discount Rate
Miscellaneous No. Date Item l a x Code Amount

Charges and
Credits The following transaction is billed on behalf of:
LEGACY LO INTL INC
4. OCt 10 CARRIERCOSTRECOVERFEE - 09 2.50
5. Oct 10 UNlV SERV FD - 09 2.52
7. OCt 24 UNlV SERV FD - 09 2.41
9. Oct 31 UNlV SERV FD - 09 2.41
rr
Tax Code Explanation:
09 .. Tax Exempt lt?ClUdi!IQSurcharge
1-- .--I
--___-
ZERO
- PLUS
- - DIALING
- - INC
- _
-----_-
- - Charges
Misc -
_I_
and -Credits
- - I _ I i 0s- _I-
14.84 1
Taxes, Fees and
Surcharges 2.16
Summary Federal Excise at 3%
- __ __ ___ - - - -_
I
I I__ I _I _.
L
_I_
Total Taxes -
_l_____-______________.______ I-____I_-__---_. ~
$2.16
--
This portion of your bill is provided as a service to ZERO PLUS DIALING INC.
There is no connection between Qwest and ZERO PLUS DIALING INC.
r
APR 12 2006

Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
This letter is a follow up to our letter dated December 5 , 2005, regarding your
constituent, Mr. W. Lawrence Selby, and his concerns regarding the rates charged by Zero
Plus Dialing, Inc. (ZPDI) and Legacy LD International (Legacy).
On December 21, 2005, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed ZPDI
and Legacy to satisfy or answer the complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant
records and other information. Enclosed are copies of the responses we received. Legacy
states that, as a courtesy, a full credit has been issued to Mr. Selby's account. Based on the
Mr. Selby's complaint.
If you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not
Sincerely,
n
Erica H. McMahon
Enclosures
.. .
I
December 28,2005
Fedexal Communications Commission

Gettysburg Consumer Center
1270 Fairfield Road
Gettysburg, PA 17325-7245 Via Electronic Mail
RE: Complaint of MI W Lawrence Selby - 05-BO207432

Bill Number: (480)855-8858
Dated: 12/21/2005
Dear SidMadam:
We are in receipt ot the above referenced complaint. Zero Plus Dialing (“ZPDIW) is engaged in the
business of aggregating records for various operator service providers and transmitting those recoids
to the Local Exchange Carriers. ZPDIB is not itself an operator service company; nor does it provide
any telecommunications services of any kind. Each operator service provider for which we pel form
records processing services should provide records regarding services that are properly authorized
and in accordance with the appropriate regulations.
Mr Selby disputes the charges submitted on behalf of Legacy Long Distance International, Inc As
Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. prefers to address theii own regulatory matters, we would
like to request that your office serve them directly at the address below Their response should
provide more information regarding their services and what may have occurred in this matter Please
feel free to contact us if we can be of further assistance. We apologize for any inconvenience this
matter may have caused.
Legacy Long Distance International, Inc.

Attn: Curtis Brown
10833 Valley View St Suite 150
Cypress, CA 90630
Fax: (714)827-7545
Regulatory Specialist
cc: MI. W. Lawrence Selby
Legacy Long Distance International. Inc. - Curtis Brown
Post Office Box 29442 Son Antonio, Texas 70220.0442 Phonc 210 940.7000 Fax 210 OlS.0077
Email: maulatorv9billin~I;nncafils.co~
1‘ ”
United States Government
445 12* Streef sw
RE: W.Lawrence Selby - OSBO207432

Legacy Long Distance Interoatiooal, Inc (”Legacy”) -
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed herein please fmd our response to Mr.SeIby in regardto informal complaint asserting
dissatisfact~ttwith charges incurred f b m three Interstate “ c o l W calls placed h m B privately owned
public pay-telephone located at the “Curlew Job Corps-Dorm 5” in the city of Curlew, WA.
The calls placed to Mr.Selby’s home were comctly billed. The rates applied can be fbund in our approved
tariff filed with the FCC as well as mirror AT&T Openttor Service rates. All thm calls were placed by the
caller utilizing our Automated call Processing (ACP) units. Prompts guide the caller on obtaining “Rate
Quote” information prior to placing bidher desired call. Prompts fiather disclose how to reach a live
Operator by pressing P,, at any time.
As a courtesy to the customer, a 111 credit has been issued to Mr. Selby’s account. Please allow two billing
cycles for credits to reflect on his Local Telephone bill. Legacy follows and complies with all FCC
regulations on every call completed through our operator center.
in regard to this complaint please feel 6.ee to con-

QUCS~~O~S me at anytime..
TR/lm
... .
..
1 . ...
. 3,
. . I0833 Valley View Street, Suite 150 Cypress, California 90630 (800) 670-0015
.. -
I 1. -
LEGACY
LONG DISTANCE, INC.
January 3.2006
W. Lawrence Setby
2223 W. Myrtle Dr.
Chandler, A 2 85248-4 I28
Mr. Selby.
On behalf of Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. (“Legacy”) 1 am responding to your informal
complaint filed with the Federal CommunicationsCommission on November 2 I , 2005.
First, it is important to note that the calls billed to your home . ~ e ~ - l ~ ~ t i m _ a t e i y , p r ~ e ~ d , ~ ~-The--
disputed calls originated from a privately owned public pay-telephone located at the Curlew Job Corps-
__
. b i I l e d. ~
--
Dorm 5 , Curlew, WA.
The disputed call was placed “collect”. As you may no know, the rates applied can be found in our
approved tariff filed with the FCC. These rates mimr AT&T Operator Services (800-CAL-LATT) rates
!t is also important to note that the call originated from another state making this an Interstate Operator
Assisted call.
Kate Quote options were made availableto the caller at the time the disputed calls were placed. Funher,
Dialing instructions as well as voice prompts guide the caller on how to contact a live Operator or request
Rate Quote information.
As a courtesy to you, I am authorized to issue’youa full credit. This credit will be posted to your local
telephone bill and will take no longer than two billing cycles to reflect. The refund given is made in good
faith. The rates and charges applied to your accepted “collect” calls are in no way illegal and are clearly
posted in our approved informationalTariff filed with the FCC. It is our sincere hope that this letter
responds to your inquiry in full.
If youhave any remaining questions please feel free to contact me directly at 800-577-5534,
,c
Sincerely 3
CC: FCC
George Grellas. Esq.
. r
.ALERT
This is a Congressional Priority Service Notice
Please forward your response to:

Consumer Inquiries & Complaints Divivion
445 12’’ Street, sw
Telephone: 1-888-225-5322
TTY Users may call 1-888-835-5322
Your response is due: 01/20/2006

Apparent Carrier Legacy Long Distance International, Inc.
Complaint for: W. Lawrence Selby
IC Number: OSBO207432
Date Received: 1W8/2OO5

Service Date: 12/21/2005
Response Date: 1/20/2006
COMPWNT SUMMARY
-c.'
Disputing charges listed on phone bill. Total amount of dispute:
Were any of the disputed charges paid?
Did the company billing for these charges adjust or refund some or all of the disputed charges?
If yes,the amount of the adjustment or refund:
Contacted the companies to resohre complaint?
If yes, was the complaint resolved to your satisfaction?
If yes,name of company, name and number of company representative you spoke with:
Name: Phone: Ext:
Date you spoke with company representative:

Willing to provide further written statements for use of the FCC or other agencies in enforcement actions
against companies?
I
1
November 21,2005
DearDimcbm:
Atra: JrrarPierce
Ofiice of SenatorJohn McCah
4703 S. hkcshmc Drive
suite 1
Tcmpe, AZ 85282
?mlmoy*IEIpID-
..-........ - ~ .... . . . . . . _ . -... .....
1‘
. .
W. LmvmceSelby
2223 W. Myde Ih.
Cbadcr,AZ 852484128
(480) 855-8858
Seartot JohaMcCuia
4301 S. LakdmmDr.
suits 1
TqAZ85282
-e-
.
..
I 1'
U.S. Bill*
POBOX292442
sIIlABmlio#Tx78229
pho#: (888)511-0734
(800)S334218
1
. . --. . 1' -
,
I '
" I
' I
I '
'.* - -- I
'
!
1b !
1
4 ..., I. ...I. . I
.I.
c'--
ae
. ..
m
DEC 5 2005

Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. W. Lawrence Selby,
regarding the rates charged by Zero Plus Dialing, Inc. (ZPDI) for collect calls provided by
Legacy LD International (Legacy).
inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Mr. Selby to ZPDI and Legacy
and directed the companies to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed them to
send Mr. Selby copies of the responses that they submit to the Commission. Mr. Selby may
obtain information regarding his complaint by writing to the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
20554, or by calling toll free at 1-888-CALL-FCC (TTY users: 1-888-TELL-FCC). Mr. Selby
should mention his informal complaint number, 05-B0207432, and the congressional tracking
number listed at the top of this letter to facilitate a prompt response to his inquiry.
Sincerely,
Erica H. McMahon
Acting Chief, Consumer Policy Division
I '
JAN. 4. 2006 5 : 0 8 P M NO. 0 7 7 3 P. 212
JOHN McCAlN 241 hUSBELL SENATE U W e RUILDINQ
ARIZONA Wh5lIINCrON. DC 20610-0303
( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
CMAIMMAN 5353 NORTH 18TM STREET

SUITC 109
PHOENIX, A z 85016
COMMllTEE ON ARMED SERVICES (6021 862-2610
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 4703 SOUTM L\KG$l4Onk DRIVE

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION Sum 1
TEMPE, AZ esm
(aeoi 1187-6289
January 4, 2006 407 WEST COlvGResS STREET
SUITE 103
TUCSON,A 2 86701
(6201e70-6334
TELEPHONE
FOR HPNUNO IMPAIRED
(6021 962-0170
The Honorable Kevin Martin n
Chairman
4 4 5 12th Street NW
Dear Chairman Martin:

I am writing to recommend Alison Hughes for re-appointment
t o the Board of Directors of the Universal Service Administrative
Company (USAC). Ms. Hughee w a s f i r s t appointed to serve aa t h e
USAC Board‘s rural health care representative by former Federal
Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell.
Alison Hughes h a s achieved a distinguished record working in

a variety o€ capacities to improve rural health services.
Currently, she is t h e Director of the Rural Health Office at the
Me1 and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public Health at the
University of Arizona. As Director, h e r office has supported
rural health development through s t a t e initiatives and
partnerships to advance rural health services. She also served
on the National Advisory Committee on Rural Health, f r o m 1999-
2002, which recommended r u r a l health policy to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services. Additionally, she h a s served as the
Associate Director €or Outreach for the Arizona Telemedicine .
Program since 1996. Me. Hughes has demonstrated a comprehensive
knowledge of current rural health policies and a dedication to
improving our nation’s r u r a l health services.
MB. Hughes‘ professional background and qualifications make
her an i d e a l candidate to continue service as a member of the
USAC Board. Please give MEI. Hughes’ credentials every
consideration as you consider membership appointments in the
weeks ahead,
Sincerely,
w
United States Senator 47
P R W E D ON RECVCL€D PAPER
RECEIVED TIME JAN. 4. 5:42PM PRINT TIME JAN. 4. 5:42PM

TO:
TIME: 5;or
NUMBER OF PAGES
INCLUDING COVER:
OFFlCE NUMBER (202) 224-2235

RECEIVED TIME JAN. 4. 5:42PM P R I N T TIME JAN. 4. 5:42PM
F E D E R A LCOMM u N I C A T I O Ns COMM I ss I O N
WASHI N GTO N
OFFICE OF
THE C H A I R M A N
March 3,2006

Thank you for your letter recommending Alison Hughes for re-appointment to serve as
the representative for rural health care providers on the Board of Directors of the Universal
Service Administrative Company (USAC). I also appreciate the information you provided
concerning Ms. Hughes’ professional background and qualifications in rural health services. As
you may be aware, however, Dr. Peter Kragel, M.D., was appointed recently to serve as the
representative for rural health care providers on the USAC Board. Nevertheless, I will certainly
consider your recommendation and Ms. Hughes’ credentials as I make any decisions concerning
future nominations to the USAC Board.
I appreciate your interest in this very important matter. If you have questions or require
further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
ARIZONA WASHINGTON, D C 20510-0303
(202)224-2235
r"L
CHAIRMAN 3 5353 NORTH 16TH STREET

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES IBnited State5 Senate 9
SUITE 105
PHOENIX, A 2 85016
1602) 952-2410
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 8 4703 SOUTH LAKESHOREDRIVE
w SUITE 1
TEMPE,AZ 85282
P 1480)897-6289
ct
9 407 WESTCONGRESSSTREET
SUITE 103
TUCSON, A2 85701
(520) 670-6334
January 18,2006 TELEPHONEFOR HEARING IMPAIRED
1602) 952-0170
n
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Congressional Liaison Specialist
445 Twelfth Street, SW, Room 8-C453
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Refer to: Elayne Landau
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, Elayne Landau, who has
encountered a problem with her phone charges. Please investigate my constituent's claim,
within the existing rules, regulations and ethical guidelines, and provide me with a copy of the
final decision. MARK ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Carlos Sierra .

Office of Senator John McC iin
5353 N. 16th Street
Suite 105
Phoenix, Arizona 850 16
The response you provide will be most apprecia ed and will be forwardel I to my constituent.
If you should have any questions in the meantime, you can r e x h my office at (602) 952-24 IO. 1
Sincerely,
&gd*a John McCain

JWxcs . \
" ..
..
. . .
Snapshot Report: lncomincl Constituent Messaae .--...-. "..-.,
,fiwn;x
I.---.*..C."*
/ Report Date:72/21/2005'-"'
StaEf: &\LV
Address To: General
Name: 777777777177 7 Elape Landau
Address: 13302 W Copperstone Drive
SunCityWest AZ 85375 USA
Email: magyw432l869@yahoo.com m:
Home Phone: (623) 556-2743 Cell Phone:
Work Phone: Fax:
Salutation: Dear LrType: EML Reply Ltr:
Interest: CMGE Organization; Letter:
Classification: Personal: Title:
Reference #: Group:
Message Body:
1have an alcoholic Pueble friend who was Dui and sent to Bemalillo jail in Albuquerque, NM. He was there
for 1 year and called me once out of lonliness so I accepted the collect call. Later I got a bill for &8,99,I
paid the bill 6 weeks later but then I got another bill for &14. I called the company )D Tech) in Texas and
argued awhile about this new bill, Nothing I said mattered and around 6 weeks later T got another bill even
after 1paid the $14.00. The bills are now over $70, for tha &8,99 paid bill, I have complained to Senator
Dominici, Gov, Richardson and to Gov. Napolitano. I have complained to AZ Atty Den, NM Atty. Gen and
now to TX Atty. Den. I can't believe that 8 company can get away with this in this day and age but I am
ready to go Az,NM, and Tx medias about this.
I am a senior citizen with some disobilitiesand a SS income, I just can't absorb this bill especially since its
been paid twice. Tx Atty Gen office said they had 5 complaints against this company, I can Fax supporting
documents to you upon request.
Strangly, Pete Domenici's office never even answered my email. I have many friends and family still in NM,
Thank you for your time and any effort you or staff use in my behalf. I look forward to the next Presidential
electian and good by Bush, I am willing to support your canidacy should your intentions become firm,I am
a Democrat who strongly supports you.
X I N 3 0 H d :01
W d l B : & 9 0 0 l '6 ' N V f
FEB 2 1 2006

5353 N. 16" Street
Suite 105
Phoenix, A Z 85016
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Elayne Landau, regarding
a billing dispute she is having with DTech.
We have reviewed Ms. Landau's correspondence and are unable to assist her based on
the information that was provided. Ms. Landau should provide a copy of her telephone bill
showing the charge in question. We also need the address and telephone number for DTech.
Enclosed is information on how to file a complaint. Ms. Landau may file a telephone
related complaint via our website at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb. She can also send a complaint
on any FCC matter to the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Inquiries and
Complaints Division, 445 12thStreet, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554. We ask that she include
the congressional tracking number listed at the top of this letter in any subsequent
correspondence so that we can quickly associate it.
The Commission has available an e-mail service designed to apprise consumers about
the Commission to a wide audience and to invite comments from other parties on Commission
To subscribe, Ms. Landau should visit the FCC Consumer Registry at
http://www. fcc.gov/cgb/contacts/.
The Commission also seeks to inform consumers about their rights regarding common
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.
support Commission initiatives for consumers and for enforcement purposes. Information
1 1
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. Landau 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. 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.
Jay Keithley
Deputy Bureau Chief
Enclosure
I
ARIZONA ( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
5353 NORTH1 6 STREET~ ~

CHAIRMAN
@ SUITE 105
I M M l n E E ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
United State5 Senate PHOENIX, A Z 85016
V l M l n E E ON ARMED SERVICES
ZOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
IENCE. AND TRANSPORTATION
aco (602) 952-2410
4703 SOUTHLAKESHORE
SUITE 1
TEMPE, A Z 85282
(480) 897-6289
DRIVE
SUITE 103
TUCSON,A 2 85701
(520)670-6334
January 24,2006
TELEPHONE FOR HEARINGI M P A I R E D
( 6 0 2 ) 952-0170
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, Margie Mobley, who has
encountered a problem.
CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Jana Pierce

Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
Sincerely,
Jo McCain
*cL
JM/zjp
Enclosure
Impshot Report: Incoming Constituent Message
-
Fi '*zT* q- q j 6
Report Date: 12/29/2005
Staff: mesa
Address To: General
Name: Ms. Margie Mobley 06 JAN 1 9 ?/$ : 29
Address: 16641 N. 91st Street #lo3
Scottsdale AZ 85260 USA
Email: margiem@mobleymedia.com URL:
Home Phone: 480607-5544 Cell Phone:
Work Phone: (480) 624-2491 Fax:
Salutation: Dear Ms. Mobley: InType: EML Reply Ltr:
Interest: CMGE Organization: Letter:
Reference #: Group:
lessage Body:
v'e need your help!
v'e operate a small business in Scottsdale. We've been getting tons of calls from people receiving junk faxes
-om all over the country with our name at the bottom of them. People are contacting us thinking we are
:sponsible. They are receiving them in the middle of the night, often to home phone numbers, and many are
n the national do not call registry.
Ve've contacted the FCC is supposed to monitor this kind of illegal activity and as far as I'm aware, they are
ot doing anything about it. Can you please help! !!
know the SEC has filed some sort of an inquiry, but the faxes have not stopped. My contact there is Kevin
4uhlendorf at 202-55 1-4569.
L contact I have with the FCC is Mary Romano at 202-418-0975.
'his problem is virtually shutting down our business, and we are powerless to do anything about it without
elp from the government. PLEASE, PLEASE HELP US! !!
have thousands of contact info from people who have received these faxes, which I'd gladly make available
3 you if anyone can start an investigation to get these guys stopped.
MAR 0 2 2008
EB-TCD-JD
CN-0600221
4703 S. Lakeshore Drive, Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Margie Mobley of Scottsdale,
Arizona, regarding an unidentified entity transmitting unsolicited fax advertisements that list the
name of Ms. Mobley’s company, Panther Marketing. According to Ms. Mobley, Panther
Marketing neither sent nor caused the fax advertisements to be sent. Ms. Mobley, in her
correspondence to your office, states that she has been in contact with the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission), as well as the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), about this matter, but that the faxes have not stopped. You request that we
investigate Ms. Mobley’s claim and advise you of our findings.
The faxes to which Ms. Mobley refers tout stock sales. The stock-tout faxes are unlike
most other fax advertisements, because the nature of the stock-touting scheme does not
encourage the sender to put any legitimate identifying information on the faxes. The goal of the
stock-tout scheme, which is sometimes called “pump-and-dump,” is to persuade the fax recipient
to buy stock that the sender already owns, driving up the stock price so that the sender can sell
the already-owned shares at a profit. Unlike the case with faxes selling a product or service, the
stock-tout sender does not want the recipient to call back to buy anything. Instead, the sender
wants the recipient to go to a stockbroker and buy the touted stock. Hence, there usually is no
reliable identifying information on the fax, making it very difficult to trace the sender.
The Commission’s Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) has received other complaints

regarding faxes similar to the ones Ms. Mobley received, and Bureau staff is examining these
complaints to determine the origin of the faxes and whether they were sent in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Commission rules. The information Ms.
Mobley has provided the Commission is helphl to our continued investigation of these activities.
It is likely that the faxes in this case were sent by a party that does not hold a
Commission authorization. In cases where the Bureau finds it appropriate to take enforcement
action against such parties for violations of the Communications Act or Commission rules, the
Act requires us to issue a warning citation, which informs the party that it is in violation of the
Act or Commission rules, and describes the monetary forfeitures that can result if the unlawful
activity continues. As provided by the Act, if the unlawful activity continues after this warning,
the Bureau can then initiate a forfeiture proceeding against the company.
. -
Page 2-The Honorable John McCain -March 1,2006
Please be assured that the Commission is committed to vigorous enforcement action in

this area. Since July 1999, Commission staff has issued over 350 citations for various violations
of the TCPA and Commission’s rules governing telephone solicitation. We have also proposed
or issued $7,769,500 in forfeitures against 10 companies for violations of the TCPA. In addition,
the Commission staff has been in contact with the SEC staff in an attempt to identify the sender
of the faxes identified by Ms. Mobley and stop this disturbing practice. We will continue to
work closely and cooperatively with the SEC, as well as other federal, state, and local agencies,
in this area.
In the event that the sender of these faxes is identified, Ms. Mobley may wish to note that
the TCPA, which contains the fax advertising restrictions, provides that consumers may bring a
private lawsuit in state court to enjoin violations of the TCPA and to recover damages, if
otherwise permitted by the state’s laws or rules of court. If a violation of the TCPA is proven, a
court may award damages of $500 or the actual loss, whichever is greater, for each violation; if a
willfbl or knowing violation is shown, the court can award treble damages.
We appreciate your inquiry into this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can
be of further assistance.
Sincere1y,
-4
Michael Carowitz
Chief of Staff
Enforcement Bureau
JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSELL SENarE OFrlcr BUlLolNG
Ammw WASHINOTON, DC 20510-0303

1202) 224-2235
C"URW
COMMIlTEE ON INDLAN AFFAIRS
COMMITIEE ON COMMERCE.
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION March 1 4 , 2006 4703 Sour*LAKESHORE DRWE
SUlTE 1
TEMPE. A 2 85282
1480) 897-5289
407 WESTCONGRESS STRCET

S U ~ T E103
TUCSON,A 2 85701
The Honorable Kevin Martin I5201 670-6334
Chairman TELEPHONE FOR HEARING IMPAIREO

1602)952-0170
445 lzth Street NW
I am writing to recommend Mr. Ben H. Standifer, Jr. for

appointment to the Federal Communications Commission's
Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC),
which is responsible for developing best practices to
facilitate the enhancement of emergency communications
networks and homeland security across the
telecommunications industry.
Mr. Standifer's professional background and education make

him an ideal candidate for the council. Currently, Mr.
Standifer serves as the Chief Information Officer of the
Tohono O'odham Nation in Sells, Arizona, where he is
responsible for managing the tribe's telecommunications
systems and bringing new technologies to tribal members.
He has received training at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Stanford University, and the University of
Phoenix.
Mr. Standifer, if approved, would be the first tribal

representative on NRIC. Please give Mr. Standifer's
credentials every consideration as you consider
appointments in the weeks ahead.
Sincerely,
John McCain
FEDERALC O M M U N I C A T I C
OONM
S MISSION
WASHI N GTON
OFFICE OF
THE C H A I R M A N
May 24,2006

24 1 Russell Senate Office Building
Thank you for your letter recommending Mr. Ben H. Standifer, Jr., to serve on the
Commission’s Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC). Mr. Standifer is
familiar to the Commission, and we have high regard for his qualifications.
We are in the planning stages of forming NRIC VIII. I will certainly consider
Mr. Standifer’s credentials and your recommendation during the selection process for
membership of NRIC VIII. Thank you for taking the time to forward your recommendation.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
JOHN MsC4lN
hiQQY4
The Honorable Kevin Martin

Chairman
Federal Communications Commlssian
4 4 5 1zth S t r e e t NW
Waahiflgton, b C 20554
D e ~ rChairman Martin:
We w i s h Lo admit: c o m e n ~ sregarding p e t i t i o n for

C l a r i f i c a t i o n or kecomidcraticm Ithe *Petition") submitted by
Mohave County (the "Countym') on February 17, 2006, published in
the Federal Register on March 8 , 2 0 0 6 , and pending before the
Federal Communications Comiasian ( t h e n C m m i ~ ~ i o1n. w
O n Atlguat 11, 2 0 0 4 , the COwatliBBiOn Cmcluded i n its F i f t h

Report a ~ Order d (IS FCC Rcd 14969) that the mast effective
solution for prwenting sadin interference to public safety
uaera of the 300 MKz band waa ta require non-public safety uBers
of t h i a band to relocate. In exchange f o r the relocation, t h e
tommisaior.1 provided s p r i n t N e x t e l Corporation ["Sprint N e x t e l " )
and the other relocated non-publdc eafety users with the use of
Bpectrum i n other banda. The Commiwion alsu r-eyuired Sprint
Textel to reimburse the relocation c m t s for u ~ e r sdislocated by
S p r i n t Nextel' a transfer.
As part of the order, The C m i B a i o n atated, that i n coming

t w it@ decision, i t soulght eo enmure t h e "minimal disruption to
t h e operatione of all affected 800 MHz incumbents during t h e
traneition p e r i d " and that nthe aaaociated reeonfiguxation
co3ta are We hope the Commission will keep theae goals
in m i n d as it considers the P e t i t i o n , which reqyeata the
Commissboa t~ c l a r i f y whether Mohave County is e l i g i b l e far
reimbursement f r o m Sprint Nextel for the relocation of five
television relay statione that UEE t h e 1910-1915/1990-1995 MHz
band.
believe it ia in t h e public interem to emure both the

We
uninterrupted delivery of national and Btatewide news and
information, Including public 8afety information, to citizens in
t h e County, a r e m t c area, and the continuntioa of t h e
relocation efforts without delay. Accordingly, we urge you and
your fellow Coinmiuaionere to conaider all o p t i o n s a5 yau
evaluate the Petition.
We n o t e t h a t this letter reflecte m r own concerns on t h i s

impcrtant question of public policy, It is nwt w r i t t e n wn
behalf of any party, nor do we Beck a apecific outcome f o r any
party. O u r sole i n t e r e ~ ti a to ensure t h a t the County and i t s
resident8 sre Created f a i r l y and equitably in a mmer that is
in strict accordance w i t h exiecing agency rules, regulaeions,
and ethical guidslinem, T h e r e f o r e , p l e a s e treat thiE letter i n
mmpLiance w i t h all applicable substantive and procedural r u l e S ,
including providing a copy of t h i a l e t t e r in the public record
O € HT D O C NO. ~ ~ 02-55.
Sincerely,
W
Jon Kyl
united S t a t B s Senator United S t a t e s Senator
JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
ARIZONA
(202)224-2235
5353 NORTH1 6 r ~STREET

CHAIRMAN 52 SUITE 105
COMMlmEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
C O M M l n E E ON ARMED SERVICES United states @enate gG.7
PHOENIX,A Z 85016
(602)952-2410
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, e4 4703 SOUTHLAKESHORE DRIVE

TEMPE, A Z 85282
1480)897-6289

SUITE 103
TUCSON, A Z 85701
(520)670-6334
March 3 1, 2006
TELEPHONE
F O R HEARINGIMPAIRED
(602)952-0170
Mr. Kevin Washington

Director
Office of Congressional Affairs
445 12th St., SW
Dear Mr. Washington:
Enclosed is an inquiry that I have received from Marcus Lamb, the President and Chief
Operating Officer of Daystar Television Network, regarding Cox Cable's Petition for Special Relief. I
understand that the matter raised by Mr. Lamb's letter is now before the Federal Communications
Commission.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would review the enclosed materials within existing rules,
regulations, and ethical guidelines. Please send a prompt response addressing the issues raised by Mr.
- -
Lamb directly to Daystar television network. Please provide me with a copy of the response for my
recordK
It is my policy that I ask for no preferential treatment for this petitioner or any single group of
interests, nor do I advocate a specific outcome for this or any other petitioner. I ask that this matter be
handled in strict accordance with existing agency rules, regulations, and ethical guidelines. My sole
interest is to ensure that this petitioner is treated fairly and equitably and in a manner that reflects
appropriate and prompt service to citizen taxpayers.
PLEASE SEND THE REQUESTED COPY TO THE ATTENTION OF: Lee Dunn in my
Washington office, 241 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510. Thank you very
much for your kind assistance and cooperation.
SinceY9 -
c/ John McCain
JMIkr
Enclosure
PRINTED ON RECYCLE0 PAPER

STATIONS:
Philadelphia, PA Ch. 8
San Francisco. CA Ch. 22
February 6,2006
Boston, MA Ch. 48
U. S. Senator John McCain
Dallas, TX Ch. 2
Washington, DC Ch. 23
241 Russell State Office Bldg.
Atlanta, GA Ch. 53
Washington, DC 205 10
Houston, TX Ch. 22
FAXED & SENT VIA FED X
Seattle, WA Ch. 56
Tampa, FL Ch. 18 Dear Senator McCain,
Minneapolis, MN Ch. 62
Phoenix, A2 Ch. 39 [ needyour help! It is an emergency. Let me explain. Daystar has entered into a deal with
Cleveland, OH Ch. 53 NBC who owns Telemundo which is the second largest Hispanic TV Network. Daystar is
Denver, CO Ch. 41 swapping our TV Station in Phoenix for three Telemundo TV Stations (two in Phoenix and
Sacramento, CA Ch. 47 me in northern Arizona) to reach more people.
Stockton, CA Ch. 52
Modesto, CA Ch. 61 Cox Cable is the dominant Cable System in the greater Phoenix area. They are currently
Orlando, FL Ch. 50 ;anying Daystar on cable channel 20 and Telemundo on cable channel 56.
St. Louis, MO Ch. 64
Indianapolis, IN Ch. 69 Cox is now using the swap as a loophole in the law to try and get Daystar's Must Carry rights
Charlotte, NC Ch. 25 -evoked so that they can drop Daystar (even though Daystar has been carried on Cox Cable
Raleigh, NC Ch. 66 For six years.) Cox has recently filed a petition at the FCC to allow Cox to remove Daystar
Nashville. TN Ch. 14 kom their cable systems in the Phoenix area.
Kansas City, MO Ch. 35
Columbus. OH Ch. 19
Since Cox is currently canying both Daystar and Telemundo, it would be very simple, and
San Antonio, TX Ch. 46
ogical, for Cox to just keep carrying both channels. Cox doesn't have to drop Daystar.
Birmingham, AL Ch. 24
Daystar is the second largest Christian Network in the world! We carry several local Phoenix
Memphis, TN Ch. 59
irea Church programs. Together, these Churches have tens of thousands of loyal members.
Buffalo, NY Ch. 39
Daystar is the only Chnstian TV Network that shows Spanish programs. Plus we have
Oklahoma City, OK Ch. 46 Phoenix area Ministers on our flagship programs as guests. Multiplied thousands of your
Las Vegas, NV Ch. 23 :onstituents would be upset if Daystar was lost to your area!
Little Rock, AR Ch. 36
Richmond, VA Ch. 48 4s a Political Leader in the Phoefll?L area, yon can make a difference. The first step is to mite
Knoxville, TN Ch. 24 1 letter to the FCC and Fed-X it to our FCC Attorney. For your convenience, I have attached
Zharleston, WV Ch. 61 I sample letter that can save you time. Just alter it as you see fit. Your letter must be in our
Honolulu, HI Ch. 44 ?CC Attorney's hands by this Friday, Feb. lofh.
rucson. AZ Ch. 29
Dortland,ME Ch. 15 Please Fed-X to: Robert L. Olender
lackson, MS Ch. 43 11913 Grey Hollow Court
Macon. GA Ch. 31 North Bethesda, MD 20852 301-468-3336
IirecTV Ch. 369
)ish Network
Jnited Kingdom
OF & Mid-Ekt
"".:;%
Hothid 6
sion, P.S. We can't stand by and allow more of our
religious freedoms to be taken away from
us! Again, you can make a difference...
Uica P!4s 7
%a Thaicom 3
'resident/CEO
\ustralia optusB3
jcandinavia S-
ht&SaAmerica NSS806
PO BOX 612066 * DALLAS, T X 75261-2066
PH: (817) 571-1229 FAX: (817) 571-7158 www.daystar.com
STATIONS March 20,2006
Phihdelphia, PA Ch. 8
Boston. hlA Ch. 48 U.S. Senator John McCain
S.rn Fr‘ulcisccl, C‘A CIa. 2 2 United States Senate
D-illas, TX Ch. 2 241 Russell Senate Ofice Bldg.
Washington, DC Ch. 23 Washington, D.C. 20510
Atl:1nta. CA Cll. 53 Sent Via Federal Express
IHou~toii.TX Ch. 2 2
Tampa. FL c:h. 18
Seattle. \VA Ch 56
Phoenix, A7 Ch. 39 I know that you are very busy and that you can’t respond to every request. So, just to let
M itmeap I is. hlN Ch. 62 you know that Daystar is significant enough to warrant your attention, let me share a few
Cleveland. OH Cia. 53 things upfiont with you about Daystar.
Denver, CO Ch. 41
Sacramento, CA Ch. 47 1) Daystar is the fastest growing Christian Television Network in the world, and
Siockron, CA Ch. 52
the second largest.
Modesto. CA Ch. 61
Orlando, FL Cli. 50
SL. LouLs, bI0 Ch. 64 2) Daystar’s income this year will be over $100 million.
Indhnaplis. IN Ch. 69
Charlotis, NC Ch. 25 3) Daystar has over 300 employees and a market capitalization of over half a
R:ileigh. NC‘ C!1. 66 billion dollars.
Nnshv~lle,TN Ch. 14
K:ulsns C l t y . h10 Ch. 35
Colunthus. OH Ch. 19
4) Daystar is on 24 hours a day in over 50 million homes in the United States and
S m Antonio. TX Ch. 46
in approximately 200 countries of the world.
B iriii in& in. AL Ch. 24
hlcmphis, TN Ch. 59 5 ) As you can see by the list on this stationary, Daystar has TV Stations in most of
Okhhoiiaa City. O K Ch. 46 the major cities of the United States, as well as being on many satellite systems,
L I S V e p , NV Ch. 23 including DirecTV which is in every city of the U.S.
Buffalo. NY Ch. 39
Little Rock, hR Ch. 36 My wife, Joni, and I are registered Republicans. When George Bush was running for
Knoxville. TN Ch. 24
Richmond, VA Ch. 48
President, he was a guest with us, via his phone call, on our daily flagship TV program.
Tulsa. OK hySA&.i d S 0 Gii€ of oiir Satd!ite Up!ifik TFGCkS tC de 8 XX.lp!!2 Gf ‘‘!i\Z!” RmQk
Ch. 29
Charleston, WV Ch. 61 broadcasts at events with George Bush speaking. As a result, we have been guests in the
Tucson, AZ Ch. 29 White House twice in the last two years.
Honolulu. HI Ch. 44
Portland. ME Ch. 15 Governor Rick Perry has been a guest with us on our TV program. Also, recently Joni & I
Jackson, MS Ch. 43 were the emcees chosen by Governor Perry to interview him at a Town Hall Meeting in
Macon, G A Ch. 31
Monueal. QC. Cainda Ch. 56
Austin with about 1,000 Pastors. Plus, Governor Perry did a TV interview with Joni and
DirecTV Ch. 369
me at the Governor’s Mansion. Afterwards he took quite a bit of time to personally give
Dish Network Various us a tour. He recently invited us to his Christmas Party.
United Kingdom BSkyB
Europe 6r Mid-hsr Hotbird 6
.A__..
t‘ric3 P4S 10 D q s t a h~ shwm “live” hmzdcasts of major political rallies with Dr. James Dobson and
Asia Thaicom 3 other leading Evangelicals.
Australia Oprus B3
Scandimvia Sirius/Viasat
Cent &So. America NSS806
PO BOX 612066 DALLAS, TX 75261-2066

PH: (817) 571-1229 - FAX: (817) 571-7458 - u?vw.daystar.com
-2-
A few days ago, Joni & I could have gone with influential friends to the event honoring
you at Gerald Ford’s house in Dallas, but we were out of state. But I heard that I really
missed a nice time. Sorry we couldn’t make it.
I don’t normally list all of these statistics about the strength of Daystar, nor tout our
political connections, but again, I wanted you to know that Daystar was something that was
worthy of your valuable time.
Senator McCain, I need your help. We have a full power TV Station licensed to Phoenix,
AZ. It is KDTP-TV 39 and it is carried by Cox Communications in the greater Phoenix
area on cable channel 20 to about 800,000 homes. Recently, the FCC approved a deal
between us and NBC-Telemundo to swap TV Stations.
Cox has carried Daystar’s KDTP in Phoenix for over six years. But now Cox is trying to
use the swap between NBC-Telemundo and Daystar to not have to cany Daystar’s TV
Station anymore by implementing a “loophole.’’
As a result, Cox has filed a Petition with the FCC to not have to carry the station that we
are getting from NBC-Telemundo in the swap. By the way, NBC-Telemundo has filed
with the FCC supporting Daystar and opposing this tactic by Cox.
It appears to be religious discrimination on the part of Cox. Here’s the evidence of that.
For several years, Cox has been carrying our Daystar Station and the Telemundo Station on
analog cable in Phoenix. Once Daystar gets the Telemundo Station and Telemundo gets
the Daystar Station, Cox wants to drop the new Daystar Station. But again, since Cox has
been carrying both the Daystar and Telemundo Stations for years on analog cable, there is
no compelling reason for Cox to now try to get the FCC to let them drop the new Daystar
Station.
Since both of the Daystar and Telemundo TV Stations are in your jurisdiction in Arizona,
we are asking you to write a letter to the FCC requesting that the FCC deny Cox’s petition.
(We also have a Station in Tucson.)
1) Daystar’s Station has been carried by Cox on analog cable for more than six
years.
2) Daystar’s Station carries a lot of local Phoenix programming including the

following major Churches:
Pastor Tommy Barnett - Phoenix First Assembly. This is the largest Church in
Arizona with o17er 20,000 members. I will be preaching there in August.
-3-
Dr. Dan Y e w - North Phoenix Baptist Church. This is the second largest Church
in Arizona with about 12,000 members.
Dr. Tom Anderson - Living Word Bible Church (Mesa). This Church has over
6,000 members.
Pastor Lany Seratt - Covenant International Church (Glendale). This Church has
about 3,000 members.
All of these major Pastors, and more, have recently written letters to the FCC asking
that Cox's petition be denied.
Phoenix is a top ten market for Hispanics. Daystar's Station is the only Anglo
Station to also carry a block of Hispanic programming.
Daystar's TV Station has ratings. Though the ratings are not high, according
to Nielsen, out of about 120 TV Stations and Cable Channels, Daystar's Station
had higher ratings than 41 other channels.
Daystar has tens of thousands of active supporters in the greater Phoenix area.
They would be greatly disappointed if they lost their Daystar Station!
Therefore, Senator McCain, I am respectfully requesting that you write a letter to the FCC
just as soon as possible and reference: CSR-6964-A. Please send it to:
William H. Johnson - Deputy Chief

F.C.C. Media Bureau, Room 3-C742
455 Twelfth St. S.W.
Rest assured that your help will be remembered and appreciated. If there is ever anything
that I can do for you, please don't hesitate to let me know.
1 .
For sure, as your schedule permits, we woula m e to have you as a guest on our program.
*.1
Daystar's international headquarters are conveniently located only about 10 minutes from
the DFW Airport.
I am enclosing a 4 minute overview about Daystar on DVD and a CD of Joni and The
Daystar Singers and Band.
P.S. To learn more about Daystar, check us

out at wv,w.Davstar.com
May 16,2006
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0600844
Mr. Marcus D. Lamb

President and CEO
Daystar Television Network
P.O. Box 612066
Dallas, Texas 75261-2066
Dear Mr. Lamb:
inquiry regarding a Petition for Special Relief (“Petition”) filed with the Commission by Cox
Communications (“COX”)concerning the modification of the Phoenix, Arizona television
market. I appreciate the opportunity to update you concerning the status of this Petition.
As discussed in your correspondence, the Commission has received a Petition from Cox
seeking to modi@ the Phoenix television market to exclude particular communities from the
television market of KDTP-TV so that the station would not be eligible for mandatory carriage
on the cable television system serving those communities. On January 23, 2006, the
Commission’s Media Bureau issued a Public Notice announcing the filing of the Cox Petition
and initiating a 20-day period during which comments concerning the Petition may be filed with
the Commission. As you know, the Cox Petition was opposed by Daystar and NBC-Telemundo.
On February 8,2006, Cox filed a Reply to the Oppositions.
On May 10,2006, the Media Bureau adopted a Memorandum Opinion and Order (DA
06- 1015) concerning the Cox Petition. The Bureau determined that Cox’s Petition was
premature and the Petition was dismissed without prejudice. For your information and review, I
have enclosed a copy of the Bureau’s decision.
Finally, in order to ensure both fairness and the appearance of fairness in Commission
proceedings, the Commission has established exparte rules, which generally require that
communications with the Commission in restricted proceedings, including market modification
petitions, be served on the parties to the proceeding. As a Commission licensee and party to a
restricted proceeding, your request that persons contact the Commission concerning this matter
should have included an advisory that any correspondence sent to the Commission be served on
the parties to this proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s exparte rules. See 47 C.F.R.
9 1.1210 (No person shall solicit or encourage others to make any improper presentation under
the provisions of this section). Because you failed to advise third parties of the service
requirement, we are providing a copy of your correspondence, as well as a copy of this letter, to
Page 2-Mr. Marcus D. Lamb
the parties of record in this matter. In addition, we ask that any hture communication with the
Commission fiom Daystar, or on Daystar’s behalf, concerning a substantive matter related to the
Petition be provided to the parties to this proceeding and that the communication indicate that the
parties have been served.
I hope that this information is helphl and please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be
of hrther assistance.
Sincerely,
Chief, Office of Communications and Industry Information

Media Bureau
Enclosure

Coxcom, Inc. (without enclosure)
NBC Telemundo License Company (without enclosure)
( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
5353 NORTH1 6 STREET ~ ~

CHAIRMAN
United St;ates;Senate
SUITE 105
PHOENIX, A 2 8 5 0 1 6
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 4703 SOUTH LAKESHOREDRIVE
TEMPE, A 2 8 5 2 8 2
( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289
407 WESTCONGRESSSTREET
SUITE 103
May 3,2006 TUCSON, A 2 85701
( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
TELEPHONE FOR HEARING IMPAIRED

(602)952-0170
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Mr. Martin :
I wish to bring to your attention the matter concerning my constituent, Mr. Gary Bosket, who
has encountered some concerns with developing a low power radio station. Please investigate,
my constituent's claim, within the existing rules, regulations and ethical guidelines, and provide
me with the final decision. MARK ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Alexia Korte

Suite 103
Sincerely,
JM/tak
Enclosure(s)

Snapshot Report: Incoming-Constituent Messaqe
Report Date:2/21I2006
Staff:
tuc
General
Address To:
Name: Mr. Gary Bosket
Address:37305 S Summit Crest Ct Saddlebrooke
Tucson AZ 85739 USA
Email: garbo38@wbhsi.net UlU:
Home Phone: (520) 8 18-9622 Cell Phone:
Work Phone: Fax:
Salutation: Dear Mr. Bosket: InType: EML Reply Ltr:
Interest: EDGE Organization: Letter:
Reference #: Group:
Message Body:
I am Board member of Catalina Community Services in Catalina, AZ.We serve thousands of
underpriveleged and senior citizens in southern Pinal County every day with our food bank, clothing bank,
meals on wheels, SpanisWEnglish language classes, student programs, etc. We have no local newspaper,
radio station or TV in our service area, and we are hoping to develop a low-power radio station of our own,
but have little knowledge about getting a state or federal license. We are convinced that many clients in our
area would benefit greatly from a station of this type, and it would provide us with a method for keeping our
clients aware of a variety of info important to them. Can you help us learn more about how to go about
obtaining a license, and provide some assistance if we need it? We have funding to develop a station, and
plenty of volunteers, but we need to get a license and you could really help us.
PLEASE HELP !!.......Thank you.
Gary Bosket, mba, cpm
June 1,2006
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-060 1060

Suite 103
Thankyou for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Gary Bosket of Tucson,
Arizona. Mr. Bosket, a Board member of Catalina Community Services, contacted your office
concerning the establishment of a low power FM ("LPFM") radio station in Catalina, Arizona. I
As you know, the Commission established the LPFM radio broadcast service in 2000 to
provide new broadcasting opportunities for locally based organizations to serve their
communities. At that time, the Commission adopted a five-stage national filing window
procedure for the submission of LPFM applications. Under this procedure, the Commission
periodically issues a public notice announcing a "window" or specific time period during which
LPFM applications may be filed with the Commission. The filing window for the submission of
LPFM applications in Arizona closed on June 15,2001.
More than 3,000 applications were submitted to the Commission during the national
filing windows. To date, the Commission has granted more than 1,270 LPFM construction
permits and approximately 710 LPFM stations currently are on the air. The Commission,
however, has not opened windows for the submission of new LPFM applications because it first
must resolve the approximately 60 remaining LPFM applications that were submitted during the
prior national filing window.
The Commission's review of pending LPFM applications has been complicated by

several factors, including the enactment of legislation which required the Commission to
prescribe third-adjacent channel spacing requirements for LPFM stations. The LPFM statute
also required the Commission to develop an experimental LPFM program and to "select an
independent entity'' to conduct field tests to determine whether LPFM stations would interfere
with existing FM stations if LPFM stations were not subject to third-adjacent channel spacing
requirements. The results of the independent field tests, along with the Commission's
recommendation that the third-adjacent channel requirement be eliminated, are discussed in a
report that the Commission submitted to Congress in February 2004.
Page 2-The Honorable John McCain
In March 2005, the Commission adopted a Second Order on Reconsideration and

Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking to solicit public comment on, among other things,
whether the regulations governing ownership, technical requirements, and the application
procedures for LPFM stations should be modified. The comment period in this matter has
closed, and the staff of the Commission’s Media Bureau is reviewing the record compiled in the
proceeding.
As a result of these pending matters, the Commission currently is not accepting LPFM
applications. Until these issues are addressed, including the pending LPFM applications, it
cannot be determined when a window will be opened for the submission of applications to
establish new LPFM service. To learn of future LPFM filing windows and to obtain additional
information about the service, Mr. Bosket may wish to monitor the Commission’sweb site
(http://www.fcc.gov/lDfm).
Finally, Mr. Bosket may request a waiver of the requirement that applications to establish
new LPFM service be submitted during a filing window. The Commission considers written
requests for a waiver of the filing window on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Bosket also should be
advised, however, that the Commission has only granted two such waivers, both of which were
based on public safety concerns in areas that received no other radio broadcast signals. The two
waivers also involved translator stations which, as secondary services, would not preclude
others from submitting applications to establish full service stations in the next filing window. If
Mr. Bosket believes that compelling circumstances exist, he may document those circumstances
and submit a written waiver request to:

Office of the Secretary
445 12” Street, S.W.
I hope that this information is helpfhl. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of
further assistance.
Sincerely,
S&or Deputy Chief

Media Bureau
JOHN McCAlN OFFICEBUILDING
C 20510-0303
ARIZONA
CHAIRMAN
C O M M l n E E O N ARMED SERVICES
TEMPE. AZ 8 5 2 8 2
(480)'897-6289
SUITE 103
TUCSON, AZ 85701
( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
( 6 0 2 ) 952-0170
Director
Consumer and Governmentai Affairs Bureau
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Maurice Coburn who has encountered a
problem regarding KVEZ (FM) radio station.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
W John McCain
JM/zjp
Enclosure

Eagle
Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403 E-mail Ihcnews@yahoo.com
April 2 7 , 2006
'k. 75""
2 4 1 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 2 0 5 1 0 - 0 3 0 3
?e: Pending FCC Acticn, KVEZ-FM, Parker, A r i 7 ~ n a
Dear John:
Your Staff Members have been very helpful, and they have
twice gotten all the way to Roy Stewart, Chief, Office of
Broadcast License Policy (most recent on October 24, 2 0 0 5 ,
copy attached). This matter has been pending for more than
two years at great costs and frustration for Marlene and me.
As you know, we cannot appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals, if
such becomes necessary, unless and until we get a "Final De-
termination from the FCC thus exhausting Administrative Remedies."
We are convinced that only by a personal call from you to

either the Chairman or Secretary of the Federal Communications
Commission, will it be put on their Meeting Agenda for a Final
Determination. Unfortunately, in our Republic justice can only
be obtained through (sometimes) the spending of a lot of money
and a long wait.
With your busy schedule, you should not have to be personally
involved, but I know of nowhere else to turn for help (our FCC
lawyers claim that they have exhaused their abilities).
Most sincerely,
Enclosure: Roy Stewart letter of 1 0 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 5

October 24,2005
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0501914

Dear Mr. Coburn:
inquiry regarding the status of several petitions for reconsideration and related pleadings that
were filed with the Commission by Eagle Broadcasting Group, Ltd. (“Eagle”) concerning the
license of former broadcast station KVEZ(FM), Parker, Arizona. I appreciate the opportunity to
respond.
As you are aware, pursuant to section 3 12(g) of the Communications Act, the staff of the
Commission’s Media Bureau determined that KVEZ’s license had been forfeited for failure to
operate. Eagle Broadcasting has filed three Petitions for Reconsideration concerning the staffs
decision, In addition, Eagle submitted a request for special temporary authorization on
January 25,2005. More recently, on March 21,2005, Eagle supplemented its pleadings with
arguments concerning the effect that a 2004 amendment to Section 3 12 of the Communications
Act may have on this proceeding.
this matter to the full Commission for review. Please be assured that the information provided
by Eagle will be reviewed carefully and a decision will be issued as expeditiously as possible.
I hope that this infomation is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of
M e r assistance with this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Roy J. Stewart
Senior Deputy Chie
Media Bureau
June 6,2006
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-060 1114

Dear Mr. Coburn:
follow-up inquiry regarding the status of several petitions for reconsideration and related
pleadings that were filed with the Commission by Eagle Broadcasting Group, Ltd. (“Eagle”)
concerning the license of former broadcast station KVEZ(FM), Parker, Arizona. I appreciate the
opportunity to respond.
As discussed in my previous response of October 24, 2005, the staff of the Commission’s
Media Bureau determined that, pursuant to section 3 12(g) of the Communications Act, KVEZ’s
license had expired for failure to operate. I also explained that Eagle’s three Petitionsfor
Reconsideration and the related pleadings have been consolidated and referred to the fbll
Commission for review.
Unfortunately, no fbrther action has been taken on this matter, and I am unable to provide
a date by which the Commission may address the pending Petitions. Please be assured, however,
that a decision will be issued as expeditiously as possible.
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.
Sincerely,
Senior Deputy Chief

Media Bureau
JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSELLSENATEOFFICEBUILOING
( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
Q 5353 NORTH 1 6 STREET ~ ~
CHAIRMAN 3
Wnitd States Senate
COMMITTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS SUITE 105
CJ PHOENIX, AZ 85016
EOMMITTEE O N ARMED SERVICES ( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410
CQ
COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE, 0 4703 S o u i n LAKESHOREDRIVE
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION Q SUITE 1
N TEMPE, A2 85282
ZZ ( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289
3
fY> 407 WEST CONGRESSSTREET
m SUITE 103
D4 TUCSON, A 2 85701
June 19,2006 (520) 670-6334
(602) 952-0170
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, J.W. Westerhausen, who
has encountered a problem with his Direct TV.
CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Jana Pierce

Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
Sincerely,
v John McCain
JM/zjp
Enclosure
I
Snapshot Report: lncomina Constituent Messaqe
Report Date:312912006
Y
Staff. tlm t
’’ .,b
’‘I I 2 2008
Address To: General
Name: Mr. J Westerhausen
Address: 1026 E 9th Place
Mesa AZ 85203 USA
Email: wyousna@aol.com URL:
Home Phone: (480) 969-0265 Cell Phone: JUN 1 5 2006
Work Phone: Fax:
Salutation: Dear Mr. Westerhausen: InType: EML Reply Ltr:
Interest: CMTV Organization: Letter:
Reference #: Group:
Message Body:
Below is attached e-mail have sent to Direct TV:
J W Westerhausen
1026 E 9th Place
Mesa AZ 85203
29 March 2006
480-969-0265
Direct TV
Customer Disservice Department:
Acct # 576392
I had been very happy with my Direct TV service for 12 years until today.
My east coast and west coast channels were cutoff. I had received an unsolicited call last Friday night from
Direct TV asking if I wanted local channels for $3 and I said yes.
The caller did not say I would lose my east and west coast channels to get the locals channels, if I have to
choose between them I want east coast and west coast channels but now I canG€TMthave them. If you check
the recording of the phone call you will not find anywhere the caller says I would lose east and west coast
channels, had I known that I would not have agreed to getting the local channels. The caller also took my
:-mail address so he could back up the change via e-mail but I have not ever received an e-mail from Direct
TV for notification of what would occur as he said would happen.
10 years ago or more I sent in an RV exemption which was grand fathered in my contract because I activated
ny satellite service before the FCC changed all their rules in favor of the cable companies. I use my RV for
oca1 trips and rely on satellite service for my TV since the cable networks do not have a cable long enough
’or me to go to the mountains in AZ. The two people I talked to today said I could only get satellite TV if I
nitiated a contract for my RV and my home so I would have to pay $45.74 for each and then cancel home
TV if I am going to go fishing for the weekend and activate RV TV and upon return reverse the process.
Vow I am sure this would get very old for me to do this each time I decide to go to the mountains and
ncrease the cost to Direct TV to switch from one contract to the other each time I decide to go out in my RV.
;o I think the new requirements should not apply to me per the new FCC act of 2004 since it allows me to
:hose either local or distant and I choose distant and I want to go back to east coast and west coast channels
Snapshot Report: lncomina Constituent Message
Report Date:3/29/2006
and no local channels if possible. I was fine until I received the unsolicited call from Direct TV to add local
channels with out notifying me what would happen.
J W Westerhausen
-
JUL 1 7 2006

Tempe, AZ 85282
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. J.W. Westerhausen,
regarding the difficulties he is experiencing with the services provided by DirecTV.
Mr. Westerhausen’s correspondence raises issues that are outside the scope of the
Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC or Commission) regulation of satellite services.
The Commission does not regulate the rates charged or the billing practices for satellite
programming, nor does it control how this programming is sold or packaged. Individuals with
complaints about pricing or service should contact their satellite service provider. Complaints
may also be directed to the state consumer protection office, Office of the Attorney General,
Consumer Protection & Advocacy Section, 1275 W Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007-
2926. Mr. Westerhausen may call them toll free at 1-800-352-8431 or visit their web site at
www.ag.state.az.us.
Enclosed is information about the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization
Act of 2004 that Mr. Westerhausen may find helpful. Mr. Westerhausen’s views and
comments are important to us, and we appreciate your taking the time to forward them. We
invite Mr. Westerhausen to visit the Commission’s web site at http:l:uuw.fcc.gov for
information on telecommunications-related issues and to access the FCC rules and regulations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Jay geithley
Deputy Bureau Chief
Enclosure
(202) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN
22 5353 NORTH 1 6 STREET
~ ~
Wnited Statu Senate

PHOENIX,A Z 85016
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 4703 SOUTH LAKESHOREDRIVE
TEMPE, AZ 85282
1480) 897-6289
SUITE 103
TUCSON, A 2 85701
June 19,2006 (520) 670-6334
TELEPHONEFOR HEARI IMPAIRED

(602) 9 5 2 - 0 ? 7
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, David Lamb, who has
encountered a problem with events that are occurring on the website for his web design firm.
CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Catherine Bouvier

Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
&
-
Sincerelv.
* ' McCain
John C L
JMIzcb
Enclosure

Snapshot Report; Incoming Constituent Message
Report Date:511 1I2006
Staff: dkr i'

Address To: Genera1
Name: Mr. Devin Lamb
Address: 2130 W Erie Street
Chandler AZ 85224 USA
Email: devin@creativemotiondesign.com URL:
Home Phone: (704) 307-433 1 Cell Phone:
Work Phone: (704) 307-433 1 Fax:
Salutation: Dear Mr. Lamb: InType: EML Reply Ltr:
Interest: CMIT Organization: Letter:
Classification: Personal : Title:
Reference #: Group:
Message Body:
Dear Mr McCain,
In 33 years this is the first time I have ever written to a public-elected official for help. I hope it gets a
response or a result. I operate a small web design firm and work basically online all day. I host more than 350
client websites so I am also writing on behalf of my many clients. In the last 4 months, we have received, on
average 40 emails per day referring us to the same website to purchase email lists claiming to be for non
profit charities like the American Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders and other fine reputable
organizations. The most frustrating part is that the email addressk are often listed as my clients or a sales
inquirery so we cant simply delete these, we must review each one. Its not like they simply have "viagra" in
the subject line. The countless hours it takes month in and month out to process these is overwhelming. Now
let me introduce Robert Soloway. I called the number on his website to request this to stop (after I submitted
multiple times to his website "remove me" form to no avail). He simply hung up after I refused to purchase
anything from him and he laughed when I told him he was breaking the law. I did alot of research and found
I wasnt alone.
Here is a profile of this individual: http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/listing.lasso?-op
m
JUL 1 4 2006

Tempe, AZ 85282
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. David Lamb, regarding his
concerns over unsolicited e-mails or “spam.
We are enclosing information that explains the Commission’s efforts to protect

consumers from receiving marketing communications to which they object. Also enclosed is
information relating to the law entitled, Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography
and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM), that Mr. Lamb may find helpful. If Mr. Lamb
believes the material sent to his e-mail address violates the CAN-SPAM rules, he may wish to
file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.
Mr. Lamb should contact his Internet service provider to submit inquiries and
complaints. His state consumer protection office may also be of assistance. He may contact
them by writing to the Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection & Advocacy
Section, 1275 W Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926. Mr. Lamb may call them toll
free at 1-800-352-8431, or visit their web site www.ag.state.az.us.
We invite Mr. Lamb to visit the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau’s Internet
web site at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb for additional 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, Mr. Lamb
should visit the FCC Consumer Registry at http: //www.fcc.gov/cgb/contacts/.
“’ I
questions.
Sincerely,
J
Jay Keithley
Deputy Bureau Chief
Enclosures
"' I
ARIZONA
3 W A S H I N G T O NDC, 20510-0303
( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN ar,S
: 5353 NORTH 1 6 STREET ~ ~
United state5 senate

SUITE 105
COMMITTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS La PHOENIX,A 2 85016
3
rt
( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410
4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE DRIVE

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION *J SUITE 1
TEMPE,AZ 8 5 2 8 2
%? ( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289
Isj
c-+d 407 W E S T CONGRESSSTREET
SUITE 103
TUCSON, A Z 85701
July 19, 2006 ( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
TELEPHONEF O R H E A R I N GIMPAIRED
1602) 952-0170
Kevin Washington, Acting Director

I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Robert Goemans who has encountered a
problem with the unwanted telephone calls he is receiving.
Because the situation is under your jurisdiction, 1 am respectfully referring this matter to you
respond directly to Robert Goemans.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John McCain
JM/tgs
Enclosure(s)
Just the fax
07.3.4.06
To: Hon. Senator John McCah

407 W. Congress, Suite 103
Tucson, A 2 85701
Attn: Gloria
Thank you for chatting with me today about receiving unwanted phone calls,
which are from a communication company apparently distributing sex
related calls. As you can see from the history below,this has been going on
for a ‘very’ long time.
Nevertheless,just last week, was called on Mon.day,Tuesday, Wednesday

and Thursday! Yesterday was called twice!
I would think if a communication company were distributing calls for a ’sex’

related business; the FCC would be ‘highly’ interested in such an illegal
practice! Nevertheless, this Unwanted situation goes on and on, without
apparently being rectified.
I respectfully request this ‘plea’ for someone with the authority to recti@
this problem. be involved as soon as possible. 1would ‘at least’ be happy to
hear this situation ‘is’ under investigation!
The below was filed with the FCC in writing on 06.10.06and received
acknowledgement 0640240534, which appeared like nothing more than a
form letter. Also, an addendum noting a minor number change, but same
message, also reported on line to the FCC.
Bob Goemans
520.743.7614
saltcorne@cs.com
06.10.06
Robert Goemans
2720 N. Grannen Rd.
Tucson,AZ 85745
Subject: UnwantedPossibly Illegal TeI.ep11oneCalls

Dear Sirs,
The receipt of these unwanted, unsolicited annoying calfs to the best of my
memory began last year (05), and have continued to the present. Since my
phone i s a registered ‘DoNot Call’ number, have reported i t ‘numerous’
times with.out the issue being resolved.
The calls come in at various times throughout the day, and often come every
other day, Sometimes they do not come for a week, nevertheless, the
following week they usually come on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Because these calls begin with “We have a very important message for you,
please call this number” or something very close to that, 1 paid little
attention to them for a long time. Jn the beginning, I thought it was just an
unwanted solicitor, and paid little attention. However, since the calls
continued, I began.filing their number (800-777-5058) with the D o Not Call.
registry. I do not know the name of the company, as that did not appear on.
my Caller ID, just the number to call them back, which is 800-777-5058.
Many times, and let me emphasis ‘many’times,have simply not answered
the phone when I’ve seen this number on the phone ID. However, lately
have begun ‘faithfully’ reporting it to the Do Not Call registry.
But that didn’t seem to help, so I called AT&T and was asked by one of their
service people to call this 777 number and speak with a representative to
resolve the issue. I really didn’t want to do that, a$ once you respond, you
seem to open another doot for more unwanted calls. However, I agreed and
c a k d this number Only to be greeted by a sexy sounding female voice
saying “If you want to take part in some ‘simulating’ conversation, call 1-
800-345-1400” or something very close to that. This appeared, at least to
07/14/2006 14: 01 520-743-7614 BOB GOEMANS PAGE 03/04
me, that this was a sex related business, and didn't want to go any further
with this call.
My next call (06.07.06)was to AT&T Annoyance Calls B u ~ ~ aand

u , spoke
with a gentleman named Tommy. He listened to the entire situation and
traced the 800-777-5058 number to a company called PtirneteX
Communications,He asked me to hold while he called them. When be
came back, he said a woman answered, and that he identified himself as
AT&T Annoyance Calls Bureau, however, the women refused to answer his
questions, was impolite and hung up on him. Tommy noted its very possible
they may be distributing phone calls for a sex related business, and if so, that
could be the reason she responded as she did as that is illegal. He went on
the say that if it: was a responsible company; he would have been treated
respectfully and been able to resolve the matter. He suggested going two
paths, - contacting the FCC (which I did) and Star57 the next call coming
from the 777 number and call him directly at 800-325-0261and give him the
time and date of the call. I agreed. The following day (06.07.06)received
another call fkom the 777 numbers and Star57 the number (The third call
from this number in four days!) and called Tommy. He now told me because
Quest i s somehow involved he needed a local police officer to call him with
a request to proceed on this matter- And that he would need their details, i.e.,
address, the officers name, case number, and fax number, etc. and a call
f?om them before he could proceed fbrther. OB,I've gone this far, so called
my local sheriff office and made them aware of what was happening. The
following is their information;
Pima County Sheriff Headquarters

1.750E. Benson Highway
Tucson, AZ 857 14
Phone # 528-547-69 1 1.
F ~ xm 0 - 7 4 1. -4911
Case # 060608 173
Officer Zetterverg - Badge # 13 17
I now cal.ledTommy back and gave him the above idonnation and he is
awaiting their call and/or hewing from you. He has also assign,eda case
#AC060608 170120.
Please stop these calls/correctthe situation so it will not happen again.

Thank you for your time.
07/14/2006 14: 01 520-743-7614 BOB GOEMANS PAGE 04/04
Robert Goernans, Ph.D.

sal tcorner@cs.corn
520.743-76 14
--_--_---
Addendum dated 06/27/06
As of this date the calls continue using a similar number, 800-777-5076with

the same exact message. I Star 57 it and called Tommy at AT&A
Annoyance Calls Bureau. He say's it's the same company, but cannot do
anything further until you (FCC) or the local police turn him on!
Please get t h j s resolved.

Bob Goemans
Filed on line with the FCC #06-W11954882
Have again eMs date cdied the local sheriff's office about t i s prob1,e.marea
noting the new phme number, but same message. Spoke to a female office
with badge number 5288.
AUG 3 2006
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Robert Goemans,
regarding his concerns over unsolicited telephone calls he is receiving. Mr. Goemans is
concerned with the continued receipt of such communications and asks for the Commission’s
assistance in this matter. We are sensitive to the concerns that Mr. Goemans has raised and as
noted below, we have referred his complaints to the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau.
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 adopted rules in 2003 to establish a national do-not-call registry for
consumers who wish to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls. Under the 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-call lists if a consumer requests 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-call rules. These may include surveys, market research, and political or
religious speech calls.
Mr. Goemans’ previous complaints were handled as TCPA complaints. 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. 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
Enforcement Bureau can initiate a forfeiture proceeding against the company. The
Commission has issued numerous citations against violators of the TCPA and the
Commission’s unsolicited telemarketing rules. (See the Enforcement Bureau’s web site at
http: //www .fcc o,OV’ebltsdiwnrking.html). These enforcement actions can eventually result in
monetary penalties of up to $11,0oO per violation.
- 1 1
marketing communications to which they object. Mr. Goemans may also wish to note that,
under the TCPA, consumers may bring a private lawsuit in state court to recover damages, if
We invite Mr. Goemans to visit the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau’s
Internet web site at http://www .fcc.gov/cgbfor additional 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,
Mr. Goemans should visit the FCC Consumer Registry at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/contacts/.
questions.
Sincerely,
fk4.f l C H L
Erica H. McMahon
Enclosures
-’ I 1
JOHN McCAlN
3
e
l RUSSELLSENATE OFFICEBUILDING
ARIZONA
.%3 1202)224-2235
w 5353 NORTH 1 6 STREET
~ ~
CHAIRMAN
Wnittd Statefi Senate

SUITE 105
PHOENIX,A Z 85016
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES (602)952-2410
5’
w 4703 SOUTH LAKESHOREDRIVE
SUITE 1
TEMPE, A 2 85282
(480)897-6289
September 18,2006 407 W E S T CONGRESSSTREET

SUITE 103
TUCSON, A Z 85701
(520)670-6334

Chairman
445 12th Street, NW

P
I am writing to bring to your attention a matter raised to me by Robert LeGrande, the Deputy Chief
Technology Officer of the District of Columbia, that appears to be in the jurisdiction of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC).
According to the attached letter, the National Capital Region (NCR) filed an application with the FCC
on July 3,2006, to renew its experimental license to support a wide area broadband wireless data
network. Since January 2004, the NCR has used the network to assist communications and data sharing
between federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies serving the region’s 4.3 million residents.
Additionally, the network has served as a pilot test for next generation public safety interoperable
communications applications using the 700 MHZ. The experimental license supporting the network
expired on September 1,2006.
d I would appreciate a timely response to Mr. LeGrande addressing this matter, with a copy sent to me for
my information. I also ask that this matter be handled in strict accordance with existing agency rules, &-
regulations, and ethical guidelines. My sole interest is to ensure that this petitioner is treated fairly and
equitably, and in a manner that reflects appropriate and prompt service to citizen taxpayers. I trust that
whatever decision or course of action the agency takes will be made in the best interest of the country.
$PLEASE SEND THE REQUESTED COPY TO THE ATTENTION OF: Katherine Rossi in my
Washington office, 241 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 205 10.
Thank you very much for your kind assistance and cooperation.
I/ United States Senate
JWkr
Enclosure
-
NATIONAL CAPITOL REGION INTEROPERABILITY PROGRAM
ROBERT LEGRANDE I1
Deputy Chief Technology Officer
District of Columbia Government
17 August 2006

We appreciate the ongoing efforts of the Federal Communications Commission in support of Public
Safety under Michael Wilhelm's leadership and we continue to enjoy a cordial and productive working
relationship with his staff. The FCC staff has been very helpful; however, we want to call your attention to
several important and urgent items pending before the Commission and request your support in resolving
them as quickly as possible.
As you know, the National Capital Region (NCR) submitted a waiver request to allow us to deploy the first
Regional Wireless Broadband Network (RWBN) for public safety in the nation. This waiver has been in
process since 12 May and has yet to be posted for public comment. Because of this delay we are in
jeopardy of losing scarce program funding which has already been severely impacted by recent FY 06
Urban Area Security Initiatives (UASI) grant cuts.
We also need expedited the review of the forthcoming 700 MHz Regional Plan for the Region 20 area
(which includes the National Capital Region). These, on average take 5-6 months to be reviewed by the
Commission. This document was approved by the region earlier this week, and is now being circulated to
adjoining regions for required concurrence prior to submission to the FCC.
This regional broadband network is a template for many similar public safety wireless networks, including
networks already planned for Phoenix, San Diego and the Silicon Valley (each of which will be built to a
common design and all designed to interoperate).
Thank you for your continued leadership and support of improved public safety communications. Our goal
is to fully and efficiently utilize the radio frequency spectrum you fought to assign and clear for our
nation's First Responders. With your help and the timely response of the Commission, we will succeed at
building better networks that can be counted on to save our citizens.
Siwerely, ,
National Capital Region lnteroperability Program I Deputy Chief Technology Officer, District of Columbia
RL/whb
441 4'St.., NW Suite 940s Washington, DC 20001 202 727-2189

Feitierai (loiiii?ir:iiica;iorls Commission
November 6,2006
Robert LeGrande I1
Deputy Chief Technologq Officer
District of Columbia Government
441 4'h SI., NW. Suite 940s
Dear Mr. LeGrande:
As requested by Senator John McCain, we are responding to your letter to him

dated August 17, 2006. Specifically; you raised the status of a waiver request submitted
by the National Capital Region (NCR) to establish a regional broadband wireless
network. In a letter dated September 18,2006 from Senator .McCain to Chairman Kevin
Martin, Senator McCain requested that we respond directly to you.
I am pleased to report that on September 29,2006, the Commission's Public

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 06-1973) seeking
comment on the NCK waiver request. Comments were due October 30,2006; and reply
comments are due November 13,2006.
I trust this information is responsive to your inquiry
Sincerely.
-
Dana Shaffer
Deputy Chief
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
cc: Katherine Rossi, Office of Senator John McCain

JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE B U ~ L D I N C
WASHINGTON. DC 20510-0303
ARIZONA
12021 224-2235
187" STREET
5353 NORTH
CHMRMIW
SulTE 105
COMMllTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS
PHOENIX. A 2 85016
C O M M I T E E ON ARMED SERVICES 16021 952-2410
C O M M l m E O N COMMERCE,
SCIENCE. AND TRANSPORTATION December 5,2006 4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE DRIVE
su,rs 1
TEMPE. A 2 85282
14801897-5289
407 WEST CONCIRESS STREEl

SUITE 103
Tucson. AZ 85701
The Honorable Kevin Martin 15201 510-6334
Chairman TELEPHONE FOR HEARING IMPAIREO

16021 952-0770
445 12'h Street NW
I am writing to bring to your attention a matter raised to me by Hopi

Telecommunications, Inc. (HTI), a telephone company wholly owned by the Hopi Indian
Tribe and operating in Flagstaff, Arizona.
According to the attached letter, in February 2006, HTI filed a petition with the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting designation as an Eligible
Telecommunications Carrier. The FCC has stated that it intends to act on all petitions
regarding Eligible Telecommunications Carrier requests within six months of the filing.
HTI's petition has been pending for 10 months; therefore, I write to ask the Commission
to provide a response to HTI.
I do not write to seek a specific outcome and only request that the petitioner be
treated appropriately, fairly and in a timely manner. Additionally, I ask that this matter be
handled in strict accordance with existing agency rules, regulations, and ethical
guidelines. My sole interest is to ensure that this petitioner is treated fairly and equitably
and in a manner that reflects appropriate and prompt service to citizens. I trust that
whatever decision or course of action the Commission takes will be made in the best
interest of the country.
If you should have any questions in the meantime, you can reach my office at
(202) 224-2235.
Sincerely,
John McCain
WASHI NGTON
OFFICE OF
January 3 1,2007
THE C H A I R M A N

Thank you for your letters presenting your concerns regarding the petition of Hopi
Telecommunications, Inc. requesting designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier
(ETC) on certain tribal lands in the state of Arizona.
I am pleased to report that the petition about which you have inquired has been granted
and a copy of the order granting the ETC designation request is attached hereto.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Chairman
Enclosure
Before the
In the Matter of
Federal-State Joint Board on

Universal Service
Hopi Telecommunications, Inc.

Petition for Designation as an
Eligible Telecominunicatioiis Carrier for the
Hopi Reservation in Arizona
ORDER
Adopted: January 31,2007 Released: January 31,2007
By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:
1. INTRODUCTION
I. I n this Order, we grant Hopi Telecomrniinications, Iiic.'s (Hopi) request to be designated as
an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) on the Hopi Reservatioii and on a small portion of the Navajo
Reservation in Arizona' pursuant to section 214(e)(6) of the Cominunications Act of 1934, as amended (the
Act).' Hopi, a tribally-owned wireline carrier, seeks ETC designation in the study area where it purchased
three local exchanges of CenturyTel of tlie Southwest (CenturyTel), a rural incumbent local exchange, to
provide telecommunications services to areas, iiicludiiig underserved and unserved areas, on tribal lands.
Applying the Commission's two-step analysis for ETC designations for tribal lands. we first conclude that
the Commission has .jurisdiction to determine whether Hopi should be designated an eligible
telecoininunications carrier. We also conclude that Hopi has satisfied thc stattitor}' eligibility requirements
of section 2 14(e)( I ) to be designated an ETC on the Reservation in Arizona.'
' We refer to the Hopi and Navajo reservations collectively as the "Reservation" throughout this Order.
' Hopi Telecommunications,Inc. Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, CC Docket
No. 96-45 (filed Feb. 2 I , 2006) (Hopi Petition or Petition). On February 22,2006, Hopi filed Appendices E3 (signed
Verification) and C (Anti-Drug Abuse Certification)to the Petition, Letter from David Cosson. Counsel for Ilopi
Telecommunications. Inc., to Marlene H. Doitch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No.
96-45, filed Feb. 22,2006 (Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively). On February 23. 2006. Hopi filed a Section
254(e) Certification, attesting that all universal service support funds will be used for tlie purpose for which they are
intended. Letter from Brent Kennedy, General Manager, Hopi Telecommunications, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch.
Secretary. Federal Communications Commission. CC Docket No. 96-45, filed Feb. 23,2006 (Section 254(e)
Certification).
47 U.S.C. 9 214(e)( 1).
Federal CommunicationsCommission DA 07-459
11. BACKGROUND
A. Jurisdiction to Designate ETCs on Tribal Lands
2. Section 254(e) of the Act provides that “only an eligible telecommunications carrier
designated under section 214(e) shall be eligible to receive specific Federal universal service upp port."^
Pursuant to section 214(e)( I), a common camer designated as an ETC must offer and advertise the
services supported by the federal universal service mechanisms throughout the designated service area.’
Section 214(e)(2) of the Act gives state commissions the primary responsibility for performing ETC
designations.6 Section 214(e)(6) directs the Commission, upon request, to designate as an ETC “a
common carrier providing telephone exchange service and exchange access that is not subject to the
jurisdiction of a State commi~sion.”~ Under section 214(e)(6),the Commission may, with respect to an
area served by a rural telephone company, and shall, in all other cases, designate more than one common
carrier as an ETC for a designated service area, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and
necessity, so long as the requesting carrier meets the requirements of section 214(e)( Before
designating an additional ETC for an area served by a rural telephone company, the Commission must
determine that the designation is in the public i n t e r e ~ t The
. ~ Wireline Competition Bureau (“Bureau”) has
delegated authority to perform ETC designations.”
3. The Act is silent, however, on how to determine whether a state commission lacks
jurisdiction, who makes the jurisdictional determination, and what to do if two entities - for example, a
state and a tribe -both assert jurisdiction over the same telecommunications carrier. Therefore, in the
Twelfth Report and Order, the Commission established that carriers serving tribal lands may first petition
the Commission for a determination on whether the state has jurisdiction over the carrier.” Under this
framework, we undertake a two-step analysis. First, we determine whether a carrier providing service on
‘47 U.S.C. $ 254(e).

’47 U.S.C. Q 2 14(e)(1).
‘47 U.S.C. Q 214(e)(2);see Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unsenwd Areas, iticluding Tribal and
Insular Areas, CC Docket No. 96-45, Twelfth Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 12208, 12255,para. 93 (2000) (Twelfh Report and Order).
47 U.S.C. 0 214(e)(6). See, e.g., Virginia Cellular, LLC Petition for Designation us an Eligible
TeIecommunications Currierf o r the Conimortwealth of Virginia, CC Docket No. 96-45, Memorandurn Opinion and
Order, 19 FCC Rcd 1563 (2004) (Virginia Cellular Order): Highland Cellular, lnc. Petition f o r Designation as an
Eligible Teleconimunications Carrier f o r the Commonwealth of Virginia, CC Docket No. 96-45, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6422 (2004) (Highland Cellular Order).
’47 U.S.C. Q 214(e)(6).
Id.
l o See Procedures for FCC Designation of Eligible Teleconimunications Curriers Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6)of
the Communications Act, CC docket No. 96-45, Public Notice, 12 FCC Rcd 22947, 22948 (1997) (Section 214(e)(61
Public Notice). The Wireline Competition Bureau was previously named the Common Carrier Bureau.
” Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal und Insulur
Areas, Smith Bagley, lnc., Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority, Western Wireless Corporation,
Wyoniing, Cellco Partnership d/b/a/Bell Atlantic Mobile, lnc., Petitions for Designation as an Eligible
Telecommunications Currier and for Related Waivers to Provide Universul Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Twelfth
Report and Ordcr, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd
12208, 12265, paras. 1 15-27 (2000) (Tweljth Report and Order), aff’d Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in
Unserved and Underserved Areas, including Tribal and Insular Areas, CC Docket No. 96-45, Twenty-Fifth Order
on Reconsideration, Report and Order, Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 10958,
10964, n.28 (2003) (Tribal Recon, Order).
2
tribal lands is subject to the jurisdiction of a state commission or whether it is subject to a tribal authority
given the tribal interests involved. Second, if the carrier is not subject to the jurisdiction of a state
commission, we consider the merits of the carrier’s request to be designated as an ETC.
B. Commission Requirements for ETC Designation

4. An ETC petition must contain the following: (1) a certification and brief statement of
supporting facts demonstrating that the petitioner is not subject to the jurisdiction of a state commission;
(2) a certification that the petitioner offers or intends to offer all services designated for support by the
Commission pursuant to section 254(c) of the Act; (3) a certification that the petitioner offers or intends
to offer the supported services “either using its own facilities or a combination of its own facilities and
resale of another carrier’s services;” (4)a description of how the petitioner “advertise[s] the availability of
[supported] services and the charges therefore using media of general distribution;” and ( 5 ) if the
petitioner meets the definition of a “rural telephone company” pursuant to section 3(37) of the Act, an
identification of the petitioner’s study area, or, if the petitioner is not a rural telephone company, a
detailed description of the geographic service area for which it requests an ETC designation from the
Commission.I2
5. In (he ETC Desigization Order, released March 17, 2005, the Commission generally
affirmed its earlier holdings and adopted additional requirements for ETC designation proceedings in
which the Commission acts pursuant to section 214(e)(6) of the Act.I3 Specifically,consistent with the
recommendation of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, the Cornmission found that an
ETC applicant must demonstrate: (1) a commitment and ability to provide services, including providing
service to all customers within its proposed service area; (2) how it will remain functional in emergency
situations; (3) that it will satisfy consumer protection and service quality standards; (4) that it offers local
usage comparable to that offered by the incumbent LEC; and (5) an understanding that it may be required
to provide equal access if all other ETCs in the designated service area relinquish their designations
pursuant to section 214(e)(4) of the Act.’‘ These additional requirements are mandatory for all ETCs
designated by the Commi~sion.’~ ETCs already designated by the Commission or ETC applicants that
submitted applications prior to the effective date of the ETC Desigrzutiorz Order are required to make such
showings in their annual certification filings.I6
l 2 See Procedures for FCC Designation of Eligible Teleconimunicutions Carriers Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6)of
the Communications Act, CC Docket No. 96-45, Public Notice, 12 FCC Red 22947,22948-49 (1997) (Section
214(e)(6)Public Notice); 47 U.S.C. 0 3(37).
l3See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Ordcr, 20 FCC Rcd 6371
(2005) (ETC Designation Order);see also Virginia Cellular, LLC Petition for Designation as an Eligible
Teleconimtinications Carrierfor the Cotnntonwealth of Virginia, CC Docket No. 96-45, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 19 FCC Rcd 1563, 1564, 1565, 1575-76, 1584-85,paras. 1,4,27,28,46 (2004) (Virginia Cellular);
Highland Cellular, Inc. Petition for Designation as an Eligible Teleconzmitnications Carrier for the Commonwealth
of Virginia, CC Docket No. 96-45, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6422,6438, paras. 1, 33 (2004)
(Highland Cellular).
if
See ETC Designation Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6380, para. 20, citing Federal-State Joint Baurd on Universal
Service, CC Dockct No. 96-45, Recornmendcd Decision, 19 FCC Rcd 4259, para. 5 (2004) (Recommended
Decision).
l5 47 C.F.R. Q 54.202(a).
“See id; 47 C.F.R. 3 54.202(c).
3
C. The Hopi Petition for ETC Designation on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations in
Arizona
6. Hopi acquired the study area consisting of the three local exchanges of CenturyTel, a
rural incumbent local exchange company.” The study area covers the Hopi Reservation and a small
portion of the Navajo Reservation in Arizona.18 Hopi filed a petition requesting that the Commission
grant it ETC designation concurrent with the closure of its Asset Purchase Agreement with CenturyTel.”
With the closure of the Asset Purchase Agreement on June 1,2006, Hopi states that it is the incumbent
LEC and a “rural telephone company” as defined by the Act.” Hopi must be designated an ETC in order
to be eligible to receive universal service support, including high cost support that CenturyTel was
previously receiving.
7. Hopi contends that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Arizona Corporation
Commission (Arizona Commission).2’ Hopi states that it is a tribal corporation wholly owned by and
subject to the jurisdiction of the Hopi Tribe, a federally-recognized Indian Tribe.22 Hopi also states that it
will only provide service on the tribal lands and points out that the Commission has exercised jurisdiction
over other tribally-owned carriers operating on tribal lands in Arizona.23
8. The Commission sought comment on the Hopi Petition.” The National Tribal
Telecommunications Association (JVTTA) and the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of
Small Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO) filed comments in support of the Petitions2’
Significantly, the Arizona Commission did not comment.
111. DISCUSSION
9. As discussed in detail below, we conclude that it is appropriate for the Commission to

exercise jurisdiction over the Hopi Petition for ETC designation. We also find that Hopi has satisfied the
I7
Lettcr from David Cosson, Counscl for Hopi Telecommunications,Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,Federal
CommunicationsCommission,CC Docket No. 96-45, filed Sept. 29,2006 (Purchase Closure Ex Parte Letter).
Hopi closed the purchase of the assets and subscriber base of CenturyTel of the Southwesl on Junc 1,2006. Id.
IX
Hopi Petition at 2. The three exchanges are Keams Canyon, Kykotsmovi, and Polacca. Id.; see Purchase Closure
Ex Parte Letter.
l9 Hopi Petition at 2; see Purchase Closure Ex Parte Letter.
loSee Hopi Petition at 2.
Id.
l2 Id.
’’ See id. at 3 and n.6 (citing Designation of Fort Mohave Teleconinruiticatiotis,Inc., Gila River
Telecomniwiications, Inc., San Carlos Teleconiniitnications, Inc., and Tohono 0 ’Odhanl Utility Authority as Eligible
Telecommunications Carriers Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6)of the Commisnicutions Act, AADNSB File No. 98-28.
Memorandum Opinion and Order. 13 FCC Rcd 4547 (Wireline Comp. Bur, 1998));see also Petition ofsaddleback
Communications for Designation as un Eligible TelecomrrtunicationsCurrier Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6)of the
Communications Act, CC Docket No. 96-45, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22433 (Wireline
Comp. Bur. 1998).
24
See Purties are Invited to Comment on the Petition of Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. for Designation as an
Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the Hopi and Navajo Reservations in the State of Arizona, CC Docket No.
96-45, Public Noticc, DA 06-61 5 (rel. March 17,2006).
2s
See generufl)JNTAA Comments, CC Docket No. 96-45, filed April 6.2006; OPASTCO Comments, CC Docket
No. 96-45, filed April 6, 2006.
4
statutory requirements for ETC eligibility under section 214(e)(l) of the Act. The service area for Hopi’s
ETC designation is defined as the study area of the rural incumbent LEC CenturyTel on the Hopi and
Navajo Reservations, consisting of the Keams Canyon, Kykotsmovi, and Polacca local exchanges.
A. Jurisdiction
10. In the Twelfth Report and Order, the Commission established the framework for the ETC
designation process under section 214(e)(6) of the Act for carriers serving tribal lands.26 The
Commission concluded that a carrier seeking ETC designation on tribal lands may petition the
Cornmission without first seeking designation from the state comrni~sion.~’ The carrier must notify the
state commission by providing copies of its petition to the state commission.” The Commission places
the petition on public notice, establishing a comment and reply period, and sends the public notice to the
state commission to ensure that the state commission is properly noticed.29 Under this framework, the
carrier has the burden to prove that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the state commi~sion.~”
I I. The determination of whether the Commission has jurisdiction to consider an ETC

petition for service on tribal lands is greatly informed by the participation of the tribe and the state
commission or other state authoritie~.~’ We are mindful that some state commissions will no&object to
the Commission’s jurisdiction over designation of carriers serving tribal lands.32 Significantly, Hopi is a
tribally-owned carrier operating only on tribal lands.33
12. We find that Hopi has made aprima facie showing that the Commission has jurisdiction
for designation of Hopi as an ETC on the Hopi Reservation and a small portion of the Navajo Nation
Reservation. Under the framework established in the Twelfth Report and Order, Hopi filed its petition
with the Commission and simultaneously served a copy on the Arizona Cornmis~ion.’~ In its Petition,
Hopi asserts that the Commission has jurisdiction to consider the ETC designation petition because Hopi
is a tribally-owned wireline carrier operating on tribal lands.35 Further, the Arizona Commission has not
asserted jurisdiction in this matter. Finally, we have previously found that the Commission has
26 TweCfih Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 12265-12269,paras. 115- 127. In the Tweljth Report and Order, the
Commission notcd that the lcgislative history of section 214(e)(6) made clcar that the class of carriers covered by
this provision was “dominated by tribally-ownedcarriers,” although certainly not limited to these. Id. at 12261,
para. 106.
27
Id. at 12266, para. 120.
28 Id.
29 Id.
3” Id.
31
Id. at 12268, para. 124.
32 Id.
33 Hopi Petition at 2.
34 Letter from David Cosson, Counsel for Hopi Telecommunicatjons, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
CommunicationsCommission, CC Docket No. 96-45, filed Oct. 3,2006 (attaching signed Certificate of Service
certifying service of the Petition on Feb. 21, 2006 via U.S. Mail, first-class postage prc-paid, 10 Arizona Corporation
Commission, Utilities Division ).
35
See Hopi Petition at 2.
5
jurisdiction to designate tribaily-owned carriers operating on tribal lands in Arizona.36 We, therefore, find
that the Commission has jurisdiction to consider Hopi’s request for ETC designation.
B. Analysis of Hopi’s Petition for Designation as an ETC

13. Having determined that we have jurisdiction over the Hopi Petition, we now examine
whether Hopi satisfies the requirements of section 214 of the Act for the requested service area on the
Hopi and Navajo Reservations. As explained below, we find that Hopi, a tribally-owned wireline carrier,
meets the requirements of sections 214(e)(l) and (e)(6) of the Act. We therefore designate Hopi as an
ETC for the requested service area.
1. Offering and Advertising the Supported Services
14. Offering the Services Designated for SupDort. Hopi has demonstrated through the
required certifications and related filings that it now offers, or will offer upon obtaining designation as an
ETC, the services supported by the federal universal mechanisms. With the June 1,2006 closure of the
Asset Purchase Agreement, Hopi is authorized to provide wireline service in the requested service area.37
Hopi certifies that it now provides or will provide throughout its designated service area the services and
functionalities enumerated in section 54.101(a) of the Commission’s rules.38 Hopi also certifies that, in
compliance with the Commission’s Lifeline rules, it will make available and advertise enhanced Lifeline
and Link-up services to qualifying low-income c o n s ~ r n e r s .Hopi
~ ~ has also committed to serve unserved
or underserved areas.4o
15. Hopi has committed to meet consumer protection and service quality standards as
required by the ETC Designation Order. Although not subject to the jurisdiction of the Arizona
Commission, Hopi has adopted consumer protection standards in its local exchange tariff that satisfy
current Arizona Commission Hopi also commits to provide: (1) annual reporting of unfulfilled
service requests and of consumer complaints per 1,000 lines; (2) specific commitments to provide service
36
See Designation of Fort Mohave Telecommiiriicatiuizs,lric., Gila River Telecommunications, Inc,, Sun Carlos
Telecommunications, Inc., and Tohono 0 ’Odhanz Utility Authority as Eligible Te1econinziinicatioii.sCurriers
Pursuunt to Section 214(e)(6)of the Comniunications Act, AAD/USB File No. 98-28, Mcrnorandum Opinion and
Order, 13 FCC Rcd 4547 (Com. Carrier Bur. 1998); see also Petition of Saddleback Comnzunications for
Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6)of the Cotnmunicution~Act,
CC Docket No. 96-45, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22433 (Corn. Carrier Sur. 1998). The
Arizona Commission “recognizes that it has no jurisdiction over utility services provided by Indian tribes on the
reservation, if the tribe asscrts jurisdiction;”however, it has found jurisdiction over nontribally-owned carriers
seeking ETC designation on tribal lands. Compare Petition of Saddleback Communicationsfor Designation as an
Eligible TelecommunicationsCarrier, CC Docket No. 96-45, Attach. C, filed June 2, 1998 tu Public Notice Snzith
Bagle;, Inc. Petitions to Redefine the Service Area of Table Top Telephones Company on Tribal Lands Within the
Srute ofArizona, CC Docket No. 96-45, 16 FCC Rcd 7559 (Corn. Car. Bur. 2001).
”See Hopi Petition at 2; Purchase Closure Ex Parte Letter.
3X
Id. at 3-4.
39 Id. at 5- IO.
do See id. at 12.
“ Id. at 15.
6
to requesting customers in the area for which it is designated; and ( 3 ) specific commitments to improve its
network.42
16. Offering the Sumorted Services Using a Carrier’s Own Facilities. Hopi has
demonstrated that it satisfies the requirement of section 214(e)( I)(A) of the Act that it will offer the
supported services using either its own facilities or a combination of its own facilities and resale of
another carrier’s services.‘j Hopi states that it intends to provide the supported services using the existing
network infrastructure purchased from CenturyTel.?4
17. Advertising Supported Services. Hopi has demonstrated that it satisfies the requirement
of section 214(e)(l)(B) of the Act to advertise the availability of the supported services and related
charges using media of general distribution, including radio, newspaper, and press releases.“ Hopi points
out that, as a tribally-owned wireline carrier, it will work closely with the agencies of the tribal
government to inform the public of its service.a Hopi also has committed to specific methods to
publicize the availability of Lifeline and Link-up services, such as personal outreach coordinated through
tribal liaisons, advertising in the offices of social service agencies, and advertising via bill inserts and its
website to provide information to those people most likely to qualify for Lifeline and Link-Up benefits.47
Thus, Hopi plans to use advertising to ensure that consumers within its designated service area are fully
informed of its universal service offering.
2. Public Interest Analysis
18. As explained below, we conclude that it is consistent with the public interest,
convenience, and necessity to designate Hopi as an ETC for the requested service area that is served by
the rural incumbent LEC, CenturyTel. We conclude that Hopi has satisfied its burden of proof in
establishing that its universal service offering in the service area will provide benefits to niral
consumers .48
19. Prior to designating an ETC pursuant to section 214(e)(G) of the Act, the Commission
determines whether such designation is in the public In the ETC Desigtzatiorz Order, the
Commission adopted one set of criteria for evaluating the public interest for ETC designations for both
rural and non-rural areas.5o In determining the public interest, the benefits of increased consumer choice
42 See47 C.F.R. 0 54.209; Virginia Cellirlar, 19 FCC Rcd at 1584-85,para. 46; see also Hopi Petition at 11-15.
Hopi has provided detailcd information on how it will use universal service support to expand its service throughout
the requested service area. See id. at 1 1-14.
13
See Hopi Petition at 11-14.
34 Id.
“ I d . at 6; 47 U.S.C. 9; 214(e)(l)(B).
“See Hopi Petition at 4.
47 Id. a1 5-8.
‘*See Virginia Cellular, 19 FCC Rcd at 1574-75,para. 26; Highlartd Cellular, 19 FCC Rcd at 6431, para. 20.
49
47 U.S.C. 8 214(e)(6);47 C.F.R. 8 54.202(c). See ETC Designation Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6388-6396,paras. 40-
57; Virginia Cellular Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 1575, para. 27; Highland Cellular Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 643 1-32, para.
21. In determining whether the public interest is served in an ETC petition, the Commission places the burden on
the ETC applicant. ETC Designation Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6390, para. 44.
’* ETC Designation Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6389-90,paras. 42-43. A carrier “creamskims”when it serves only the
least expensive customers, thereby undercutting the incumbent LEC’s ability to provide service throughoul the
7
and the unique advantages and disadvantages of the applicant’s service offering are considered.” As the
Commission noted in the ETC Designation Order, however, the same factors may be analyzed differently
or may warrant a different outcome depending on the specifics of the proposed service area and whether it
is rural or n~n-rural.~’In particular, the “creamskimming” analysis is limited to designations in rural
service areas.53 Thus, when an ETC applicant seeks designation below the study area of a rural telephone
company, a creamskimming analysis is conducted to compare the population density of the wire centers
in which the ETC applicant seeks designation against that of the wire centers in the study area in which
the ETC applicant does not seek de~ignation.~~
20. We find that Hopi’s universal service offering will provide a variety of benefits to
consumers, including providing upgraded capacity and service to unserved areas. Hopi states that the
network of CenturyTel is currently at capacity and not available to serve some portions of the service
areaeS5Hopi states that universal service support will enabie Hopi to construct facilities that, according to
Hopi, may not otherwise be built on the Reservation, and thus enable additional services to be available to
consumers on the Re~ervation.~‘
2I . In addition, Hopi will also use support to offer a basic universal service package to
subscribers who are eligible for Lifeline sup~ort.~’Hopi has committed to provide service to a n y
requesting customers within its designated service area.“ Hopi also will offer a local caIIing plan that
includes unlimited local calling among the three exchanges, which is the same as offered by C e n t ~ r y T e l . ~ ~
22. Hopi has also made service quality commitments as required by the ETC Designation
Order, including compliance with applicable consumer protection and service quality standards.60
Likewise, Hopi has committed to report annually to the Commission on the number of complaints per
1,000 lines and how many requests for service from potential customers were unfulfilled.61In addition,
Hopi’s commitments to use a combination of various media channels to advertise its service offerings
satisfy section 2 14(e)(1)(3) of the As the Commission has stated previously, because an ETC
receives universal service only to the extent that it serves customers, strong economic incentives exist, in
entire study area. See Federul-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45, 12
FCC Rcd 8776,888142,para. 189 (1997).
47 C.F.R. 5 54.202(c).
52 Id. at 6390, para. 43.
53 ETC Designation Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6390, para. 42.
51
Id. at 6392-95, paras. 48-53.
55
See Hopi Petition at 1 1.
56
See id.at 13-14.
57 See id. at 5 .
s8 See id. at 11-13.
‘9 ld. at 15.
6o Id. at 15; see ETC Designation Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6384, para. 28.
‘’Hopi Petition at 11-15;see ETC Designation Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6402, para. 69.
62 Hopi Petition at I I .
8
addition to the statutory obligation, for Hopi to advertise it’s universal service offering in its designated
area?3
23. Finally, because Hopi has purchased the assets of CenturyTel and is seeking designation
for CenturyTel’s entire study area, we are not concerned about creamskimming. Rural creamskimming
occurs when competitors seek to serve only the low-cost, high revenue customers in a rural telephone
company’s study area.& Hopi is not seeking to do this here. Thus, we find that designation of Hopi, a
tribally-owned wireline carrier, as an ETC on the Reservation is in the public interest.
3. Designated Service Area

24. Under section 214(e)(l), a carrier designated as an ETC is eligible to receive universal
service support throughout the service area for which the designation is received.6s We conclude that
Hopi’s “service area” is the study area of the rural incumbent LEC CenturyTel on the Hopi and Navajo
Reservations, consisting of the Keams Canyon, Kykotsmovi, and Polacca local exchanges.66 We
therefore designate Hopi as an ETC on the Reservation in the requested area previously served by the
rural telephone company, CenturyTel of the Southwest.
4. Regulatory Oversight
25. We note that Hopi is required under section 254(e) of the Act to use high-cost support
“only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is
intended” and must, under sections 54.313 and 54.314 of the Cornmission’s rules, certify annually that it
is in compliance with this req~irernent!~ In its Petition, Hopi certified to the Commission that, consistent
with sections 54.313 and 54.314 of the Commission’s rules, all federal high-cost support will be used
“only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is
intended” pursuant to section 254(e) of the Act in the area for which Hopi is designated as an ETC.68
Furthermore, because Hopi is a tribally-owned wireline rural incumbent LEC, we find good cause exists
to make the ETC designation effective as of the date of closure of the Purchase Asset Agreement. This is
necessary to ensure that universal service support payments are not interrupted solely because of the
acquisition of certain CenturyTel assets by Hopi. We direct Hopi to make all required filings with the
Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under Parts 36,54, and 69 of the Commission’s
rules so that it may be eligible to receive high-cost support from the date of closure of the Purchase Asset
Agreement.6’ To the extent necessary, we extend the applicable ETC filing deadlines for 60 days from
the release of the Order so that Hopi may make the necessary filings.70 We also direct USAC to work
with Hopi as necessary for Hopi to make the required filings with USAC.
63 See Virginia Cellular Order; 19 FCC Rcd at 1574, para. 25.

64 See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Recommended Decision, 12 FCC Rcd
87, 180, para. 172 (1996).
” 47 U.S.C.3 214(e)(l).
See Hopi Petition at 3. Hopi requests that its service area be designated as the geographic area included in
66
CenturyTel’s study area. Id. at n.3.
67 47 U.S.C. P 254(e); 47 C.F.R. $9 54.313,54.314.
See Hopi Petition at 17; February 23,2006 Ex Pajte, Attach. at 1.
69 See generally 47 C.F.R. Parts 36,54, and 69.
’’ Generally, thc Commission may waive its rules for good cause shown. See 47 C.F.R. Q 1.3. The Commission
may exercise its discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the
9
26. Hopi has committed to meeting each of the criteria required by the ETC Desigrzation
Order and will annually submit information detailing how it has satisfied the criteria.” These records and
documentation must be filed with the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company
(USAC) on October 1 of each year, beginning October 1,2007?* As noted above, Hopi has also
committed to providing applicable consumer protection and service quality standard^.^^
27. We find that reliance on Hopi’s commitments is reasonable and consistent with the public
interest, the Act, and the Fifth Circuit decision in Texas Ofice of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC.74 W e
conclude that fulfillment of these additional reporting requirements will further the Commission’s goal of
ensuring that Hopi satisfies its obligation under section 214(e) of the Act to provide supported services
throughout its designated service area7’
28. We note that the Commission may institute an inquiry on its own motion to examine any
ETC’s records and documentation to ensure that the high-cost support it receives is being used “only for
the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services” in the areas where it is designated as
an ETC.76 Hopi is required to provide such records and documentation to the Commission and USAC
upon request. We further emphasize that, if Hopi fails to fulfill the requirements of the Act, the
Commission’s rules, or the terms of this Order after it begins receiving universal service support, the
Commission may exercise its authority to revoke Hopi’s ETC d e ~ i g n a t i o n .The
~ ~ Commission also may
assess forfeitures for violations of Commission rules and ordem7*
C. Anti-Drug Abuse Act Certification
29. Pursuant to section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, no applicant is eligible for
any new, modified, or renewed instrument of authorization from the Commission, including
authorizations issued pursuant to section 21 4 of the Act, unless the applicant certifies that neither it, nor
any party to its application, is subject to a denial of federal benefits, including Commission benefits.”
public intercst. See Northeast CelluEur Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1 164, I 166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Northeast
Cellular). In addition, the Commission may take into account considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective
implementation of overall policy on an individual basis. See WAITRadio v. FCC,418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir.
1969), cer-t. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972); Norfheast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166. Waiver of the Commission’s rules
is thereforc appropriate only if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the gcncral rule, and such deviation
will servc the public interest. For all of the reasons discussed above, we find good cause to waive the applicable
ETC filing deadlines, including those that may haw expired from June 1, 2006, until the release date of this Order.
71
See Hopi Petition at 1 1.
72 See ETC Designation Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6401-2, paras. 68-69.
’’Hopi Petition at 15; see supm paras. 15 and 21.
74
Texas Office of Public Urilit)..Counsel v. FCC, 183 F.3d 393,417-1 8 (5‘hCir. 1999).
75 47 U.S.C. 8 214(e).
7647U.S.C. $9 220,403; 47 C.F.R. $5 54.313,54.314.
11
See Declaratory Rulirtg, 15 FCC Rcd at 15174, para. 15. See also 47 U.S.C. 8 254(e).
”See 47 U.S.C. Q 503(b).
79
21 U.S.C. Q 862; 47 C.F.R. (i 1.2002(a). Section 1.2002(b) provides that a “party to the application” shall includc:
‘-(I) If the applicant is an individual, that individual; (2) If thc applicant is a corporation or unincorporated
association, all officers, directors, or pcrsons holding 5% or more of the outstanding stock or shares (votindand or
non-voting) of the petitioner; and (3) If the applicant is a partnership, all non-limited partners and any limited
partncrs holding a 5% or more interest in the partncrship.” 47 C.F.R.Q I .2002(b); see Secfion 214fe)(6) Public
Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 22949.
10
Federal Communications Commission DA 07.459
Hopi has provided a certification consistent with the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.*’
We find that Hopi’s certification satisfies the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as
codified in sections 1.200I - I .2003 of the Commission’s rules.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

30. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in section
214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934,47 U.S.C. 0 214(e)(6), and pursuant to authority delegated
in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. $$ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and
54.722(a), Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. IS DESIGNATED AN ELIGIBLE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRlER, effective as of June 1,2006, for portions of its licensed service
area on the Hopi and Navajo Nation Reservations in Arizona, to the extent described herein.
3 1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections I , 4(i), 5(c), 201,202 and 254 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. $0 151, 154(i), 155(c), 201,202, and 254, and
sections 0.91,0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. $5 0.91,0.291, and 1.3, the ETC filing
deadlines required by to Parts 36.54, and 69 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. Parts 36,54, and 69,
ARE WAIVED, to the extent described herein, for 60 days from the date of this Order so that Hopi
Telecommunications,Inc. may be eligible to receive high-cost support from June 1, 2006.
32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hopi Telecommunications,Inc. SHALL SUBMIT

additional information pursuant to section 54.209 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. Q 54.209, no later
than October 1,2007, as part of its annual reporting requirements.
33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order SHALL BE TRANSMITTED by

the Wireline Competition Bureau to the Arizona Corporation Commission and to the Universal Service
Administrative Company.
34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 1.103 of the Commission’s rules,
47 C.F. R. 8 1.103, this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ~poRrelease.
//
F E D E R M A ~ M UNICATIONS COMMISSION
P.--
.‘ I $2)
/ L-
Th&as J. Navin
/-
i
2,
,dief
,/*’Wireline Competition Bureau
See Hopi Petition at 17, App. C.
11
JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSCLL SENATEOFFICEB U I IDING
WASHINlxTCIN. DC 2 0 5 1 0 4 3 0 3
AAIZONA
12021 224-2235
CHAIRMAN 5353 NORTH 16111S I R E E ~

COMMITTEE O N ARMED SERVICES United ststa j5enate SUITE 105

PMOENIX. AZ 85016
1602) 952-2410
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION December 13,2006 4703 SOUTH L A K C \ I I U R E DRIVE
SUITE 1
TEMPE A2 85282
14801 897-6289
407 WESI CClNbRESS S T R E E T

SUITE 103
TUCSON, A 2 85701
The HonorabIe Kevin Martin (520)670-6334
Chairman TELfPHONf FOR H E A R ~ N IGM P A I R E D

( 6 0 2 ) 952-0170
Federal CommunicationsCommission n
445 12* Street NW

U
1 am writing to b u g to your attenbn a matter raised to me by M2Z Networks
that appears to be in the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
When such matters are brought to my attention, it is my policy to refer them to the
appropriate federai department or agency, regardless of whether the petitioner has any
personal or political relationship with me. It is also my policy that I ask for no
preferential treatment for the petitioner, nor do I advocate a specific outcome.
According to the attached letter, M2Z Networks filed with the Commission a
license application in May 2006 and a forbearance petition in September 2006. The
company states in its attached letter that it is seeking “prompt, vigorous and transparent
deliberations” from the Commission on its application and petition.
I would appreciate a timely response to M2Z Networks addressing the petitioner’s

concern, with a copy sent to me for my information.
I ask that this matter be handed in strict accordance with existing agency rules,
regulations, and ethical guidelines. My sole interest is to ensure that M2Z Networks is
treated fairly and equitably and in a manner that reflects the appropriate and prompt
service citizens and taxpayers deserve. Again, I do not write to seek a specific outcome
for this petitioner. I trust that whatever decision or c o m e of action the Commission
takes will be made in the best interest of the country.
If you should have any questions in the meantime, you can reach my office at
(202) 224-2235.
Sincerely,
PRINTFO ON RECYCLE0 PAPER

December 6 , 2006

Menlo Park O f f k e
2750 Sand HilJ Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
TEL 650-233-2750
FAX 650-253-0303
9 With the support of several of my Silicon Valley venture capital colleagues, I write
www.kpcb.com to express my enthusiastic support for M2Z Networks’ license application before the
partners
FCC to provide fiee, family friendly broadband access to at least 93% of Americans.
Brook Byen I believe that M2Z’s p d i n g proposal will be of particular interest to you based on
John Denniston your steadfast and unequivocal commitment to the goals of providing affordable
L. John Dosn
Juliet flint
broadband access and increasing cumpetition fur the benefit of American consumers.
Wen Hsieh
Bill joy We would, therefore, like your assistance in encouraging the FCC to immediately
Randy Komhr
loseoh Lacob
accept M2Z’s license application and undertake all of the steps necessary to
kaym0nG Lane complete its deliberations on timely basis.
Alleen Lee
dames Li When my fiiend Milo Medin and his partner John Muleta brought their revolutionary
Dana G. Mead, Jr.
Torn Monath M2Z plan to Kleiner Perkins, we were intrigued by the potential their plan has to
Man Murphy transform our country. Although their plan is ambitious, advances in technology and
Ajit Naw developments in the Internet market make their plan commercially viable and
lessica Owns
Ellen Pao realistic. More importantly, based on Kleiner’s many years of experience in investing
Ted Schlcin in innovative Internet services such as Google, Amazon, @Home and Netscape, it
Beth Seidenbeg was immediately obvious to us that their business plan would significantly enhance
Russell Siegelman
Risa stack the Consumers’ welfare by increasing choice and competition in broadband services.
Trae Vassallo
As detailed in M2Z’s May 5, 2006 FCC license application, if the company were
Affilloted Partners
Kevin iompton granted a license to lease 20 megahertz of fallow, unpaired and unscored spectrum at
William R. Hearst 111 2155-2175, M22 would undertake a variety of c interest obligations as explicit
Vinod Khosla conditions of its license. Notably, M2Z would:
Douglas hbtkWlZk
Chief Financial O f h r 0 Construct a nationwide privately funded wireless broadband network that will
Susan Siglicri ensure data rates of at least 384 kbps down and 128 kbps up fiee &om any
PaHmen tsncr#us
recurring charges for consumers.
Frank Caufield
flayd Kvamme Engage in an accelerated and graduated deployment schedule that, following
Bernard Lacroute
Thomas Perkins licensing and the commencement of operations, will result in coverage for
33% of the U.S. public within three years, 66% within five years, and 95% of
San Francisco Mce the U.S.population within 10 years.
Four Embarcadero Center
Suite 3620
5an Francisco. CA 941 1 I
TEL 415-421-3110
FAX 415-421-3128
1
Protect children and empower parents by filtering the free service at the network level so
that the educational benefits of broadband are available to our nation’s children, without
the fear of minors accessing unsuitable material.
Offer nationwide interoperable broadband access that is free to first responders and
public safety Officials.
Pay the U.S.Treasury, on a voluntary basis, 5% of the gross annual revenues from M2Z’s
premium thee megabits broadband service.
Avoid taking any USF funds, but contribute to the fund as required by the FCC.
Clearly, these explicit commitments by M2Z will provide profound public interest benefits for
consumers. For the over 113 million U.S. citizens who are currently unconnected or still
relegated to dial up access, M2Z’s proposal is a welcome development. M2Z’s ground-breaking
idea will also help American businesses stay competitive in the global marketplace.
The myriad benefits of M2Z’s proposal have excited my partners at Kleiner Perkins, and my
fellow M 2 Z investors and Board members, GeoffYang of Redpoint Ventures and Bruce Sachs
of Charles River Ventures, We see M2Z as an opportunity to serve a grossly underserved public
and to do so in a commercially successfbl socially responsible way through private sector
investment, not taxpayer dollars. The introduction of M2Z’s service will provide needed
competition to the current high speed duopoly and dramatically improve America’s dismal
broadband penetration rates which are now ranked 16th in the world.
And that is why I am writing to you, In order to expedite the avail of M2Z’s benefits to
American consumers, we ask that you encourage the FCC to acc ’S license application
and complete its deliberations within its statutorily mandated timeline. The FCC has ample
authority to grant M2Z’s application and forb nce petition under Sections 7, 10, and
309(j)(6)(E) of the Communications Act. We bel that quick and decisive action is required
- action that keeps pace with the ever evolving technological and competitive landscape.
Based on the terms proposed by M2Z seven months ago in its license application, we are
confident that prompt, vigorous and transparent deliberations by the FCC will confirm the
overwhelming benefits of M2Z’s plan to U.S. consumers, small businesses, school children,
public safety officials and famiiies who desire content that does not put their children at risk.
Thus, we would appreciate your assistance in encouraging the FCC to immediately accept M2Z’s
license application and act quickly to complete its deliberations on this worthwhile public
interest initiative.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfblly, -
John Doerr
Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
2
i k d ei dC o rnmu 11i c a t i c 111s Cc ) mrn i ss i ot i
Washington. D.C. 20554
January 22,2007
In Reply Refer to:

0602886
The I-lonorable John McCai~i

LTnited States Senate
Thank you for your inquiry dated December 13, 2006 regarding M2Z Networks
(M2Z). On May 5,2006, M2Z filed an application for exclusive use of spectrum in the
21 55-75 MHL band, which has been designated for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS).
On September 1, 2006, M2Z filed a related petition seeking forbearance i’rorn Section
1 945 of the Commission’s rules and any other rule or statutory provision which may
otherwsc prevent the grant of its application. Pursuant to Section 10 of the
Cominuiiicattons Act, Congress directed the Commission to act on petitions for
foihs;rrance within one year after the Commission receives it, unless the Commission
exteiids the tinie period for an additional 90 days. The Bureau is working to address the
isslics r,iiscd b y M27, i n its application and related forbearance petition.
\’lease let me h o w if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Fred B. Campbell, Jr.

Chief, Wircless Telecommunications Bureau
cc John Doen.
L’ar-tner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield QL Ryers
Menlo Park Office
2750 Sand Hill Road
VIenlo Park, CA 94025
JOHN McCAlN 241 R U S S E L L SENATEOFFICEBUILDING
ARIZONA
1202) 224-2235
5353 N O R T H1 6 STREET
~ ~
CHAIRMAN SUITE 105
COMMITTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS PHOENIX,A Z 85016
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 1602) 952-2410
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 4703 SOUTH LAKESHORED R I V E

TEMPE, A Z 85282
(480) 897-6289
407 W E S T CONGRESS STREET

SUITE 103
TUCSON,A 2 85701
1520) 670-6334
December 20,2006 TELEPHONEFOR HEARINGIMPAIRED
1602) 952-0170
Mr. Kevin Washington

Acting Director
1.45 12th Street, S.W., Room 8-C445
Refer to: Brent Kennedy
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, Brent Kennedy, who has
encountered a problem with a petition. Please investigate my constituent's claim, within the
existing rules, regulations and ethical guidelines, and provide me with a copy of the final
decision. MARK ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: .---.--.---
_I "--"^^--- -_
Attn: Carlos Sierra

5353 N. 16th Street
Suite 105
If you should have any questions in the meantime, you can reach my office at (602) 952-24 IO. I
Sincerely, ~

JMIxcs

5200 E. Cortland Blvd. E200 (928) 522-8428 Office
Flagstaff, Arizona 86004 (928) 527-4959 Fax
VIA FACSIMILE
November 2 1,2006

United States Senator 24 1 Russell Senate Office Building
RE: ETC Petition
Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. (HTI), a local telephone company wholly owned by the
Hopi Tribe, requests your assistance in obtaining prompt action from the Federal
Communications Commission on its petition to be designated as an Eligible
Telecommunications Carrier on the Reservation. HTI's petition was filed under Section
214(e) (6) of the Communications Act, a section that you had inserted in the Act in 1987.
This is a matter of considerable urgency because the FCC's failure to act is causing a
substantial shortfall in interstate revenue.
On June 1 of this year HTI acquired the assets of CenturyTel of the Southwest and
became the incumbent local telephone service provider to most of the Hopi Reservation
and a small portion of the Navajo Reservation. In February of this year, anticipating the
acquisition, HTI filed its Petition with the FCC. No oppositions were filed. Although
the FCC has urged states to act on such petitions when under their jurisdiction within six
months, and set itself a six month goal of at least making a jurisdictional decision within
that time frame, yet it has taken no action on HTI's petition, despite repeated requests.
There is no question of state jurisdiction here and the FCC has previously granted similar
petitions to several tribally owned telephone companies in Arizona. Although there are
many pending petitions before the FCC, HTI's is the only one involving an operating
incumbent local exchange carrier and the only one by a tribally owned carrier.
The Hopi Reservation population density is just over one household per square mile.
HTI has been operating in this very high cost area for six months without its full
complement of interstate revenues. HTI has specific plans to provide substantial
improvement in the facilities serving its Hopi and Navajo customers, but cannot go
forward without FCC action. Improved telecommunications are, in turn, vital to the
social and economic advancement of these communities.
Any assistance you can provide to convince the FCC to move forward with our Petition
will be greatly appreciated by HTI and the Hopi Tribe. I can be reached at (928) 522-
8428 or via email at bkennedy@hopitelecom.com.
Sincerely,
HTI PresidendGM
cc: Dave Cosson, HTI Legal Counsel

Carroll Onsae, HTI Chairman of the Board
James Underwood, HTI Vice Chairman of the Board
Wilfred Moore, HTI Secretary/Treasurer
U:Wew\My Documents\FCCETC\McCain 1etter.doc

JOHN McCAlN 241 RU5sEll SENATE OFFICE BUltDlNG
CHAIRMAN
COMMllTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
COMMllTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
COMMllTEE ON COMMERCE,
9Bnitt.d statu senate
5363 NORTH
SUITE
c
1 ‘ 6 STREET
106
~~
PHOENIX. 2 85016
(602)95 -2410
4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE

SUITE 1
AZ 85282
(480) 897-6289
TEMPE,
DRIVE
407 WEST C O N ~ E S STREET

S
January 24,2007
TELEPHONE
FOR HEARfNG IMPAIRED
(602) 952-0170
Congressional Liaison
445 12th Street, S.W., Room 842432
Washington, DC 20554r0001 .- _ .
Dear Congressional Liaisno:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Paul Canavan,who has encountered a
problem with receiving a response from your agency.
respond directly to Paul Canavan.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John McCain
-. ~~~
United
- States Senator
- ~~
JM/xmg
Enclosure(s)
I
' I
I I
IJ
I '
The Honorable Senator John McCain

2400 E . Arizona Biltmore
Phoenix, Arizona
January 9 , 2007
Paul J . Canavan
1 7 2 2 1 N . Lime Rock Drive
Sun C i t y , Arizonq 85373-2221
RE: Federal Communications Commission
S i r : With regard t o the captioned can you explain to
m e why this agency cannot/will n o t respond t o certified
m a i l correspondence, p e r the attached?
Thanking you in advance.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Canavan
17221 N. Lime Rock Drive
Sun City, Arizona 85373-2221
Auppst 26, 2006
Federal Comnricatlons Commission

Washington, D . C . 20554
RE: Second request to my letter of July 2 8 , 2006
c o n c e d n g DISH Satellite Network {copy attached)
Please respond
-
to the
-
captioned. - -
Perhaps you never received the earlier letter, hence, this

one is being sent certifiedmail.
The question is basic - do customers across the country,
includiag myself, ‘half to settle for oral contracts from
such companies which opens the door to possrble p r o b l m
and/or mismderstandings?
Is it askhg too much to get a me time letter stazing
an enrollment agreement, especially with prmos tnmlved?
Please advise I If this is something that is not overseen
by you could you adv3se who , then, do such c q a n i e s
answer: to.
Yoar reply will be appreciated .
17221 3s. Lime Bock Drive
Sun City, Arizona 85373-2221
July 28, 2006
Federal Communications C o ~ s s ~ o n
RE: DISH Satellite
To whom it may concern:
Relative to the captioned, which 1 subscribed to for
the firs2 t5m.e Zf-ast--February6th---effective OLZ the 8th -
t h i s letter is being sent for two reasons. One, to make
you aware of what a subscriber can go through merely by
asking questions about what tihey aye getting into and
what they w i l l be payhqg. Tbo, the apparent f a c t that
DISH, including their "Dispute Rescs~utioa"arm, r e h e s
to put what they have to say in writing. Written requests
for anything you care to name will. not be answered in print.
ik€eer getting no response from DISH to my letters I sent
two to t h e "Dispute Resolution" arm, a copy of the latest
one being attached to this letter- No response ira writing.
I have requested such, to me, routine information that ft
stumps me as to what their problem Ls. People have a right
to know what they are buying, what it will cost, what they
must do to avoid future charges for a free p r m t i c m when
it ends, how t o and when to notify them of a desire not to
continue wit& an aspect of the promotion, etc. etc.
What is wrong w i t h rzle idea of puttZng an initial telephone
canversation encorapassing the enrollment agreement tenns
into prist? Why not a one time welcome L e t t e r geared to the
particular t m s agreed t o by a e hdZvZdual slnce all
enr<zlbents~tmz~~ aye not a e s e across the c o a ~ t z y ?
The tenns I discussed OTZ the telephone =re z i o ~ - d l -
encompassing to cover what 1 received in t k mail op my b i l l .
Discussion with a representative of the Elephant &ketfng
Group in Maryland, the largest maTketWg f i r m for DISH,
on February 6, 2006 did not - for example
at a l l about a $5.99 charge for DPP.
-
cover apphing I
--11---- p - p ~ I ~~ ~ _I I_ ~ I I _ _ _ I I ~ , l - y y ~ ~ -
2,
That same "Welcame Packet" received 011MZLFC~22, 2006

happened to have the name "Jody Martixi,
Senior Vice President" inside to whom I have also s a t
letters marked tu her attention wiC?zout response.
I asked "Dispute Resolution" what they thought of sex
toys being sent in t h e d l in response to questions
by =he customer. Aga-in, no response.
What good does it do to write to theis address provided
on the b t l l i n g statemeats ( P . 0 . Box 9033, Littleton,
Colorado 80160) when no replies are apparently ever sene?
"he DHPP eharge of $5.99, € o l f ~ d ~ - - % d j ~ ~ t "
every month deleting it remains a mysteryto me. B3PP
stands for D i s h Rome Protection Plan and,
1 believe, .EhR
deletion every m o n t h far a i s charge x5ll
end some day
when the pram0 is over. I never asked €or MIPP. Is this
something required of a l l subscribers a&was not
mentioned by Elephant Marketing Group? Also, what is it
composed of? What does it cover? How is it used? Is there
a deductible applied to ft?, Again, no- in writing,
In closing, why is a canrmunicaticms company, corporatlon,
or enterprise allowed to operate like chis, day in aad day out?
Perhaps this is just "business as usual" these days buE I s ~ i l l
believe contracts, with all their d e s , rates, and terms
should be spelled out in writing to avoid problems mistakes
misunderstandings or the customer being taken advantage of.
What do you think?
Yuur ccnrrments will be appreciated.
l3Zank pll.
Paul J, Canasran
I
f
1 "
A phone call or t w o , same garbled, some char, -e left

OIL lap wife's cell phone number, however, Z conthue to
w a i t ML a written reply which you appear not to w a n t to do.
m
MAR 6 2007
Mr. Paul Canavan

Sun City, AZ 85373-2221
Dear Mr. Canavan:
and dispute with your satellite service provider. Senator McCain forwarded your letter to the
Commission and asked us to respond directly to you. We regret that we did not respond to
your previous correspondence, 06-10245759. It appears that it was inadvertently closed
without a response.
Your inquiry involves 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.
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, Consumer
Protection 8z Advocacy Section, 1275 W Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926. You
may call them toll free at 1-800-352-8431, or visit their web site www.ag.state.az.us.
questions.
Sincerely,
Jay Keithley
Deputy Bureau Chief

241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICEB U I L D I N G
ARIZONA (202) 224-2235
5353 NORTH 1 6 S~
T R~E E ~
CHAIRMAN S U I T105E
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS P H O E N I XA,2 85016
(6021 952-2410
C O M M l n E E ON ARMED SERVICES
COMMlmEE ON COMMERCE, 4703 S O U T H L A K E S H O R E D R I V E
SCIENCE. AND TRANSPORTATION S U I T 1E
TEMPE,A 2 85282
(480) 897-6289

S U I T103
E
TUCSON,A 2 85701
February 26,2007 (520) 670-6334
T E L E P H O N E FOR H E A R I N G IMPAIRED
(602) 952-0170
Kevin Washington
Acting Director
Dear Kevin:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituents, Richard and Ruth
Bretz, who have encountered a problem concerning the OnStar analog network.
CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Robert Brecht

Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
The response you provide will be most appreciated and will be forwarded to my constituents.
Sincerely,
JM/zrb
Enclosure
__l_--l-_-_-__,~ll^ " _.*_l.l" L -

480-898-19'19 Senltor John McCaln Dlck BretZ Date: 2/22/2007 Tlme: 9:34:28AM r n z
Bretz Insurance Agency TeI: 480-898-1999

456 W Main St., Suite N
Mesa A 2 85201 Fax: 480-898-1919
To: Senitor John McCain From : Dick Bretz

Company :
Company : Phone Number : 480-898-1999
Email dick@bretzagency.com
Fax Number : (480) 897-8389
Subject : OnStar letter regarding ending service

480-898-1919 Senitor John McCain Dick Bretz Date: 2/22/2007 Time: 9:34:28 AM Page 2 of 2
t
@star
esr
February 12, 2007
....+
..t
AUTO"3-DIGIT 852
* 91276 20070212 US-MN-GME 80/L/L7240
Ms. Huth Bretz
. 1112N Cherry
Mesa AZ 85201-3210
RE: FCC Ruling - Impact on Y o u OnStar Service
Dear Ms.Bretz,
We at OnStar want to express our appreciarion for ycur loyalty and business over the past several years. We are writing to you
today to inform you of an up:oming change to your service.
For the past 10 years, DnStar has relied on the analog wireless network ti3 provide communications t o tnd from OnSta--equipped
vei-icles. However, bas?d or a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruliig, wireless ca-riers will not be required to support
theanal34 w reless network beginning in early 2008. Witbout the analog network, n e can't ensure the naticlnal coverage that will
allow us to provide you the services you expect from JS, As a result, beginning January 1,2008, OnSta: service in the United
States and Canada will only be available throuah vehicles that are capable of operetirig In the digital nstwork. .. .
Since ycur vehicle's equipment is analog-only, your vehicle's OnSrar system will not operate on'a digital wireless network.
Uniortunately. this means that we can't extend your OnStar subscription past December 31,2007. In particular, in an emergency,
despite what your system may indicate, you will not have a connection
You will be a3le to renew ycur OnStar subscription monthly, at any time, until November 30, 2007, and your OnStar se*vice will
cortinue t o function just like always through December 31, 2007 - including the Hands-Free Calling system.
WE at OnStar sincerely regret that w e will not b? able to provide OnStar service t o your vehicle after December 31,2037. 'fie
want you to know that there are currently many 2006 and 2007 GM models available with OnStar digital network capability that
will be Eble t3 receive OnStar service after December 31,2007.
We hope to be able to maintain cur relationship with you through your f u W e vehicle pulcfiases.
Sincerely,
OnStar Subscriber Services
P S. If you would like to realj about the FCC ruling online, you can visit orstar.:om/3igital-transiticn or call 1.866.248.1966 10
speak tc an Advisor.
Account Information
Safe & Sound Plan
Vehicle: 2002 CHEVROLET VENTURE
Account Number: 007-9458-700
VI N: 1GN DX13E520293309
March 22,2007

4703 S . Lakeshore Drive
Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
Attn: Robert Brecht
Thank you for your inquiry of February 26,2007 on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Richard and Ruth
Bretz, regarding their OnStar-equipped 2002 Chevrolet vehicle, and the sunset of the Commission’s
analog service requirement.
In 1981, the Commission required all cellular licensees to provide analog service compatible with
the Advanced Mobile Phone Service standard, to foster nationwide roaming and the widespread
availability of affordable consumer handsets. In 2002, the Commission concluded that the analog service
requirement had achieved these objectives, but found that a reasonable period was necessary for hearing-
disabled consumers and emergency-only users of analog phones to transition to digital equipment. The
Commission adopted a five-year sunset period to facilitate the transition, ending February 18,2008, after
which licensees may discontinue analog service.’
In February 2006, OnStar, a subsidiary of General Motors Corporation, advised the Commission
that it would cease providing analog services to consumers, effective December 31,2007. OnStar noted
that vehicles equipped with analogdigital-ready systems could be upgraded to digital service, but that
analog-only systems could not. OnStar further advised that nearly all subscribers with GM vehicles
produced after 2002 have either digital-ready or upgradeable hardware.
Should you or Mr. and Mrs. Bretz have any further questions regarding OnStar’s program for
analog-only equipped vehicles, you may contact William L. Ball, Vice President, Public Policy, OnStar,
at 3 13-665-2797, or William.Ball@ONSTAR.com.
I hope this information has been helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 202-418-0698, if
you have further questions.
Sincerely,
$QNK
Chief, Mobility Division
Wireless Telecommunication Bureau
’ We note that on November 30,2006, representatives of the alarm industry filed a petition for rulemaking to extend
the analog sunset date until February 18,2010, and FCC staff is reviewing the record in that matter.
JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSELLSENATE OFFICE BUILOING
.-
(202) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN 53!&NORTH 1 6 STREET

~ ~
United State5 Senate

'"-'I SUITE 105
C O M M l n E E O N INDIAN AFFAIRS
~ O E N I X .A 2 85016
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES " ~ ~ 1 6 0 952-2410
2)
tp
COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE, 4703rSu~ LAKESHORE
~ DRIVE
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION (;.; SUITE 1
,TEMPE, AZ 85282
%T(480) 897-6289
407 F E S T CONGRESS STREET
iu, SUITE 103
' YUCSON, A Z 85701
March 15,2007 ( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
TELEPHONEFOR HEARING I M P A I R E D
(602) 952-0170
Dear Congressional Liaison:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Karen Lesher who has encountered a
problem with the status of the NATIVE Vocational District's appeal p2007124492769).
respond directly to Karen Lesher.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
JM/xmg
Enclosure(s)

N o r t h e a s t Arizona Technological
Governing Board P.O. Box 710 Kayenta, AZ 86033 . (928) 697-2500 . Fax (928) 697-2502
~ ~~
Margaret Yazzie
Board President March 8, 2007
Sanders USD
Marie Allen The Honorable John McCain, Senator
Vice President 5353 North 16'h Street
Window Rock USD
Suite 105
Ambrose Shepherd Phoenix, AZ 85016
Member
Ganado USD
Lavina Smith
Member
Kayenta USD I am writing to seek your assistance with the denial of our District's erate application for
Wallace Todacheeny
telecommunications, basic maintenance, and internal connections for Erate 9 (2006-2007).
Member
Red Mesa USD My appeal, on which I requested your assistance on October 12,2006, was denied and the SLD
Mary Tom decision was upheld by Universal Services Administrative Company, Schools and Libraries
Member Division.
Pinon USD
Shannon Tooke As per the procedure, I submitted an appeal on January 24,2007 to the Federal Communications
Member
Tuba City USD Commission (FCC). A copy of the appeal letter is attached. To date, I have received no
communication re the status of the NATIVE District appeal. I have requested either a reversal of
Bahe Si//y
Member the decision or a waiver of the ruling, so that we can continue to receive funding for technology
Chinle USD services.
CTE Directon Erate funding is critical in providing funds for technology that is so vital to our children on the
Ma Ruth Goy Navajo Reservation.
?k/e HS
Doris Nelson I am requesting that you follow-up with FCC to ensure a swift and favorable resolution.
Ganado HS
Frankie Gilmore I appreciate your past support as your intervention brought a swift conclusion to our appeal. I
Monument Va//eyHS
hope that you will intercede again on our behalf, this time with the FCC.
James Lesher
Pinon HS
Jerry Finley,
Thank you for considering this request.
Red Mesa HS
Robed Windmiller
Tuba City HS
Ted Goodluck
Valley HS
Glen Haven Karen C. Lesher
Window Rock HS
Superintendent
Office 928-697-2501
NA TlVE
Ce11928-205-9272
Karen C. Lesher klesher@frontiemet.net
Superintendent
Charles Waite
Bus. Mgr. Cons.
Geraldine Begay
SupffBoard Secretary
BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
In the matter of 1
)
Request for Review by 1
)
Northeast Arizona Technological Institute )
of Vocational Education 1
(NATIVE Vocational District) )
1
Federal-State Joint Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45
Universal Service )
1
Schools and Libraries Universal Service 1 CC Docket No. 02-06
Support Mechanism 1
)
REQUEST FOR REVIEW
Funding year 2006 (7/1/2006 to 6/30/2007)

Billed Entity Name: NATIVE Vocational District
Billed Entity No.: 16020596’
Form 470 Application No.: 720060000568310
Form 471 Application Nos.: 507313,532327, and 536056
I. Introduction and Background
NATIVE Vocational District (“NATIVE’) respecthlly requests a review of the

Administrator’s Decisions2 denying all funding requests on all three of the Form 471
applications (Nos. 5073 13,532327, and 536056) filed for Year 2006 by NATIVE,
because the underlying Form 4703 used for all three applications “failed to advise bidders
an RFP was issued.”
NATIVE, which participates in the Universal Service Support Mechanism for

Schools and Libraries (known as “the E-rate program”), is an Arizona school district
entirely contained on the Navajo reservation. As the Superintendent of the NATIVE
District, I properly completed and filed a Form 470 (Application Number
7200600005683 lo), which listed in great detail under each category of service, the exact
’ NATIVE has two Billed Entity Numbers, one for the District (16020596) and one for the District Office
(16032082). Two of the referenced Forms 471 (536056 and 532327) were actually filed under NATIVE
Vocational District Office.
See attached Administrator’s Decision Letters dated December 5,2006, December 20,2006 and January
4,2007 from the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company. Since
the denial reason for each Form 471 is essentially the same, and arises from the same circumstances, I
respectfully request that all three appeals be combined into this one Request for Review.
Form 470 Number 720060000568310 attached for your convenience
1/24/2007 Page 1
service or function and attendant quantity or capacity being sought, as is required under
Items 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Form 470. NATIVE also indicated (in Items Sb, 9b, 10b and
1 1b) that it had not and would not be issuing a Request for Proposals.
On August 15,2006 SLD issued a Funding Decision Commitment Letter that

denied all Priority One Telecommunications and Internet Access Funding Request
Numbers (FRNs) on NATIVE Form 471 Application Number 5073 134, on the basis that
NATIVE had issued an RFP and failed to notify potential bidders that it was doing so.
NATIVE appealed this decision to the SLD on October 10,2006 and on December 5,
2006 received an Administrator’s Decision Letter upholding the denial of funding.
On August 15,2006 SLD issued a Funding Decision Commitment Letter that

denied the Basic Maintenance Funding Request Number (FRN) on NATIVE Form 471
Application Number 5323275,on the basis that NATIVE had issued an RFP and failed to
notify potential bidders that it was doing so. NATIVE appealed this decision to the SLD
on October 10, 2006 and on December 20,2006 received an Administrator’s Decision
Letter upholding the denial of fimding.
On October 3, 2006 SLD issued a Funding Decision Commitment Letter that

denied all Internal Connections Funding Request Numbers (FRNs) on NATIVE Form
471 Application Number 5360566, on the basis that NATIVE had issued an RFP and
failed to notify potential bidders that it was doing so. NATIVE appealed this decision to
the SLD on October 10,2006 and on January 4,2007 received an Administrator’s
Decision Letter upholding the denial of funding.
Given the totality of circumstances surrounding the filing of the underlying

NATIVE Form 470, which was the basis for 911 funding requests on all three referenced
Form 471 applications, I believe that the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the
Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) erred in stating:
“In accordance with guidelines set forth by the FCC, the NATIVE document
titled Description of Services for Telecommunications describes the project
undertaken with sufficient detail and contains all the elements required of an RFP,
such as description of the scope of services, location, etc. Therefore, the
document must be considered an RFP.”
I now respectfully request a review of the three pertinent and previously referenced SLD
decisions on appeal.
The relevant Funding Request Numbers (FRN) are: 1469901, 1469955, 1470012, 1470039, 1470089,
1484987, and 1485286.
5
The relevant Funding Request Number (FRN) is 1470438.
The relevant Funding Request Numbers (FRN) are: 1483288, 1483352, 1483401,1483636, 1483698,
1483745,1483790,1483846,1483892,1483925, 1483964, 1483993, 1484029, 1484066, 1484100,
1484122, 1484210, 1484246,and 1484278.
112412007 Page 2
11. Discussion
On December 23,2005, I completed and filed the Form 470 application for the
NATIVE District for Year 2006 services/products. This Form 470 indicated that
NATIVE was seeking services/products in all four categories of service
(Telecommunications Services, Internet Access, Internal Connections and Basic
Maintenance). In each of the appropriate categories, NATIVE provided a detailed
description of the services/products sought. For example, the following is what was
indicated in Item 8, Telecommunications Services:
Sufficient detail was provided so that interested service providers could

reasonably ascertain exactly what types of services/products were being sought and could
contact the NATIVE staff as needed. It was my intention that interested service providers
would contact me for further information.
The NATIVE District is entirely contained on the Navajo reservation where

infrastructure is limited, new development is highly regulated, and there are unique
geographical and political limitations on providing service. It is not an easy job due to the
remoteness and forbidding geography to interconnect all eight school sites that we serve
with interactive video conferencing, nor are we an area that usually generates vigorous
competition and many service provider inquiries. In fact, the recurring services that we
requested were continuations from previous years, where only the incumbent service
provider is qualified to provide the service. In order to be sure that all potential bidders
who responded to the Form 470 were given the same information, I decided to prepare a
supplemental document in order to provide details on the geographical, political, and
infrastructure background of the NATIVE District.
In preparing my documents I relied on the guidance on the SLD website, the

Form 470 instructions and the Arizona state law regarding procurement. There is no
indication on the SLD website, nor in the Form 470 instructions, that a document which
contains all the elements required of an RFP, such as description of the scope of services,
location, etc., would be interpreted by SLD to be an RFP. It should be noted that SLD
1/24/2007 Page 3
appears to be able to make this interpretation regardless of the intent of the originator of
the document.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that there was a difference between a

Request for Proposals, which under Arizona code I would have had to advertise in the
“official newspaper of the county’’ for at least two weeks prior to bid openings, and the
document that I prepared, which was intended to provide hrther information. Since I did
not engage in the official Arizona procurement procedure for using an RFP, it did not
ever occur to me that my document could still be interpreted to be an EWP. If I had
thought such an occurrence were even possible, I would have asked SLD to clarifL what
additional information I could have given to those service providers who in fact
responded to the posted Form 470, but needed more details about the logistical and
political constraints of dealing with the Navajo Reservation.
More than three weeks after the Form 470 was posted, and in response to service
providers’ questions, I prepared the document titled Description of Telecommunications,
Internet, Maintenance and Internal Connection Services Listed in the FCC 4 70
#720060000568310. with the stated intent:
Intent
To further define the services and products requested in FCC 470 #
720060000568310 and to identify qualified Vendorkontractors to provide
Telecommunications, Internet, Maintenance, and Internal Connection Services
for Year 9 erate funding for 2006.
This long, very detailed document which refers to the Form 470 that was properly
filed, provides descriptions of existing services, Navajo Reservation area information
and restrictions, requirements to be considered, evaluation criteria, contact information
and mailing addresses, and due dates. The need for this additional document was to
provide necessary background on some of the geographical, political and logistical
limitations of providing the desired interactive video conferencing service to all eight
NATIVE district schools.
It should be noted that the Description of Services document was not prepared
until after the Form 470 was filed, and was not made available until January 18,2006,
more than three weeks after the posting of the Form 470. It was only after potential
service providers contacted NATIVE, based on the posted Form 470 contact information,
that they were sent a copy of the Description of Services. All along I thought that this
document was a consequence of the Form 470, to be used only for those service providers
who responded to the Form 470, to expand the context for the requested services, rather
than a stand-alone document that could be seen as the basis for soliciting bids. That
distinction is important, along with the stated intent of the document. For these reasons,
and the additional requirements under state law, I did not feel that the document was the
equivalent of an RFP, and so I asserted on the Form 470 that the NATIVE District had
not issued nor was going to issue an RFP.
112412007 Page 4
To hold otherwise, puts applicants under the Universal Support Mechanism for
Schools and Libraries (known as the “E-rate program”) in the untenable position of
always having to check the box indicating that they have an RFP, whether or not they
know at the time of the Form 470 filing if they intend to provide further information to
bidding service providers. If that were true, the Commission should amend its rules to
require and clarify that E-rate applicants check Items 8a, 9a, 1Oa, and 1 1 a, as appropriate,
in all instances, to protect applicants from deciding after the filing of the Form 470 that
they need to provide further detailed information to bidding service providers.
In this case, SLD imposed their interpretation of the document as an RFP, despite
the stated intent of NATIVE, which resulted in a total denial of all three Forms 47 1 based
on Form 470 Number 7200600005683 10. This situation is adversely affecting the quality
of education for thousands of the poorest students in Arizona. NATIVE acted in ways it
thought met the requirements of Arizona state law. There is no definition of an “RFP” on
the SLD website, nor any mention of FCC guidelines stating documents containing
“sufficient detail and ... all the elements required of an RFP, such as description of the
scope of services, location, etc.” will be considered as an RFP. Also, there is no
indication that the applicant may be risking funding denial if the Form 470 was not
marked to indicate the presence of an RFP if they create such a detailed document. These
lapses should not be held against NATIVE; it acted in a reasonable manner to ensure that
the service providers who responded to the Form 470 that NATIVE posted had all the
information necessary, including the geographical and political limitations of working on
the Navajo reservation, to complete the proposed projects.
111. Prayer for Relief
I respectfully seek review of the Administrator’s Decisions and ask that the entire
set of circumstances surrounding the Description of Services document (including the
intent behind its creation, the fact that it was created after the Form 470 was filed and the
fact that it was given only to those service providers who contacted NATIVE as a result
of the posted Form 470) be taken into consideration in deciding whether NATIVE in fact
violated any FCC guidelines.
112412007 Page 5
Alternative Waiver Recluest
In the alternative, if the document is indeed interpreted as an RFP, I respectfully
ask that the requirement for checking the appropriate box on the Form 470 indicating the
presence of an RFP be waived. Strict compliance with the rule would not fbrther the
purpose of 47 U.S.C. fj254(h), which directs the Federal Communications Commission
to “enhance . . . access to advanced telecommunications and information services for all
public and non-profit elementary and secondary school classrooms, health care providers
and libraries.” To uphold the denial of fbnding would inflict undue hardship on the
Navajo Reservation and the thousands of students served by the NATIVE District.
Therefore, I would ask that the requirement be waived and the application sent back to
SLD for processing.
Sincerely,
Karen C. Lesher
Superintendent
klesher@frontiernet.net
Northeast Arizona Technological Institute of Vocational Education (NATIVE)
P.O. Box 7 10, Kayenta, AZ 86033
Office 928-697-2501; Fax 928-697-2102;
1/24/200 7 Page 6
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 5353 NORTH1 6 STREET~ ~
SUITE 105
COMMITEE ON COMMERCE, PHOENIX,A2 85016
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION (602) 952-2410
C O M M I U E E O N INDIAN AFFAIRS 4703 SOUTHLAKESHORE DRIVE
SUITE 1
TEMPE,AZ 85282
(480) 897-6289
STREET
407 WEST CONGRESS
SUITE 103
TUCSON.AZ 8 5 7 0 1
March 29, 2007 ( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
TELE
Dear Congressional Liaison:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Paul Canavan, who has encountered a
problem with the response he received from your agency.
respond directly to Paul Canavan.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
&/CI! 2!zz
John McCain
JMIxmg
Enclosure( s)
Sun C i t y , Arizona 85373-2221
March 27, 2007
Jay Keithley, Deputy Bureau Chief
Washington, D.C. 20554 RE:Control No.O700257/KAH
& Corr. 06-10245759
Per your letter to me of 3-6-07,a copy of which you have
sent to Senator &Cain, and your earlier more or less identical
responses to Congressman Franks and Senator Kyl:
It is unfortunate that in addition to my correspondence being
"inadvertantly closed without a response" it also appears
not to have been fully understood or read.
In your second paragraph you write about FCC not regulating
rates charged for satellite programming. Per my earlier
correspondence my concern was not this at all. I have been
stating the question of why telephone enrollment contracts
cannot be put in writing with a confirming letter.
A s you should know, my second request sent to FCC via Certified
Mail dated 7-28-06 contained a copy of a brief letter to
the satellite provider asking f o r a WRITTEN RESPONSE.
This brief letter to them w a s dated 6-30-06 and was sent to
the so-called dispute resolution arm of Dish Network. No reply.
In this same second paragraph of your recent letter you refer
me to the satellite service provider f o r "questions on
or service". If my letter had been read fully or understood
you would not have stated this. I question procedure, not
so much specific numbers or rates.
Would appreciate the scope of-theFCC be expanded as soon as
possible to REQUIRE that telephone enrollment conversations
be confirmed in writing and that any concernslquestions a
consumer customer may w a n t responded to in writing be done.
By the way, no one raising questions should be subjected to
a sex toy being sent to them as part of a "Welcome Packet",
something else I have mentioned but was not addressed.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Canavan
h22ya-4 .
John McCain
c c : Senator /
Senator Jon Kyl
Congressman Trent Franks
m
MAY 8 2007
Control No. 070071l/kah
Mr. Paul Canavan

Sun City, AZ 85373-2221
Dear Mr. Canavan:
Thank you for your letter addressed to Senator John McCain regarding your ongoing
concerns with your satellite service provider. You have also expressed your dissatisfaction
with the Commission’s response to your inquiries.
Please let us assure you that we fully reviewed each of your letters. Generally, the
Commission adheres to the procedures established to ensure that an individual’s complaint or
inquiry is acknowledged. However, when an individual claims that no such acknowledgement
was received, we confirm with the responsible staff handling the case that the procedures were
followed, especially if it is not noted in the records. Unfortunately, the staff who worked on
your case, 06-10245759, retired and such confirmation was not possible. We apologize for any
inconvenience we have caused in this regard.
The Commission develops, recommends and administers the policy and licensing
programs for the regulation of, among other things, satellite services. Specifically, the
Commission is responsible for 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. However, our licensing of an entity
does not authorize the FCC to regulate every aspect of the service provided by the company.
For instance, customer service issues, which you described, are not regulated by the FCC.
There is no federal requirement that multichannel video programming providers, such

as satellite television companies, provide consumers with a written summary of telephone
conversations concerning subscriptions or other customer service issues. You may wish to
contact your local consumer protection agency to determine whether state or local law imposes
such a requirement.
Mr. Paul Canavan Page 2
We appreciate your inquiry and regret any frustration this has caused. If you have
further questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
$
Jay eithley
Deputy Bureau Chief
( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
COMMITTEE O N ARMED SERVICES 5353 NORTH16TH STREEl
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION Wnited State5 Senate SUITE 105
PHOENIX,AZ 85016
( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410
COMMlrTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS 4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE DRIVE
SUITE 1
TEMPE, A 2 85282
( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289
May 8,2007 407 WEsr CONGRESSSTREET
SUITE 103
TUCSON,A 2 85701
( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
The Honorable Kevin J. Martin TELEPHONEFOR HEARING I M P A I R E D
Chairman
Federal Communications Comniission
445 12' Street, sw .
I am writing to bring to your attention a matter raised to me by a petitioner that

appears to be in the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.
.
'When matters such as this are raised by a petitioner, it is my policy to refer them
'
to the appropriate federal department or agency, regardless of whether the petitioner has
any personal or political relaionship with me. I ask for no preferential treatment for this
petitioner or any single or select group of interests, nor do I advocate a specific outcome
for this or any other petitioner.
I ask that this matter be handled in strict accordance with existing agency rules,
regulations, and ethical guidelines. My sole interest is to ensure that this petitioner is
treated fairly and equitably, and in a manner that reflects appropriate and prompt service
to citizen taxpayers.
According to the attached letter, a proceeding known as the Biltmore Forest

allotment is currently before the Commission's Media Bureau. The petitioner wishes to
know the status of the proceeding. I would appreciate a response to this petitioner with a
copy sent to me for my information.
Let me reiterate that I am not advocating a specific result in this matter, and I trust
that whatever decision or course of action you may take will be made in the best interests
of the country.
I,>k
John McCain tn
PRINTED O N RECYCLED PAPER

I tic I lonorclhle John hlcCain
34 I Russell Senate Office Huiiding
Washington, 1 X 205 10 February 7. 2007
RE: Federal ~ ~ ) t n i n u n i ~ aConmission

~ioii~
Ikar Senator McC'niti.
1 hope this correspondence finds you well.

I am General Cormel to Arnerican Media Scrviccs, LLC. We are a radio
brokerage and dcvclopment firin Iocatcd in Mt. Pleasant. Youth C'arolina. As such, we deal with the
Federal Cornmunicaticms Commission almost daily. i am writing to request your assistance with
two matters. 'I'his correspondence is my last hope, I believe, to actually gct somclhing done with
some matters pending before the Commission.
7 he first issue iiivolves a proceeding that has been under consideration by the
Conmission frrr approximately riincteeri years. During this timc, the licensees invohed in the
proceeding h a w heen sihjected to cotitintied promises for action bq the Cornmission, rrnly to be
crtntinualIy disappointcd when iiothing happens. Tirne and timc again we have been promised
action, and nothing happens. O w counsel's phone calls arc only met with niore pmmiscs. The
results o f the inellieiency arid failiire in dealing with this situation has led to an enormous financial
cost tu the parties involved as ueli as lost opportunily costs i n the inability ta deaf with other
projects. For reference purpuscs, this procccding is known as thc Biltmore Forest allotment
proceeding. It is currently before by the Media Bureau at thc Commission.
'lhe second pressing iwie involves an attempt by the Commission to streamline
tht: process b> ichich radio stations improbe their signals, and hence, their value. l o improve a
station's value, it is often necessary to change its ci1y of license. The current versioit of thc
propciscd process limits the niiniher o f components to the p l t o~f t w . This ninnber is arbitrary arid
probably cannot survivc: a legal challenge,
Senator, we really need some help. L:nder the cx-parte nilos that govern
Corrtmission proceedings, we can c ~ i l ycheck on the status ofthe Billmore proceeding. We
desperately need some contact froin your office, preferably a phone call, to dislodge this logjam.
We also iieed someone to look into the arbitrary nuiiibcr (four) assigned tu applications with regard
to the new C'omniis4ion policies.
Please understand the frustration that has led to this correspondence. Our
govcrnment is designed to be responsive to its citizens. IJnfartunately, the C'ommission, in these
two instances, has nut lived up ta that ideal
P O S T O F F I C E BOX 20696 CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29413 T E L ( 8 4 3 ) 9 7 2 - 2 2 0 0 F A X ( 8 4 3 ) 8 8 1 - 4 4 3 6

E - M A I L : A M 5 @ A M S . FM I N TE R N ET: W W W. A M E R I C A N M .
ED I A S E RV I C E S C 0M
June 19,2007

24 1 Russell Senate Office Building
Re: Application of Liberty Productions, a Limited

Partnership, for Consent to Assignment of License
of WOXL-FM, Biltmore Forest, North Carolina, to
Saga Communications of North Carolina, Inc. (File
NO.BALH-20040116ACT)
Thank you for your letter dated May 8,2007, concerning the above-referenced
matter. Your correspondence, which was not served on the parties to this proceeding,
was forwarded to the Office of General Counsel for reply in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules (47 C.F.R. $8 1.1200-16), which are intended to ensure both
fairness and the appearance of fairness in Commission proceedings. The above-
referenced matter is a restricted proceeding, and it will remain restricted until it is 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. Presentations
required to be served include communications that simply forward to the Commission the
views expressed by others on the merits of the restricted proceeding.
We appreciate the fact that you intended only to make a permissible status inquiry
about this proceeding and do not advocate any specific result in this matter. Under the
Commission’s rules, however, presentations subject to the ex parte rules include status
inquiries that state why timing is important to a particular party or give a reason why the
proceeding should be expedited other than the need to avoid administrative delay. See 47
C.F.R. $ 1.1202(a) and Note to paragraph (a). In this regard, Mr. Collins’ letter cites “the
enormous financial cost to the parties involved as well as lost opportunity costs in the
inability to deal with other projects.”
Page 2
In accordance with the ex parte rules, copies of this letter and your incoming
correspondence have been sent to the parties to this proceeding. Additionally, copies of
these items have been placed in a public file associated with, but not made part of, the
record in this proceeding, and therefore cannot be considered.
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 Mr. Colllins'
letter to be considered, your letter or a cover letter must indicate that it was served on the
parties listed below.
Sincerely yours,
Jk!Associate
kl Kaufmank
Gen ral Counsel
Administrative Law Division
Office of General Counsel
cc:
Gary S. Smithwick, Esq.

Smithwick & Belendiuk, P.C.
5028 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
Suite 301
Frank R. Jazzo, Esq.

Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC
1300 N. 17thStreet
11th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209
Dan Alpert, Esq.

2120 N. 21" Road
Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22201
John Garziglia, Esq.

Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC
1401 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 700
Page 3
Stephen T. Yelverton, Esq.

Yelverton Law Firm., P.L.L.C.
60 1 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 900
Timothy K. Brady, Esq.

P.O. Box 930
Johnson City, TN 37605
Attachment
241 RUSSELL SENATEOFFICEBUILDING
JOHN McCAlN WASHINGTON,D C 20510-0303
ARIZONA (2,QZ) 224-2235
5353 WRTH 1 6 STREET

~ ~
CHAIRMAN !’ SUITE 105
C O M M I T E E O N INDIAN AFFAIRS
Wnited States Senate PH~ENIXA , Z 85016
&302) 952-2410
COMMITFEE O N COMMERCE, 4703 $& LAKESHORED R I V E

TH
SCIENCE, A N D TRANSPORTATION d SUITE 1
.*-MPE, A 2 8 5 2 8 2
.‘2l480) 897-6289
3
m&..!q~sr
c o ~ r j a ~STREET
ss
May 4,2007
I SUIT€ 103
TUCSON,A 2 85701
1520) 670-6334
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Washington. DC 20554
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Refer to: Barbara Cook
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, Barbara Cook, who has
encountered a problem with her low-power FM station. Please investigate my constituent's
claim, within the existing rules, regulations and ethical guidelines, and provide me with a copy of
the final decision. MARK ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Carlos Sierra

5353 N. 16th Street . ..
Suite 105
Sincerely,
1
JM/xcs

RR 3 0 2007
4
- __
-
1 ” 1 ” - 11111- ” __l
~
3 I 5 W. G U K L E Y STREET * PRES( OTT, AZ 86 3 0 1 928/445-3 1 2 2 FAX 928/776-9053 a www.sharlo~org
April 27, 2007
Senator John McCain

5353 N. 16‘hStreet, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 8501 6
Dear Senator McCain: c
Prescott Community Access Channel Inc. has a construction permit to build a

low-power FM station KZXI-LP here in Preszott. However, the frequency
specified has been usurped by a full-power station, and all other available
channels have beer, reserved by FM translator permits.
We ask that the FCC, i: the interest of direct community information, take up the
issue of LPFM priority to a!lw some or all LPFM permits to take priority over
some or all translator permits.
Sharlot Hall Museum has a direct interest in this situation and has begun
gathering comnunity s~lpportfor the LPFM, as we intend to use the station for
community ol;treach.
Our construction peimit will expire in late September, leaving very little time to
resolve the issue and get the station on the air. We respectfully ask that the FCC
expedite this matter, for us and for other LP’s in similar situations nationwide.
Sincerely,
Barbara CoQk,Events Camdinator

Sharlot Hall Museum
AN AKIZONAHISTORY
ADVENTURE
. - -__II_ ~ -ely.-- .._
1

June 1,2007
INREPLY REFER TO:

CN-070 1080

5353 North 16* Street
Suite 105
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Barbara Cook, Events
Coordinator, Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona. Ms. Cook contacted your office regarding
a permit to construct a new low power FM (“LPFM’) radio station that the Federal
Communications Commission issued to Prescott Community Access Channel, Inc. (“PCAC”).
Ms. Cook is concerned that the new facilities of a full-service FM radio station may prevent
PCAC from commencing operation on its authorized LPFM frequency, and that PCAC cannot be
authorized to operate on a different frequency because potential frequencies have been allocated
to the FM translator service. Therefore, Ms. Cook suggests that LPFM authorizations should
“take priority” over applications for FM translator service. I appreciate the opportunity to
respond.
In March 2005, the Commission adopted a Second Order on Reconsideration and

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 05-75) (“SecondOrder”)to solicit public
comment on several proposals designed to expand and strengthen the LPFM service. Among
other things, the Commission requested comment on whether and, if so, under what
circumstances, LPFM stations should be considered to have “primary” status so that the LPFM
station may not be required to protect the operations of other types of broadcast stations, such as
FM translator stations. The comment period in this proceeding has closed, and the
Commission’s Media Bureau has completed its review of the record developed in the proceeding
and has drafted recommendations for consideration by the Commission.
The Media Bureau staff also has examined Ms. Cook’s specific concerns, and it appears
that the operation of PCAC’s proposed LPFM station would result in harmhl interference to the
newly authorized facilities of co-channel, full service FM station KFTB, Chino Valley, Arizona.
In addition, Ms. Cook notes that PCAC’s construction permit will expire in September 2007, and
there are no other broadcast frequencies that would permit PCAC to operate in full compliance
with the Commission’s technical standards. Therefore, rather than await action on the issues
raised in the Second Order, PCAC may wish to examine options that could allow its LPFM
station to be completed before the permit’s expiration date.
For example, there has been a single instance where the Commission waived its
interference protection requirements so that an LPFM station could operate on a frequency that
was second-adjacent to a full service FM station. In this particular case, the LPFM permittee
obtained the consent of the full-service station that was predicted to receive the interference, and
the permittee was able to demonstrate that it was highly unlikely that the proposed LPFM station
would cause interference to the second-adjacent, full-service FM station in any populated areas.
In addition, the LPFM permittee and the full-service licensee entered into an agreement which
required the LPFM station to resolve interference complaints within 24 hours, and to suspend
operations if any complaint could not be resolved within the time specified.
The Bureau staff has identified two second-adjacent frequencies, Channel 280 and
Channel 254, on which PCAC may be able to operate its LPFM station. Channel 280 is second
adjacent to KAHM(FM), Payson, Arizona, which is licensed to Sierra H Broadcasting, Inc.
Channel 254 is second adjacent to both KKFR(FM), Mayer, Arizona, which is licensed to FU3G
Phoenix Licenses, LLC, and KTMWFM), Prescott, Arizona, which is licensed to Guyann
Corporation. In the event that PCAC believes it can obtain the required consent from the
full-service station(s) and identify an available transmitter site from which its LPFM station
operations would not cause objectionable interference, it may submit an application to modi@ its
construction permit to spec@ operation on either Channel 280 or Channel 254. The
modification application also should request a waiver of the Commission’s technical
requirements regarding second-adjacent channels. Finally, as noted above, if PCAC proposes to
operate its LPFM station on Channel 254, PCAC must obtain the consent of both RBG Phoenix
and Guyann Corporation.
further assistance.
Sincerely,
Sen&-Deputy Chief
Media Bureau
JOHN McCAlN 241 RUSSELLSENATE OFFICEBUILDING
(202) 224-2235
CHAIRMAN 5353 NORTH 1 6 STREET

~ ~
Wnited Statu Senate

PHOENIX,A 2 8 5 0 1 6
COMMIITEE O N ARMED SERVICES (6021 952-2410
COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE, 4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE DRIVE
T E M P EA, Z 8 5 2 8 2
( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289
SUITE 103
TUCSON, AZ 85701
(520) 670-6334
May 22,2007
(6021 952-0170
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Refer to: Larisa Bogardus
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, Larisa Bogardus, who
has encountered a problem with an FCC license. Please investigate my constituent's claim,
within the existing rules, regulations and ethical guidelines, and provide me with a copy of the
final decision. MARK ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Carlos Sierra

5353 N. 16th Street
Suite 105
Sincerely,

JM/xcs
. .,*
85/21/2887 12: 1 7 9283335598 TWN OF SPRINGERVILLE PAGE 82
TOWN OF SPRINGERVILLE
418 t.Main Strcct - Spriiipcrvillc. AZ FiS93X-0300 (02X) 333-2050
May 21,2007
Sen. John McCain
5353 N. ?6‘hSt., Ste. 105
Phoenix,Arizona 85016
Dear Senator,
On behalf of the Town of Springerville, I am asking your help in expediting an

FCC license application for our AWOS (Airport Weather Operating System) at
Springerville Municipal Airport.
Ollr contractor, All Weather, applied for the license in January. At that time, we
were told processing would take 3 months to a year. We have not heard anything
in the 5 months since.
As a pilot, i know you are aware how critical accurate and timely information is
for safe aviation. The sooner this system is up and running, the better. The FCC
file number is 000-288-7509. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly
appreciated. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Larisa Bogardus‘--.’
Community Development Director
Town of Springerville
Feck ra 1 C o ~inii LI n i cations Co 111in i s s ion
Washington: D.C. 20554
June 18,2007
In Reply Refer To:

2007/RRW
0701117

U. S. Senate
ATTN: Carlos Sierra
5353 N. lSthStreet, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Thank you for your May 22,2007 correspondence on behalf of your constituent
Larisa Bogardus, Community Development Director for the Town of Springerville,
Arizona (Springerville). Ms. Bogardus wrote to you on May 21, 2007, regarding
Springewille's pending application for an Automatic Weather Observation Station
(AWOS).
Springerville submitted an application, FCC file number 00028875 09, for a new
AWOS on January 23,2007. AWOS applications require the approval of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and coordination with the Interdepartmental Radio
Advisory Committee (IRAC), which is a committee of the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTTA) that represents the interests of federal
government spectrum users. In addition, this application requires frequency coordination
with Mexico.
Our records indicate that the application was sent to IRAC for review on January
24,2007. The application is awaiting the required clearance from the FAA, NTIA, and
Mexico. We have contacted the FAA regarding this matter, and FAA staff indicated that
processing of the frequency assignment and Mexican coordination would be expedited,
but they were unable to predict when it would be possible to approve the application.
I trust this letter responds to your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Scot Stone
Deputy Chief, Mobility Division
Ju\l. / r z \ J o/ mfkmpr] NGSTON-SAVAhNAh NO. 657 1 F, 2
JACK KINGSTON Committee On Appropriations
1st District, Georgia Renking Member, Agrlcufture Subcommittee
Defense Subcornmlllee
WASHINGTON OFFICE
2242 Aayburn House Office Building SAVANNAH OFFICE
Weshington, OC 20515 One Dlamond Causeway
(202)2 2 5 6 8 3 1 Suite 7
(2021 228-2269 FAX
Wnnah,QAIMQ\
(912)3 6 2 4 7 0 1
ERUNSWlCK OFFfCE (912) 352-0305 FAX
Federal Buildlns, Room 304
1
905 Gloucester Street FJAXLEY OFFICE

Brunswick, GA 31520 (912) 367-7403
(912) 265-9010 (Sl2) 367-7004 FAX
(912)265-9013 FAX June 7,2007
VALDOSTA OFFICE
Federal Building, Room 215
Ms. Diane Atkinson P.O. Box 6264
Veldosta, GA 31609
Director, Legislative Affairs (229) z m s i e e
Federal Communications Commission (229) 247-9189 FAX
445 12th St, SW, Tcm 8-C453
Dear Ms, Atkinson;
One o f my constituents, Mr. Joseph F. Sharpe, has contacted me regarding a matter in which 1
believe your agency could be helpful. Therefore, tlie enclosed communication is submitted for
your review.
1would very much appreciate your responding to the points raised by my constituent, and
providing any assistance available under the applicable laws and regulations,
The contact person on my staff for this case is Mr, Bruce Bazemore. He can be reached at (912)
352-0101.
Thank you very much for your consideration and for advising me of any action you take in this
matter.
Reply to: Mr. Bruce Bazemore

Congrcssman Jack Kingston
1 Diamond Causeway, Suite 7
Savannah, GA 31406
;iiCiIVED T I M E JURI. 7 . 1:35FM PRINT TiME JUN. 7 . 1:38FM

7ai.2 lim7;ffp TI N G 3 TON - 5 A V A N N A H
NO. 651 1 ?, 3
1st District, Georgia Rankfng Member, Agriculture Subcommittee
Defense Subcommittee
WASHINGTON OFFICE
2242 Rayburn House Office Buildlnq SAVANNAH OFFICE
Washington, DC 20515 One Diernond Causeway
(202)225-6~131 Suite 7
( 2 0 2 ) 2262269 FAX
BRUNSWICK OFFICE
Federal Building, Room 304
605 Gloucester Street
Brunswick GA 31520 %~ousen f WpresentatinPe BAXLEY OFFICE
(912) 367-7403
(912) 2664010 (922) 367-7404 FAX
(912) 28’59013 FAX INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM
VALDOSTA OFFICE
June 7: 2007 Federal Building, Room 215
P.6. Box 5284
CONTACT M4 DE: BY PHONE -BY LETTER -IN PERSON -X- Valdosta, GA 31603
(229) z 4 x ~ i e e
(229) 247-9189 FAX
NAME AND ADDRESS:
Mr. Joseph Frank Sharpe

12008 Middlcgd Rd Apt A5
Savannah, Georgia 3 14 19
TELEPHONE (HOME) (OFFICE)
NATURE OF INQUIRY:
Mr. Sharpe has contacted my office to complain about thc high number of solicitation calls he
receives on a regular basis. What do you recommend he do to stop these harassing calls?
JK: bab
RECEIVED TIME JUN. 7. 1:?5PM PRINT TIME JUN, 7. 1:38PM

+ b i , 7. i 3 0 7 \:53'M
1st District, Georgia Vice Chair, RepublicanConference
WASHINGTONOFFICE ' SAVANNAH OFFICE

2242 Reyburn House Offlce Building One Diamond Caueeway
Washington, DC 20515 Suire 7
12021 2255831 Savennsh. GA 31406
( 2 0 2 ) 22+2262 FAX (312) 852-9101
(912)362-0105 FAX
BRUNSWICI< OFFICE
Federal Euilding, Room 304 BAXLEY QFFICE
806 Gloucestsr Street
Brunswlck, GA 31520
lhonse of Representetiou P.O. Box 40
Baxley, GA31516
(912) 2859010 (912)367-7003
(912) 265-9013 FAX (812) 367-7404 FAX
WARNER ROBINS OFFICE

P.O.Box 9348
Warner Robins. GA 31095
(478) 923-89~
PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRIVACY ACT, PUBLIC LAW FAX
(418) 9 2 ~ 7 %
93.579, I GRAhTT CONGRESSMAN JACK KINGSTON AND HIS STAFF ACCESS

TO MY RECORD3 SO THAT THEY MAY ASSIST ME WITH MY CASE.
DATE 6-b-07
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST TO CONGRESSMAN KINGSTON'S OFFICE:
RECEIVED T I M E JUN. 7. 1:35FM PRINT TIME JUN. 7. 1:37PM

Juri. 04 2987 0?:46AM
I NEW I
-TELEPHCNE
- NUMBER T I E OF CHLL ANSIJER
OUT QF PRER Juri, 84 18;26RM
02
03
H!WEtd%TEI t-4 JOHN
NO NQME RCVD
1 -912-6197-281 3
OUT OF AREA
Jun . 03 06: 54PW
Sun. 03 135:15PM FFiX
.
I a4 1-40 NPME RCUD DIJT OF AREQ Jun. 03 (35:14PM
05 SHRQPE KAREN 1-843-757-,4781 Jun , 83 64:37PM
- 86
07
08
SHRRPE WREN
No N f i E RCUD
TClUFREE NUMBER
3-843-757-4781
OUT OF QREG
1-am-553-2831
Jun. 63 Q3: 19Prl
Jun. E13 Bl.:BBPK
Jun. 02 05:21PP'1
4 09 TOLLFREE NUMBER i-e00-390-2a3u Jun. 02 85: 06PM
10 SQUANIJRH, GQ 1-912-228-32!66 Jun. 82 e;:ssFri
11 SAUFlNfJkH , GF\ 1-912-228-9208 Jiiri. 62 01:66PIl
12 SAVtWNfiH, Gfi 1-9:2-22+92E Jun. 03 81:03PM
13 HOHENSTEI N JDHN 1-9?2-E97-2R23 Jun. 01 87:llPM
14 CIO I4AME RCUD OUT OF AQER Juri. 01 06:3sPrq
a 15 NO N9ME PCUD OUT UF RREA Jun. B l 06:35PM
16 R I I\tCoIJ CSINCRETE 1-912-754-9099 Jun. 01 E3:13pM
6 17 NO N9ME RCUD OUT O f WRER Jw. 01 03:BiPM
18 NO NRME RCUD RUT 9F ARER Juri. 31 83:OBPM
1s RINCON CONCRETE 1-912-754-32?5 .Jim. 01 12:92PM
b 20 NO NAME RCUD OUT UF RRER .
Jun 01 I B : ~ E ( H ~ I FAA
4 21 ND WME RCUD OUT OF 9RER Jun, 01 lQ:37W
22 NO WElE KCUD OUT OF WER JLm. 81 10:52AM
* 23 NI? NRME RCJD OUT OF AREA .
Jun 01 1L3:32FiM
6 24 NO NRME RCUf, OUT OF QREQ Jcm. 01 0'6:23RM
25 DLRDEN NED g hE 1-912-925-4025 Mag. 31 08:40Pri
26 NO NAME RCVD UJT OF RREA Ma 'd 31 a?: 1BPM
I
a 27 TOLLFREE NUMBER 1-860-93s-3591 may. 31 06 :23PM

28 NO NRME R W D 1-630-521-4981 May. 31 85:53FM
29 SAL'FINNRH, GR 1-912-659-7593 Hay. 31 E)5:2,7pt*1
3P SGUANNRH, GR 1-912-659-7593 M9.y. 31 BS:OSPM
c OLP 1
NO, t\IAME TELEPHONE NUM'ijER- TIME DF CtALL -

FINSWER
R E C E I V E D T!ME JUN. 7 . 1:35PM PRINT TIME JUN. 7. 1:37FM

mmmmma
Dcc. 15 2006. ?2:52PM
f NEW 1
NO. NAME TELEPHONE EJUNBER TIME CF CRLL RNSlJER

01 SQUQN4W. GA
1-912-659-7333 Dec., 15 12!d?PM
02 .?&AAJN!W, GQ 1-912-441-5793 Del=. I5 11;55FIM
83 DURGEN tED E J R 1-912-925-4825
04 GRSQUE EDWARD 1-912-926-2318
* 0s NO NQME RCUD UUT OF AREA
0 05 NO NQME RCUD OUT OF ARER
07 DLIRDEN NED E J R 1-912-925-4025
0 08 NO NQME RCUD 1-912-330-4i41 Dcc. 14 66:53PM
9 09 DUHDEN NED E J R 1-912-925-4025 Dec, 14 Q4:LiiPM
10 NO NaME RCUE 1-464-418-8834 D r c , 14 88:44QM
11 PENNSYLWNIR 1-878-386-4307 Dec. 13 03:@7PM FAX
12 NO NQME RCUD i-aoa-4m-es34 Der;, 13 12:SFM
13 DURDEN NED E JR 1-9 12*92S-.4625 Dec. 13 18:23RM
14 NC3 NFIP1E RCUD OUT OF fiEEA Dec. 12 Q7:29PM
* 15 TOLLFREE NUMBER I-BQQ-~B~-BI~~ Dcc. 12 05:8@PM fr7X
16 RINCON CONCRETE 1-912-154-3276 Dee. 12 64i53PM
17 SRWNNRH, GR 1-312-272-1701 Dec. 12
.
11:34RM
' 1E SRURNNPH, GFi 1-912-272-170; Dec. 12 1B:'IQRM
19 NO NRME RCUD 1-404-a-a~34 Dec. 12 09:16FIM
0 20 NU N2ME RCUD 1-912-33'2-4141 Dcc, 21 06:25Pl'l
* 21 DLRDEN NED E J R 1-91'2-925-4025 Dec, ii @5:54PM
-
c 22 SOUTH C3AST MED 1-912-691-4500 D P ~ . 11 ~ s : Q ~ P ~ - I
" 23 SOUTH CDAST MEC 1-912-691-CIDB k c . 11. 02:53PM
n) 24 NO NAME RCVD OLlT O F QREF, Dec. I1 01:24PM
25 NO NAME RCUD 1-912-330-4141 D~C:.11 11:24Rf'l FW
* 26 NO NAME RCUD OUT OF ARER Dec, 10 %7:07FM
- 27 GFISQUEEDWQRD 1-9i2-920-2319 Dcc. 19 07:@3P17
I 28 HOHENSTEIN J W N , ,i+ 12-897-28 17 Des. 10 85:56PM
1 OLD I
NO. NQME TELEPHONE NUMBER I -TIME OF CQLL RNSWER

61 HWHENSTEIN JOHN 1-912-897-2813 Ubc. 13 12:18PN TEL
El2 SQVANNRH, GG 1-912-659-7553 Dee. 11 85:29FW TEL
R E C E I V E 3 TIME JUN. 7. 1:?5PM PFiiNT T I M E JUN. 7. \:37FM

NO. 6 5 1 1 F. i
Dec. 10 2806 04:34PM
!a2 DURDEN NED E JR

03 UNKNOWN 1-205-314-0269 Dcc. 09 12:59PM
e4 DURDEN NED E JR 1-912-925-3025 Dec. 89 12:44PM
05 DURDEN NED E JR 1-912-925-4825 Dec. EJ9 12:84FK FGX
gE HOHENSTEIN JOHN 1-912--897-2€13 DCC. 08 0 6 : 2 8 P f l FAX'
07 SFIUFINNFIH, GA 1-912-441-5798 Dec. OB 06:?3F?1 FQX
m ge NO NRME RCllD 1-912-330-41.11 DEC. Q3 84:3%PM FFIX
a 69 NO NkME RCVD OUT OF URER Dcc. 08 03:12PN FAX
le SQIJANNQH, G l i 1-912-272-1701 uec. OB ii:a5w
11 DURGEN NED E J R 1.-912-925-4025 Dec. G17 86:16PM
12 NO NRME RCUD * 1-907-222-1252 Dec. 07 04:SSPV FRX
13 HCIHENSTEI N Jmrd 1-912-@57-2513 D ~ C . 07 04 : 2 7 ~ ~
13 NO NRME RCJD 1-512-3313-4141 Der,. 07 03:42PM
15 I-IOHENSTE I N J W N 1-912-897-2e13 DEC. 86 67:07PM
16 SGUFINNRH, GA 1-912-659-7595 Gec. 06 84:26P11
17 NO NAME RCLD 1-732-962-9387 Dec. 06 03:21PM
19 SRUQNNFIH, GA 1-912-272-1701 Dcc. Q6 11: 2 4 ~ 1
19 SFIURNNQH, GFI 1-912-272-1 761 Dcc. 86 11:14AM
20 SFIUANNRH, Gci 1-912-441-579B Gec. C5 88:ZTfl
21 HOHENSTE I N, JOHN 1-912-658-5159 D ~ c . 05 E17:EMPM
22 DURDEN NED E J R 1-912-325-4825 Dec. 05 &:13Ph
23 SHRRPE KAREN 1-343-757-47BI De c. 0S 06:@2PN
24 HOHENSTE I N JOHN 1-912-897-2613 Dee, 05 05:52PM
(L 25 NO W M E RCIJD W T OF RREFI Dec. la5 05:24PM FGX
26 NU NAME RCUD OUT OF QRER uec. 85 135:24Pw
27 NO NUME RCUD OUT CiF WER Dec, 65 02:24Pm FW
2€ SFIUAk4NF\H, Gk 1-912-659-1553 i k c . 05 12:SBPM
C ULD Y
NO. NRME TELEPHONE NUMBER TlME OF CALL QNSWER

01 SRVRNIWH, GFl 3-312-441-5798 Dec. 89 D5:2BPrl TEL
82 EROWN .Z EKOWIJ D 1-912-236-4i398 Dec. 05 03:5SRM 7f1
Z E C E I V E D TIME JUN. 7. 1 : 3 5 F M FRINT TIME JUN. 7. I:37PM

m m m T 1 : 9flT K I NGSTON-SAVANNAH NO. 651 1 P. a“
Nou, 05 20Q6 02:54PM

I NELJ 1
-
b
02
03 t-43NRME RCUD 1-912-39!3-4141 ~ 0 ~ 1 a3
. 12:am4
(34 MCK I NdON, JDHN 1-512-663-4749 N3U. E53 11:2w1
05 HOHEIJSTEI N JOHN 1-912-697-2813 Nod. 62 07:22PM
0G LUS HNGELES, CQ 1-213-629-0633 I.lou.02 84: 41PM FRX
87 L O 5 PNGELES, CQ 1-213-629-0633 N w . 02 8.1: 43PFI
90 NO IJAME RCUU 0 OU’T OF AREfi NUJ. 02 92:2SPb1 FRX
09 NO WME RCIJD 8 1-912-33@-4141 NOU. 02 12:4apr1
le SFIUANI.IAH, GQ 1-912-655-7593 No!.). 02 12:8i’PM
11 HOHBGTE I N JOHN 1-912-497-2813 Nov. 0i 07:21PM
. 12
:1
11
15
lG
SFIVRNNQY, GR
TOLLFKEE WMEER
NO NRME RCUD
SHfiRPE KQREN
SHPRPE KQREN
2-912-655-7593
1-8OD-P69-S17S
1-912-229-3350
1-513-?57-4781
:-843-i57-4?81
Now. 131 06:lZFM
NCW. 05. 05:aPM
Nuo.
Oct.
O C ~ . 31
81 131:61PM
31 07:02PPl
O~:SIPI‘!
FAX
17 SHVANNGH, GQ 1-912-441 -57913 a c t . 31 06:47PM

13 DLJRDEN NED E J R 1-312-925-4025 ckt. 31 04:BPM FRA
19 NO NAME RCUD OCT OF RREA uct. 51 OI:~SPI: FRX
20 GEDRGIQ STATE G 1-912-921-5436 O m 38 06:22PM FAY,
21 NO IWME RCUD 8 1-408-229-7813 @ct. 38 02:38PPl
22 r\lD NRME RCUD OUT OF QREG Oct. 38 02:07PM
23 TOLLFREE NUMBER 1-838-359-8446 act. 38 Oi:B7PM
2r NU NQME RCUEI OUT OF GSEH Uct. 30 12:52PR
25
FAX
TOLLFREE NUMEER 1-377-9a7-3557 Uct. 319 11:83~rl
25 SEREN I TY MED I CR 1-€76-38E-7347 O C ~ . 30 ID:S~AM
NO. r\ll?HE TELEPYUNE NW-PAH TIME OF CQLL ANSWER

01 COLE fA FLEMIIdG 1-912-353-8605 Pov. 01 02:33F?l
82 NO NRME RCUD 0L;T DF RREk TEL r
Oct. 30 132:46PM TEL
w 03 NO NFIME RCUD t 1-866-339-7431 Oct. 38 11:41RM TEL 8
E4 SFIUQNNAH, Ea “912-44 1-57’38 O c t , 28 06:09pM rEL 2

F
RECEIVED TIME JUN. 7. 1:35PM PRINT TIME JUN. 7. 1 : 3 7 P M

NO. 651 1 P. 1
FACSUIU m S M I S S I O N FROM:
JACK KINGSTON
CONGRESSMAN
1 DIAMONDCAUSEWAY, Sum7
SAVANNAH,GA 31406
VOICE# (912) 352-0101 FAX#(912)352-0105
TOTALPAGES: )?
FROM: nTRISH DEPRIEST 'R BRUCEBAZEMORE
U
O MYRW~NEFREE n BROOKEnom
0PEGGY UE MOWERS n CONNIEGOMEZ
Comments:
~\rnmAhcovcr.rrn I!pdakd: 1/05
KECEIVED TIME JUN. 7. l:?SFM FFiiNT 'IME JUN. 7. 1 : ? 8 C M

JUN 2 0 2007
The Honorable Jack Kingston

1 Diamond Causeway, Suite 7
Savannah, GA 31406
Dear Congressman Kingston:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joseph F. Sharpe,
regarding unsolicited telephone calls he is receiving. Specifically, Mr. Sharpe is concerned
with the continued receipt of such communications and asks for the Commission’s assistance in
the matter.
As you are aware, 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 adopted rules in 2003 to establish a national do-
not-call registry for consumers who wish to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls. Under the 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-call lists if a consumer requests 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-not41 list or
company-specific do-not-call rules. These include surveys, market research, and political or
Mr. Sharpe’s complaint will be handled as a TCPA complaint. Complaints received by

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau regarding alleged TCPA violations are
reviewed to determine: (1) if they contain all the necessary information and can be referred to
the Enforcement Bureau for potential action against alleged violators; (2) whether additional
information is needed; or (3) whether the caller is exempt from the rules. Immediately
following the review process, we will send a letter to Ms. Sharpe acknowledging receipt of the
TCPA complaint and notifying him of its status. Where the Enforcement Bureau finds
evidence of an apparent violation involving a non-common carrier entity, 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
1
The Honorable Jack Kingston Page 2
company. Where the apparent violation involves a common carrier, the Enforcement Bureau
may proceed directly to a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture. The Commission has
issued numerous citations against violators of the TCPA and the Commission’s telemarketing
rules. (See the Enforcement Bureau’s web site at http://www.fcc.gov!eb!tcdlworking.html).
These enforcement actions can eventually result in monetary penalties of up to $1 1,O00 per
violation.
marketing communications to which they object. Mr. Sharpe may also wish to note that, under
the TCPA, consumers may bring a private lawsuit in state court to recover damages, if
Mr. Sharpe may register his telephone number with the National Do-Not-Call Registry
at www.donotcall.gov,or by calling 1-888-382-1222. He must call from the number that he
wishes to register. His number remains on the list for five years, subject to renewal at the end
of the five year period, unless he decides to remove his name from the list at any time.
We invite Mr. Sharpe to visit the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau’s Internet
web site at http:!/www.fcc.gov/cgbfor additional 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, Mr. Sharpe
should visit the FCC Consumer Registry at http://www.fcc.gov!cgblcontactsl.
questions.
Sincerely,
Erica H. McMahon
Enclosures
JPHN M a N
rn
June 12,2007

Chairman
445 12* Street, S.W.
I understand that the Federal CommunicationsCommission is considering a Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemahg on the implementation of a nationwide, broadband interoperable
public safety network in the 700 MHZ band and the development of operational,technical and
spectrum requirements for meeting Federal, state and local public safety oomunications
requirements. As a long standing proponent of providing spectrum in the 700 MHz band to
public safety entities, I would like to submit comments to be included in the public record that
reflect my own concerns on this important matter. Please ensure that this letter is bandled in
strict accordance with existing agency rules, regulations, and ethical guidelines.
The Federal government has made many strides in developing a comprehensive,

interoperable emergency communicationsplan, setting equipment standards, funding the
purchase of interoperable communications equipment, and belatedly making additional radio
spectrum available. However, our nation’s interoperability crisis will not be solved until all
emergency personnel involved in responding to an incident are able to comunicate seamlessly,
and that is what this proceeding should accomplish. As you likely know, the 911 1 Commission’s
Final Report recommends the “exphted and increased assignment of radio spectrum to public
safety entities.” The Federal governat must act to address the 911 1 €ommission’s clear
assessrnent.
I have been working on this issue for many years, even before the tragic events of 911 1.
Ten years ago, while serving as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, I introduced the Law Enforcement and Public Safety Telecommunications
Empowerment Act, which would have provided public safety with 24 MHz in the 700 MHz band
and authorized ten percent of proceeds fiom an auction of spectrum to commercial companies to
be used to fund State and local law enforcement communications. Although my bill did not pass,
Congress has M l y acted to require this spectrum be allocated to public safety on February 17,
2009 - a date that is too late in my opinion.
The Furlher Notice addresses WT Docket No.06- 150, CC Docket No. 94- 102, W T Docket No. 0 1-309,WT
Docket No.03-264, WT Docket 06-169, PS Docket 06-229 and W T Docket No.96-86,FCC 07-72(April 27,2007).
During my work on this issue, I have not only been concerned about public safety not
receiving spectrum in a timely manner, but also not receiving enough spectrwn. In 2004, I
offered an amendment that was included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act, which required the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Homeland
Security to study the short-term and long-term spectrum needs of public safety. As you know, in
December 2005, the Commission delivered a report that did not contain a specific
recommendation on the amount of spectrum necessary to aid public safety interoperability, but
did state, “ .... emergency response providers would benefit from the development of an
integrated, interoperable nationwide network capable of delivering broadband services
throughout the country.” The Department of Homeland Security has never provided its report to
Congress. However, public safety entities are on record stating there is a need 97.5 MHz of
additional spectrum to aid interoperability.
Earlier this year, I introduced S. 744, the “Spectrum Availability for Emergency-
Response and Law-Enforcement to Improve Vital Emergency Services Act,” otherwise known as
the SAVE LlVES Act. It would require the Commission to auction spectrum in the 700 MHz
under a “conditional license” to bidders that agree to share the spectnrm with public safety and
implement specification set forth by a “Public Safety Interoperable Communications Working
Group.” The Group would be comprised of representatives from the Association of Public
Safety Communications Officials-IntemationaI (APCO), International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP), International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the Major Counties Sheriffs
Association (MCSA), and others, including persons with experience in the commercial wireless
industry. The Group would deveIop specifications on network build out, construction timetables,
coverage areas, service levels, emergency preemption rules and other performance criteria that
would be conditions that must be met by any licensee. Additionally, the Group must set forth
open standards for equipment and usage that support upgrade and technology developments that
would be implemented by the licensee. The bill would then require the Commission to audit the
licensee’s performance in meeting these specifications every three years and revoke the license if
the conditions are not being met.
I am pleased to see that the Commission’s Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

requests comments on whether to establish a national public safety licensee to manage a 10 MBz
“E Block” in the upper portion of the 700 MHz commercial services band for a nationwide,
interoperable broadband network, which is similar to what is envisioned in the SAVE LIVES
Act. This proposal deserves serious consideration from the Commission. Such a network, if
constructed and maintained consistent with public safety standards where all agencies have
secure access and commercial interests are afforded a viable investment and participation
opportunity, would be an excellent use of the public’s spec- and an outstanding example of a
public-private partnership. Additionally, if this proposal or a similar proposal is implemented,
the Commission should ensure that the auction participants agree, prior to the auction, to public
safety’s specifications for the network.
I hope the Commission will review the objectives laid out in the SAVE LIVES Act in
your effort to draft a solution to our nation’s interoperability crisis. We cannot protect the
American public without reforming our nation’s interoperable communications networks.
Spectrum in the 700 MHz band is slated to be auctioned by January 2008, so if the Federal
Page 2
government does not act now to ensure that public safety has access to this valuable spectrum,
this opportunity will be lostforever. At the same time, this auction should not be delayed past
the January 28,2008, statutory deadline because any such holdup would only delay the transfer
of 24 MHz of spectnuxl to public safety that is so urgently needed.
Lastly, I hope that in preparing the rules far the auction that the Commission will
consider a mix of license sizes to facilitate the further deployment of wireless broadband and
ensure taxpayers are adequately compensated for the use of this public asset. Market-driven
auction policies, and not encumbering rules, would ensure that spectrum does not lay fallow due
to extensive litigation or for other reasons, and that consumers will not be denied the benefits
from wireless technology innovations.
Thank you for your work on behalf of our nation’s first responders and American
taxpayers. I appreciate your consideration of my views on this matter. I note that this letter
reflects my own concerns on this important public policy. Please ensure that this correspondence
is handled in strict accordance with existing agency rules, regulations, and ethical guidelines.
decision or course of action you may take will be made in the best interests of the country.
Sincerely,
Page 3
FEDER A L COM M u N I C A T Io N s COM M I ssI o N
WASHINGTON
OFFICE O F
T H E CHAIRMAN

Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission’s proceeding to establish rules for
licensing of services in the 700 MHz Band, and in particular your interest in the 24 MHz of
spectrum in this band designated for public safety use.
In anticipation of the upcoming auction, designating a portion of the 24 MHz of public

safety spectrum for public safety broadband use, and determined to license this broadband public
safety spectrum on a nationwide basis to a single entity - the Public Safety Broadband Licensee.
Under the revised band plan, this 10 MHz of public safety broadband spectrum is located
immediately adjacent to 10 MHz of commercial spectrum - the “D Block” - which also will be
licensed on a nationwide basis.
The Commission further determined that the best way to facilitate the construction of a
nationwide, interoperable broadband public safety network is through the adoption of a
framework for a public safety-private partnership between the Public Safety Broadband Licensee
and the D Block licensee. Under the partnership, the Public Safety Broadband Licensee will
have priority access to the commercial spectrum in times of emergency. This proposal received
broad support in the record from local, state and national public safety organizations including
the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials-International.
Ultimately, this shared network will facilitate effective communications among first
responders not just in emergencies, but as part of cooperative communications plans that will
enable first responders from different disciplines - such as police and fire departments - and
jurisdictions to work together in emergency preparedness and response.
Please let me know if I can be of any 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
( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
5353 NORTH16TH STREET

CHAIRMAN

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS SUITE 105
PHOENIX,A Z 85016
COMMITFEE ON ARMED SERVICES ( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410
COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE, 4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE DRIVE
TEMPE,A Z 85282
( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289
407 WEST CONGRESS STREEl

SUITE 103
June 29,2007 TUCSON,AZ 85701
(520) 670-6334
(602) 952-0170
Kevin Washington
Acting Director
Dear Kevin:
I wish to bring to your attention the matter concerning my constituent, Mr. Dominic Coppola,
who has encountered a problem with responses to his requests for information. Please
investigate, my constituent’s claim, within the existing rules, regulations and ethical guidelines,
and provide me with the final decision. MARK ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Alexia Ruboyianes

Suite 103
Sincerely,
’ John McCain
JM/tak
Enclosure( s)
June 2S", 2007
US Senator John McCain

407 W. Congress St
Tucson AZ 85701
Dear Senator,
Enclosed is a copy of an E-mail I sent to the FCC on March 23rd2007. Having received no reply I
. no response.
followed up with a letter dated May 2 9 ~Still
I think the transition from analog to digital in Feb. 2009 will be a great thing, but it seems like it
will cost some bucks for some of us who require more than 2 set top boxes.
I 'd appreciate your help in getting a response from FCC. Thank you.
Dominic Coppola
3721 W Sunglade Dr
Tucson AZ 85742-1133
J
May 29,2007

DTVinfo
445 12' Street sw
Attached is a copy of an E-mail I sent you on March 23Id,2007. I've yet to receive a reply..Please
respond by mail or E-mail. Thank you.
Dominic Coppola
3721 W. Sunglade Dr.
Tucson AZ 85742-1 133
E-mail: dompau12936@0l .com

Subj: Analog to Digitaltransition
Date: 3/23/2007
To: DTVinfo@fcc.gov
Very interested in the transition from analog to digital in Feb. 2009.WouM appreciate your
answering some questions Ihave about the cost for situations like mine as I am on a fixed
income.
1. We presently have 4 cable ready analog TV sets in our home. while we subscribe to a
cable company we do not subscribe to any premium channels (like HBO) and therefor do not
have or need any converter boxes. As I understand it with the Feb 09 transition we will need
4 set top boxes but will only receive $40 coupons for 2 sets. Since the boxes will cost
approx. $60 each the transition will cost me around $160(60 times 4 = 240 less 80 in
coupons). Have Igot this right.
2. Can we expect our cable provider to charge extra for providing the digital signal ? I could
not find the answer to this in the FAQ's.
Thank you for a response. Dominic Coppola
Sunday, May 27,2007 America Online: Dompau12936
1_1_ --.*_- --__I 1_--1

August 22,2007
INREPLY REFER TO:

CN-0701582

Suite 103
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dominic Coppola of Tucson,
Arizona, regarding the transition to digital technology in the broadcast and cable television
industries. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
As you know, the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005, adopted as
part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), established a “hard deadline” for the
transition to digital television (“DTV”) service in the broadcast television industry that requires
full-power broadcast television stations to cease analog broadcasts after February 17,2009. The
Act also established a program to be administered by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (“NTIA”) that is designed to assist persons who wish to continue to
use analog television sets to receive broadcast signals over-the-air after completion of the DTV
transition. It is important to emphasize that the “digital-to-analog” converter box program is
intended to assist persons who have one or more televisions that are not connected to a
multichannel video programming system (e.g.,cable television system). Pursuant to this
program, beginning January 1,2008, persons who elect to continue to use an analog set to
receive broadcast television signals over-the-air may be eligible to obtain two coupons per
household that are valued at $40.00 each. The coupons may be applied to the purchase of two
converter boxes that will enable the over-the-air digital television signal to be received and
viewed on an analog television. For your review and to provide Mr. Coppola additional
information, I have enclosed an NTIA Infomution Sheet and other NTIA documents regarding
the coupon program. Additional information concerning NTIA’s participation in the DTV
transition is available on the NTIA website (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/).
It also should be noted that, unlike over-the-air television broadcasters, there is no

general federal mandate that requires the cable television industry to upgrade facilities by
deploying digital technology. However, many cable television operators may be required to
upgrade their networks by local fkanchiseagreements and other operators are deploying digital
technology in order to compete more effectively with other video providers, such as satellite
television carriers. By deploying digital technology, cable television operators are able to offer
consumers more programming services and choices along with improved picture and sound
quality. The deployment of digital technology also has allowed cable television operators to
introduce new non-video services such as telephony and Internet access service, all using the
same network facilities.
The Commission currently is examining issues related to the availability of local digital
broadcast signals to persons, such as Mi. Coppola, who subscribe to cable television service. In
this regard, the Commission recently adopted a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FCC 07-7 1) requesting comment on the statutory provision that cable television system
operators are required to make the signal of certain broadcasters “viewable” by all of their
subscribers. In the Second Further Notice, the Commission proposes to ensure that cable
television subscribers will not lose access to broadcast signals aRer the DTV transition is
complete. The Commission proposes that cable television system operators may comply with the
requirement that certain broadcast signals be “viewable” after the DTV transition by either:
(1) carrying the digital signal in analog format, or (2) carrying the signal only in digital format,
provided that all subscribers have the necessary equipment to receive and view the broadcast
content. The comment period has closed in this proceeding and the record developed in the
proceeding currently is under review.
Finally, Mi-. Coppola should be advised that the Commission previously has determined
that the digital signals of local broadcast television stations generally must be available on a
basic tier that is provided to all cable television subscribers as the lowest priced tier of service.
In addition, while Commission regulations generally permit cable television operators who are
not subject to “effective competition’’ to recover certain costs associated with adding new
services to the basic service tier, the specific rate treatment of digital broadcast signals is under
review by the Commission in a separate rulemaking proceeding. A cable television operator also
is authorized to impose a fee for equipment, such as a set-top box, that may be required for a
subscriber to receive new programming. In franchise areas where the incumbent cable operator
is subject to “effective competition,” however, the rates charged for programming services and
equipment are no longer subject to government regulation.
I hope that this information is helpful to you and Mr. Coppola. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if I may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
%A;
Michael k.h(
Perko A h
Chief, Ofice of Communications and Industry Information
Media Bureau
Enclosures
ARIZONA
( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
5353 N O R T H 1 6 STREET
~ ~

SUITE 105
C O M M l n E E O N COMMERCE, PHOENIX,AZ 8 5 0 1 6
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410
COMMITTEE O N INDtAN AFFAIRS 4 7 0 3 SOUTH LAKESHORE DRIVE

SUITE 1
TEMPE, AZ 85282
( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289
SUITE 103
TUCSON,AZ 85701
( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
September 5,2007 TELEPHONEFOR HEARINGIMPAIRED
( 6 0 2 ) 952-0110
Kevin Washington
Acting Director
Dear Kevin:
I am writing to bring to your attention a matter raised to me by Shayna Crowell that appears to be
in the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.
When matters such as this are raised by a petitioner, it is my policy to refer them to the
appropriate federal department or agency, regardless of whether the petitioner has any personal or
political relationship with me. It is also my policy that I ask for no preferential treatment for this
petitioner or any single or select group of interests, nor do I advocate a specific outcome for this or any
other petitioner.
ethical guidelines. My sole interest is to ensure that this petitioner is treated fairly and equitably and in a
As explained in the accompanying correspondence, Ms. Crowell is very concerned that all
television shows do not have closed caption. I am enclosing correspondence from Ms. Crowell regarding
this matter. I would appreciate a timely response to this petitioner addressing concern, with a copy sent
to me for my information. Let me reiterate that I am not advocating a specific result in this matter, and I
trust that whatever decision or course of action you may take will be made in the best interests of the
country. Again, I seek no preferential treatment for Ms. Crowell and request only that be treated
appropriately, fairly, and in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
@
W
John McCain
mL
JMIdba
- -I I I~ - ~ -II -^
.___-
. ~ . I
Shayna Jayne Crowell
5350 w. Sunstone PL.
Tucson. AZ 8574.2
March 20,2007
241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Dear Senator McCain, John:
Hello my name is Shayna Crowell, I'm deaf, 17. My family is also deaf. I'm a student at Model
Secondary School for the Deaf. I will share my concerns about access to television captioning.
I'm very concerned that all television shows don't have closed caption. Some of television
shows are my favorite shows but they sometimes don't have closed caption. I just checked the law
under the Telecommunication Act of 1996 (PL 104-104) and it says the latest requirement to require
100 percent captioning, which means all television must have closed caption. There are some shows
without closed caption. Sometimes it have closed caption on, when the show's soon done, closed
caption isn't on. It's not fair for us, deaf people, we have less access. Even on DVD movies, some of
them don't have closed caption. There are some movies I wanted to watch so badly but I can't because
they didn't have closed caption when they are already required to do so by the law..
A new law, Telecommunication Act of 1996 (PL 104-104), was passed in 1996 (eleven years), and it
says: 100% of new programming must be captioned, beginning Jan. 1, 2006. All I want to see an
action from FCC to require all television networks to put close caption.
Sincerely,
Shayna Jayne Crowell

. Federal Communica~onsCommission
Consumer & Governmeiptal Affairs Bureau
OCT t 2007
Control No. 0701923-DRO
Ms. Shayna Jayne Crowell

5350 W. Sunstone Place
Tucson, AZ 85742
Dear Ms. Crowell:
Thank you for your correspondence of March 20, 2007, to Senator John McCain
regarding your closed captioning concerns. Your cmrespondence was forwarded to the
Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC or Commission) Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau for handling.
You express concerns that not all television programming is closed captioned despite
the requirement that, as of January 1, 2006, 100% of new programming must be captioned.
You also mention that the captions sometimes end before the end of a show, and state that
some DVDs are not captioned.
The Commission implements the closed captioning requirements of Section 713 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act), ensurinig Congress’s goal to make more and more
television programming accessible to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Closed
captioning is a technology that provides visual text to describe dialogue, background noise, and
sound effects in television programming. The ruled pertain to English and Spanish language
programming created prior to and after the January 1, 1998, effective date of the rules. As of
January 1, 2006, the Commission’s rules require that 100% of new English language
programming, including digital programming, must be closed captioned, subject to certain
exceptions.
Today, the vast majority of programming is being captioned under the Commission’s
rules and the 100%benchmark for new English lamuage programming. As noted above, the
captioning rules do contain provisions for exemptiobs. Some television programming is
exempt pursuant to self-implementing exemptions clontained in Section 79.1(d) of the
Commission’s rules, such as programming distributted between 2am-6am, primarily non-vocal
musical programming, and programming in languages other than English and Spanish. The
captioning rules at Section 79.l(f) also allow entitias whose programming is not exempt
pursuant to a self-implementing exemption, but for whom closed captioning would be a
significant difficulty or expense, to petition the FCC for an exemption based on the undue
burden standard. Some uncaptioned television programs that you have seen may be exempt
under the self-implementing provisions or may be the subject of an undue burden petition.
Ms. Shayna Jayne Crowell Page 2
Further, regarding the issue of captions cutting off before the end of a program, the
rules require that captions be delivered to the customer in a complete and intact way. Any
time you view uncaptioned programming that you believe should be captioned, or notice that
the captions stop before the end of the program, you may file a complaint. Pursuant to the
closed captioning rules, complaints must first be filled with the video programming distributor.
If the distributor fails to respond or provides an unSatisfactory response, the complaint may be
filed with the Commission. This process and the captioning rules are explained in “Tips on
Filing Closed Captioning Complaints’’ found at htto://www .fcc .nov/cqb/dro/caption. html.
As for the closed captioning of DVDs, under Section 713 of the Act and the
Commission’s rules, the obligation to close caption extends only to video programming
distributors -- such as television broadcasters, satellite broadcasters and cable television service
providers -- that deliver such programming directly to the home for residential reception, and
are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. As such, DVDs do not have to be captioned,
under current law.
We appreciate your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have

further questions.
Sincerdy ,
Nicole M. McGinnis
Deputy Chief
_-

ARIZONA WASHINGTON, Dc 20510-0303
(202)224-2235
5353 NORTH 16TH STREET

SUITE 105
C O M M l n E E O N COMMERCE, PHOENIX,A Z 85016
C O M M l l l E E O N INDIAN AFFAIRS 4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE DRIVE

SUITE 1
TEMPE, AZ 85282
( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289
SUITE 103
TUCSON,A 2 85701
( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
(602) 9 2 - 0 1 7 0
September 4,2007
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning June Hamilton who has encountered a
problem.
respond directly to June Hamilton.
Thank y m .
Sincerely,
@ 2F.z-
John McCain
JM/zsl
Enclosure
PRINTED ON RECYCLEDPAPER
August 27,2007
AUG 3 I m
445 N. 12h Street
Gentlemen:
On July 19-21,2007, a friend and I went to a pre-planned vacation in Primm, Nevada. On the
morning of the 19’h,my brother had a triple by-pass operation. I very much wanted to find out
how the operation went, but I didn’t want to make a collect call so I used a public phone and
requested the call be charged to my home phone.
When I got the operator she tried to put through the call, but then told me her line and
asked to me hang up and try another operator, which I did. When the call went through, no one
was at home so I left a message that I called and would try again later.
About two hours later, I tried again. The operator asked for my home phone number, then put
me on hold. When he came back on the line he told me no one answered at my home number. I
told him, of course not, because I was in Nevada, not Arizona. He then put the call through, and
again no one was at home, although it was after 8:OO p.m. in Illinois. So, I again left a message
and told my sister-in-law I would call again when I returned to Arizona.
On August 22, I received my phone bill from Qwest which included a statement from Legacy LD
Int’l. Inc for $69.10, plus $7.81 in miscellaneous charges. I am enclosing a copy of this
statement,
I immediately called Quest amd the gentleman I spoke with was very helpful, even though it is not
a Qwest charge. He called the company and stayed on the line with me. After waiting awhile,
someone came on the line and it was extremely difficult to hear him. We told him so and he
repeated his statement and we still couldn’t hear him, then he hung up. Qwest called the number
again and finally another operator answered, but the sound was only marginally better. I told her
I thought the charges were outrageous, the service poor and that since I only left messages there
was no way the two calls lasted 5 minutes each. She indicated that the charges were correct but
offered to reduce them by a very small reduction. I told her that I didn’t think that was
satisfactory, but to go ahead, even though I felt these charges amounted to gouging and I was
going to contact the FCC and the Better Business Bureau.
Since then, I have also decided to copy this letter to Senator Kyl and Senator McCah, for their
information and assistance.
-
I don’t know what your usual policy or procedure is, but I am hoping you can help me get these
charges reduced to a more satisfactory amount. Since I am on a fixed income and am 75 years
old with no outside income other than a pension and Social Security, I would appreciate any help
you can give me.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
$-
+/
June Hamilton
1583 E. Palm Beach Dr.
Chandler, AZ 85249
(408) 895-9626
cc: Better Business Bureau

Qwest (Please forward to Legacy LD Int’l Inc.)
Senator Jon Kyl
Senator John McCain /
peselaf 4
Qwest. -42
sm, I .
$9987 sep 4,2007
Bill ihte
Aaq 13,Mo7
Account Summary
Previbus Enlanee
-.
-
N
.o
Chest Charge8 .......................................... 22.95 3
CuabmerSeNice 1 800 244-1111 Payment Aug06 ............................. -22.95 q
Repair 1 800 573-1311
BPbnte ..........................................
tbWa - 8
Oufe8t LOGd &MIX?. .................. (Page 3),. 22.96

ZERO PLUS DIALING INC ............ ...(Page 4 ) . . 76.91
-
DIRECTVe newice available fmni
-
Tab! m w cham -.- - - - - - - - - .- -
~ - --
- ..- -
I . . --- * $99. a7
fmm Qweste: accem to over
250 channels of movies, news, Total Amount Due ......................... $99.87
international program, sports
and more all with 100% digital
-quality pictun, and round. Just
one bill and one number to call
for all your newices available
from Owest. For details
d l 1808-2734'775.
Please fdd fear here and retun pks pm3m Uwm y o u paymenr
Qwest
42
.&a%***.
To chenge y o u tnIng address.
call us at ~800.244-nn
Acmunt Number: 480-895-9626 386R
Bill Due Date: Sep 4,2007
AV 01 055858 29256H207 Af+5DGT TOTAL AMOUNT WE: ma7

llllilrlllllllllllllllllllil'lllillllllllllllll~rillllllllll~l
JHAMILTON
1583 E PALM BEACH DR
CHANDLER A 2 852448640
QWEST
P 0 Box 29040
PHOENIX, AZ 85038-9040
1illlllllllllll,,lllllll~lll~llllllllllllllll,llllil~l'll,llll
81 0114B08757b2b038bh 293130811307 000000000000 000000998708

7p em Ius dialin J HAMILTON
For questions, c a l l 1 888 511-0734
httpYlwwwLiltview.comlzpdY
Long Distance
Date Time Pia- hmber Type
The following transaction is billed on behell d:
LEGACY LD INTL INC
1. Jul 19 4:03P To BLUEISLAND IL 708 925 0265
3rdNo. Fr JEAN NV 702 874 1865 F 5 34.55
2. Jul 19 6:59P To BLUEISLAND IL 708 925 0265
3rdNo. Fr JEAN NV 702 874 1865 H 5 34.55
Type of Call Codes.
- -
F Day Station Operator or Calling Card Rate
-
H - Night Station - Operator or Calling Card Discount Rate
- - - __ _ _ - - - __
Total ZERO P L _U_S _DlALlNG INC Long Distance 10 $69.10
L __ _ _ _ ~ - _ _ - ~ __ - ~ ~
Miscellaneous Charges and Credits

No. Date kem Tax Code Amount
The folbwing transaction is billed on behal of:
LEGACY LD INTL INC
3. JuI 20 UNW S E W FD - 09 7.81
Tax Code Explanation.
09 - Tax Exempt Including Surcharge
_- - -
l ZERO PLUS DIALING INC Misc Charges and Credits
- _____-__ - - - - __ -
This portion of your bdl is provided as a service to ZERO PLUS DIALING INC.
There is no connection between Qwest and ZERO PLUS DIALING INC.
*
. Federal Communications Commission
SEP 2 6 2007
Ms. June Hamilton

1583 E. Palm Beach Drive
Chandler, AZ 85249
Dear Ms. Hamilton:
Thank you for your letter addressed to Senator John McCain regarding the rates charged
by Zero Plus Dialing, Inc. (ZPDI), which bills on behalf of Legacy LD International, Inc.
(Legacy).
The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed ZPDI and Legacy to respond to
the Commission in writing concerning your complaint. Generally, a company is afforded 30
days to respond to the complaint. You should receive copies of the responses that the companies
submit to the Commission. You may obtain information regarding your 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). You should mention your informal complaint number,
07-10283559, and the congressional tracking number listed at the top of this letter to facilitate a
prompt response to your inquiry.
questions.
Sincerely,
A
Erica H. McMahon

( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
5353 N O R T H1 6 STREET~ ~

SUITE 105
COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE, PHOENIX,AZ 85016
COMMIKTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS 4703 SOUTH LAKESHOREDRIVE

SUITE 1
TEMPE, A Z 85282
(480) 897-6289

SUITE 103
TUCSON, AZ 85701
September 10,2007 ( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
TELEPHONEFOR H E A R I N GIMPAIRED
( 6 0 2 ) 952-0170
Director
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Director :
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my constituent, George Smith, who has
encountered a problem.
CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Attn: Jana Pierce

Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
Sincerely,
& *=A John McCain

JMIzjp
Enclosure

980d #330
9- dd~pwuB5257
(602) 970-4724
August 30.07
SEP 0 5 2007 -
John McCain
5353 N.16th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Senator:
,
For the past- year and a half,I have been plagued by
persistant phone calls, day and night, seven days a week,by
some rogue agency calling itself, I 1 National Recovery
Service".
The automated caller only leaves an 800-387-5658,number
I believe it is a so-called debt collecting agency and
it may be for a disputed contract ending amount I had
with "Cingular" wireless,back then. Cingular is now defunct
and retaken over by AT&T.
I have tried to talk to these people about the disputed
bill but only get a rude talk-over responce.
I have never received any correspondens in the mail and
am unable to get a location from Qwest for the origin of
800 call, they tell me they are forbiden to give that
information out.
I understand these "debt co1lecting"organizations are exempt
from the "DO Not Call List".
If this is a naeion-wide effort by some 'boiler-room'
group,with access to citisens private phone
service,something has to be done.
Senator, I would like you to look into this matter with
your collegues in Congress, after your return to Washington.
If legislation needs to be enacted to put a stop to this
activity, than so be it.
As a 79yr old handicapped military veteran from the Korean
War era, this daily and nightly phone activity has me
distressed.
Thank you Senator, for what help you may be able to offer.
Regards :
ARIZONA OF FINANCIAL
DEPARTMENT INSTITUTIONS
Feleda A. Rotellini Janet NapoMano
Superintendent of Financial lnstitutlons Governor
August 27,2007
Mr. George D. Smith

980 N. Granite Reef Rd. #330
Scottsdale, A2 85257
Dear Mr. Smith:
Reference: Complaint #4012469(2008)-Smith
The Department has received your complaint. Please refer to the assigned number referenced
above in all communications relating to the complaint. If you have not attempted to resolve this
matter directly with the entity, we suggest that you do so. Dealing directly with the entity is
usually the fastest, simplest and most effective approach to resolution.
The issues addressed in your complaint and all supporting documentation submitted will be
reviewed in an effort to determine whether a violation of Arizona revised Statutes occurred. If
the Department concludes that a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes has occurred, we will
attempt to resolve the matter between you and the entity. However, we do not have authority to
resolve contractual disputes or undocumented factual disputes between a complainant and the
entity. In such cases, the complainant must resolve the issues through legal counsel or a court of
appropriatejurisdiction.
We will attempt to respond to your complaint within thirty (30) days. This Department will
advise you of its conclusion in writing.
_..
Neal Schafer
Senior Examiner
Consumer Affairs Division
I
2910 North 44th Street 0 Suite 310 0 Phoenix, Arizona 85018

Telephone: (602) 255-4421 0 Facsimile: (602) 381-1225
-1---_ -~ ----”.------
*_ __ _- - __ ~ - - _1 .
980d %dw%aa$ #330
-
9 dhqtw~w85257
1602) 970-4724
SEP 1 Q 2009
John McCain
4703 S.Lakeshore Dr.
Suite 1
Senator:
Thank you for your letter of September 5,expressing
a n interest j.n r? matter that has ~ l a g u e dm c for a
year or so.
As a result of a disputed charge from "Cingular
Wirelessttoverwhen my contract ended with them, I
have been receiving daily phone calls,day and night
from an agency identifying themselves as,"National
Recovery Service", with an 800 phone number of (800-
387-5658).
As of a few days ago, these phone calls have
suddenlystopped. I had credited your office with
this welcomed result.
I was unable to find out where these calls were coming
from, Quest is forbiden to give out the source of800
telephone customers and these type of agencies are
excluded from the "Dont'Call List".
I did try to talk to the a person at the 800 number
I1
but was shouted down'lso I gave up.
I'm sure this r o g u e orpnization j s still harrzsing
citizens across the country.
I would hope the proper government agency would l o o k
into such activity and try to put a stop to the use
of recorded telephone messages coming in on the
private phone lines of our citizens.
Unfortunately, no written request from either Cingular
Wireless or "National Recovery Service" has ever
been sent to me regarding this matter.
Thank you Senator, for your concern.
George D . Smith
PRNACY ACT CONSENT FORM
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

In accordance with the provisions of Public Law 93-579 (The Privacy Act of 1974), I hereby give my consent for
information concerning my file to be furnished to my Senator, John McCain. I request that any relevant information
he may require in order to assist in responding to my inquiry, as his constituent, be provided to him in accordance
with the provisions of law.
A
PHONE (Day)
PHONE (Evening)
OTHER NAMES RELATING TO YOUR CASE:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING WHERE APPROPFUATE:
GOVERNMENT AGENCY INVOLVED

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
CIVIL SERVICE CLAIM NUMBER:
VETERAN’S CLAIM NUMBER:

MILITmY SERVICE NUMBE
MILITARY RA
I affirm that by my signature I am attesting to the truth of all of the above:

A
SIGNATURE (required):
*PLEASE I N C ~ U D EA WRITTEN STATEMENT REGARDING THE DETAILS OF YOUR SITUATION
TEMPE OFFICEIAIDE INITIALS:

+
OCT 1 6 2007

Tempe, AZ 85282
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. George Smith, regarding
telephone calls he is receiving from a debt collection company, National Recovery Service,
about a disputed charge from Cingular Wireless (Cingular).
inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Mr. Smith to Cingular and
directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed Cingular to
send Mr. Smith a copy of the response that the company submits to the Commission. Mr. Smith
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). Mr.
Smith should mention his informal complaint number, 07-B0284932, and the congressional
tracking number listed at the top of this letter to facilitate a prompt response to his inquiry.
Mr. Smith’s concerns about a company’s debt collection practices fall under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC is charged with enforcing the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in
unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices, including over-charging, harassment, and disclosing
consumers’debt to third parties. We have also forwarded copies of his correspondence to the
Consumer Response Center, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20580, for its review and appropriate action. Mr. Smith may contact them toll
free at 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357) or visit their web site wwv.ftc.swv.
Sincerely,
Erica H. McMahon
cc: Federal Trade Commission

DEC 4 2007

Tempe, AZ 85282
This letter is a follow up to our letter dated October 16,2007, regarding your constituent,
Mr. George Smith, and his concerns regarding telephone calls he was receiving from a debt
collection company, National Recovery Service, about a disputed charge from Cingular Wireless
(Cingular).
On October 3 1,2007, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed Cingular to
information. Enclosed is a copy of the company’s response.
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 Mr.
Smith and Cingular to resolve his 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.
The Commission’s rules specifically provide that an informal complainant who is not
satisfied with the service provider’s response to the informal complaint, or with the staffs
disposition of the complaint may file a “formal complaint,” to obtain a full adjudication of the
merits of the complaint and pursue a claim for monetary damages if such damages are supported
by the evidence. See 47 CFR 6 1.720 et seq. We have also enclosed information on how to
proceed in filing a formal complaint with the Commission. Mr. Smith should note that formal
complaints are handled by the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau, the primary Commission
entity responsible for enforcing the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules and orders.
Mr. Smith may also choose to continue to work directly with Cingular to resolve his
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
Sincerely,
Erica H. McMahon
Enclosure
COMPLAINT RESPONSE FORM
AGENCY’S Federal Communications Commission COMPANY’S AT&T Mobility

NAME: NAME:
ADDRESS: Consumer Information Bureau ADDRESS: Regulatory Response Team
Consumer Information Network Division PO Box 97061
445 12* St. SW. Rm. CY-B514 Redmond, WA 98073
AGENCY
REP
NIA COMPLAMANT’S
I NAME: - Smith
George
AGENCY’S 07-BO284932 I COMPANY’S CM20071030-1500415

FILE NO.: I FILENO.: I
AT&T Mobility (“AT&,”) received the above-referenced customer complaint and appreciates the opportunity to
respond. Specifically, Mr. Smith states that he is receiving calls fiom National Recovery Service for an old
“Cingular” account that he disputed. He has attempted to obtain assistance without success regarding the disputed
bill.
An AT&T Office of the President Specialist has investigated Mr. Smith’s complaint and determined as follows:
After careful review of the account, the Specialist found that Mr.Smith’s last payment was on March 4,2005 for
his February invoice from January 24 to February 23,2006. He cancelled his service on April 26,2006, so he had
two invoices; one for the billing cycle of February 24 to March 23,2006 for $25.19 and the other invoice for the
billing cycle of March 24 to April 23,2006 for $25.28 plus $0.38 for late fees for a total of $50.85. The remaining
account balance is $52.53, which includes late fees that have accumulated. Account notes indicate that AT&T
received a complaint fkom him regarding the same issue in 2006; he was advised of the account balance on July 6,
2006 and sent copies of the invoices.
On November 2,2007, an Office of the President Specialist spoke with Mr.George Smith regarding the
complaint received by AT&T. In an effort to resolve Mr. Smith’s complaint, the Specialist explained hat the
account was not cancelled with a zero balance. The last $25.19 payment AT&T received for his account was on
March 4,2006, which covered the billing cycle of January 24,2006 to February 23,2006. The Specialist educated
him that since the service was cancelled on April 26,2006; he is responsible for service charges until the service
was cancelled. He is aware that the final balance of $50.85 is for valid usage and service charges; he did not pay
the final April 25,2006 statement. He is aware that any payments would need to be paid to the outside collection
agency, as they now own the debt. Although the Specialist addressed all of the concerns indicated on Mr. Smith’s
complaint, he remains dissatisfied.
AT&T regrets any inconvenience caused by this matter. Mr. Smith’s complaint is now considered resolved. We
trust this letter addresses your concerns regarding this complaint. Please contact us toll-free at 800-498-1912 if
you need additional information.
NAME: Jontelle Mason/ Jason Dukes, Oflice of the President Specialists DATE: November 20,2007
CC: George Smith
Response sent by: Alexzandria P i d RH
. ” -.
ARIZONA
( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235

~ ~
COMMITTEE O N ARMED SERVICES SUITE105
United StateB senate p34 PHOENIX,A Z 85016
( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410
4703 SOUTH LAKESHORE

DRIVE
SUITE 1
TEMPE,AZ 85282
( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289
407 WESTCONGRESS STREET

SUITE103
September 14,2007 TUCSON,AZ 85701
(520) 670-6334
r E L E P H O N E FOR HEARINGIMPAIRED
1602) 952-0170
Hillary DeNigro
Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division
V
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
445 - 12th Street, SW, Room 3-B43 1
Dear Chief DeNigro:
I am writing to bring to your attention a matter raised to me by Mr. John Foy that appears to be in
the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.
When matters such as this are raised by a petitioner, it is my policy to refer them to the
appropriate federal department or agency, regardless of whether the requestor has any personal or
political relationship with me. I ask for no preferential treatment for Mr. Foy or any single or select
group of interests, nor do I advocate a specific outcome for this or any other petitioner.
ethical guidelines. My sole interest is to ensure that this petitioner is treated fairly and equitably, and in a
As explained in the accompanying correspondence, Mr. Collins is very concerned about the use
of offensive lyrics being played on our public airwaves. He has enclosed a compact disc that provides
evidence of his complaint.
decision or course of action you may take will be made in the best interests of the country. I would
appreciate a timely response to this petitioner addressing its concern, with a copy sent to me for my
information.
Sincerely,
John McCain
JMIdba
John Edward Foy
2882 East Carla Vista Court
Gilbert, Arizona 85296
(480) 988-4239
April I?, 2007
Dear Robert,
Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me on the morning of February 2 6 ~ .
I was the guy who complained about a current rock song that used God’s name in vain 12 times.
You said you would email Senator McCain about my complaint.
I wanted you to know that I also sent Senator McCain related materials, including an audio
CD, to his Washington address on March 8*. I wanted to keep you informed, so I am now
sending you a copy of that same material.
Since I last spoke to you, I have made some new developments:
1. I have started my own lobby group, Arizonans Against Profaniv in Broadcasting
(AAPB).
2. This past Sunday (April 1,)’S I spoke of my mission to a group of four thousand
people at Central Christian Church of the East Valley in Mesa.
3. I am now receiving fiee legal counsel and representation fkom Robert Peters, the
President of Morality in Media in New York City.
4. Within the next two weeks, Morality in Media will be notifjing the nation of my
mission on their website, which has term thousand paying subscribers.
5. I have a related editorial scheduled to come out in the Arizona Republic, among
other newspapers, within the next two weeks. (The Arizona Republic alone has
an estimated half million readers per day.)
I have learned through Mr. Peters that due to recent Supreme Court rulings (i.e. “one man’s
profanity is another man’s lyric”), profanity in itself is currently not contested by the FCC.
However, if a community rises up and claims a specific case to be a “nuisance,” then the FCC
would be obligated to act.
In light of these new developments, I am once again asking that you have Senator McCain
issue a formal statement regarding profanity on the airwaves. As we all know, he has been
receiving a lot of bad press lately and a change of subject to something less controversial would
be in his best interest. I really believe in the Senator and would like to help him. I do not want
to print that his office had “no reply.”
Sincerely,
enclosures
John Edward Foy
(480) 988-4239
March 8*, 2007
Are you aware that the #lo song in our nation as of March 2007 uses the word
“G--damn” an unprecedented TWELVE TIMES? (This song was #2 in National
Airplay in January 2007 as per Billboard Magazine.) The name of this song is “This
Ain’t a Scene, It’s an A r m s Race” and it’s by the popular rock band Fall Out Boy.
I don’t think most Americans realize what is happening today on our national
airwaves. A few young rock groups are essentially playing a game to see just how
much they can get away with on conventional radio. Before “This Ain’t a Scene ...”
there was “I Write Sins Not Tragedies” by Panic at the Disco. That song used “G.D.”
six times and made it all the way to #2 in National Airplay last summer (2006). Now
we have “This Ain’t a Scene -. which uses “G.D.” twelve times!! I have always
.’7
admired your willingness to take a moral stance on difficult issues. I implore you to
please do something to stop this growing trend.
It is my understanding that “Life in the Fast Lane” by the Eagles was the first
pophock song to ever d e it into the Top 40 (#11 in 1977) and use God‘s name in
vain. In that case, the word “‘G--darnn”was used only one time and I a m told the FCC
never did clear it. Originally, the FCC did clear an edited version (with “G.D.” omitted),
but many radio stations throughout the U.S. started playmg the unedited LP version
instead. In time, this one use has unfortunately become accepted within the general
public and the FCC and has allowed other recording artists to fbUow suit. Please don’t
let this oversight happen again with this blatant use of 12 “G.D.”s in one song.
Webster defines “profane” as “showing disrespect or contempt for sacred things.”
The FCC defines “profane” as “those words that are so highly offensive that their mere
utterance in the context presented may, in legal terms, amount to a ‘nuisance.”’ Doesn’t
“G.D.” fit both these definitions? Isn’t the FCC supposed to censor profanity fiom the
airwaves? According to the FCC’s own website, they have actually fined radio and TV
stations in only 14 cases in the 6-plus years between November 1999 and March 2006 -
and those were for the “f word” or nudity. Isn’t it time “G-damn” be recognized as
profane by the FCC and that it hold at least the same legally objectionable status as
the “f word”?
Whether I hear from you or not, thank you for all you’ve already done for our
country. I hope you do run for President. For what it’s worth, you can always count
on my vote! !
Sincerely,
John E. FQY
P.S. I am enclosing a copy of a recent complaint (including an audio CD) that I have
filed with the FCC in a related issue.
John Edward Foy
(480) 988-4239
Mach 8*, 2007
Dear Chief Monteith:

I am requesting that the FCC fine radio station KEDJ (103.9 FM) in Scottsdale,
Arizona for allowing the word “G-damn”to be broadcast over their radio station
18 times within a 10 minute period on the morning of February 26*, 2007. I am
enclosing a CD recording of said program along with other related paperwork. I
am also notiijing station KEDJ in writing today of this request and, as such, I wish to
be personally apprised of any and all further developments regarding this case as they
may develop.
Respectfully,
enclosures John E. Foy
cc: Mr.NatGalvin
General Manager
KEDJ (103.9 FM) RADIO
. . - . -. . . .-.. . . , . ... . . . I . ” --
1 WallpapersMaka 1 Humorstream! I MySpecialCards I
We'll help you lose that I'U-never-understand-IRAs feeling.
1
Albums Chart
Singles Chart ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ#
0Artist 0Song
Home Page Fall Out Boy Lyrlcs
Most Wanted Lyrlcs
0 This Ain't A Scene, It's An Arms Race 0 I by Fall Out Boy
Top Musk Charts
I am an arms dealer
sites to Visit: Fitting you with weapons in the form of words 43
...........
Free Sheet Musk

And don't really care which side wins M
...........
As long as the room keeps singing
Hot Jessica Simpson That's just the business I'm in . 0
@ I.
...........
Vent Server This ain't a scene, it's rms race
This ain't a scene, it's rms race Acce
Lune
This ain't a scene, it's rms race
Music Artists I'm not a shoulder to
But, I digress
Music
MP3 Ringtones I'm a leading man
And the lies I weave are oh-so intricate
Ringtonas 000,000,000,000000 (x2)
Wintendo WII I wrote the gospel on giving up
Watch Crazy Videos (You look pretty sinking)
But the real bombshells have already sunk
(Prima-donnas of the gutter)
At night we're painting your trash gold while you sleep
Crashing not like hips or cars,
No, more like p-p-p-parties
This ain't a scene, it's a rms race

This ain't a scene, it's a ms race
Bandwagon's full
Please, catch another
I'm a leading man

And the lies I weave are oh-% intricate
000,000,000,000000 (x2)
All the boys who the dance floor didn't love

And the girls who's lips couldn't move fast enough
Sing, until your lungs give out

(Now vou)
'a
?his ain't Scene, it's a rms race
(Wear out the qroovel
This ain't a Scine, it's a rms race
fSina out loud)
?hisaain't a ScLne, it's a arms race
(Oh, oh)
This ain'c a Scene, it's a arms race
I'm a leading man

And the lies I weave are oh-so intricate
000,000,000,000000 (x2)
http://www.inetlyrics.codfall-out-b oy/thi s int_a_sceneits_~-a~s_race.

htm 2/26/2007
It's Not Over
7 RCA I DIGITAL 1 RMG
4 13
8 7 Gym Class Heroes Featuring Patrick Stump

Cupid's Chokehold
Peak
7
WksOn
7
DecaydanceIFueled By RarnenlAtlantic 1 DIGrlAL I Lava
9 " Peak
i
Won
18
w 4 Peak
2
WksOn
5
Fueled By Ramen/Island I DIGITAL I IDJMG
Purchase Historical Charts Top 1-10 Top 11-50 Complete Chart at 6illboard.bir
Records with the greatest airplay and sales gains this week have yellow backgrounds for current position.
Ado by Googk
The Soul-m-ate Calculator
You Can Calculate The Exact Name Of Your Soulmate, Try I t Now!
www .TheSoulmateCalculator.com
ART(STS
Grass-Rmts Campsign Making

A Star Out Of Canadian $5-
N a m i Shi-
t
About Us IContact Us i Glossav IFAQs Site Map IMedia Kit i Licensing Opportunities IClassifieds I RSS Terms & Conditions IPrivacy Pol~cy
http://www. billboard.com/bbcom/charts/cha.rt-display.jsp?g=Singles&f=The+Billboard+Hot+l 00 2/25/2007

fCC Home I Search I Updates I E-Filing I Initiatives I For Consumers I Find People
FCC Form 4758

1
J
Estimated Time Per Response: 75 minutes Approved by OM6 3060-0874
FCC > CG-B =. FCC Form 4756 _-FCC
site rnae

. -.- -__I_-
FCC Fonn 4758

Obscene, Profane, andlor Indecent Material Complaint Form
In order t o Process your complaint, the Commission needs the information marked below with an
asterisk
~ _ [*I._Infomatian not marked with an asterisk [*I, if available, is also hebful.
Consumer's Information: Submitted: March 8tht 2007
*First Name: JOHN

Middle Initial: E
*Last Name: FOY
*Post Office Box Number:
*Street Address: 2882 E. Carla Vista Ct.

*Either Street Address OR
Post Office Box is required
*City : GILBERT
*State:
ARIZONA I;
*Zip Code: 85296
€-Mail Address:
- -
Oaytime Telephone Number: (480) 9 4 -4239 Extension:
I
- _
*(1) Date of Program: 4 2-26-07
-_ -
* (2) Time of Program: :11:16am to 12noon
(3) Network: 8 n/a
*(4) Call Sign, Channel OR Frequency of the . .
station on which you viewed/heard the : K E D J FM /io3.9 FM)

material :
* ( 5 ) City and State Where Program Was
Viewed/Heard : GILBERT, ARIZONA
. --_
*(6) Name of Program or
DJ/Personality/Song/Film : "I WRITE SINS NOT TRAGEDIES"
by Panic at the Disco
"This Ain't a Scene, It's an Arms Race"
http://sva1tifoss2.fcc.gov/cib/fcc475B.cfm by Fall Out Boy
KEDJ (103.9FM) on 2-26-09
CD recording of KEDJ on February 26,2007 starting at 11:16:14 am (4-30 seconds)
Submitted by John Edward Foy of 2882 E. Carla Vista Court, Gilbert, Arizona 85296
(480) 988-4239 on March 8,2007
Total running time (unedited): 4S:OO:OO
CD Time_ Real Time (+/- 30 seconds)
0o:oo 11:16:14m
-
:20 1:42 11:16:34 - 11:17:56 am station ID’d & date given by “Last night on
the Academy Awards ...” & by ad for the
premier of “The Oprah Winfrey Leadership
Academy’’ TV special “tonight ...on ABC.”
3:08 - 4~12 11:19:22 - 11:20:26 am date given by various TV ads for “tonight”
including premier of “The Black Donnellys”
12~02- 12:16 station ID’d
23 126 - 24: 13 station ID’d
32:55 - 33~23 station ID’d
3 3 2 3 - 36:22 11:49:53 - 11:52:52 am played Write Sins ‘Not Tragedies” by
Panic at the Disco (contains 6 “G.D.”s)
36122- 36138 station ID’d
39:55 - 40~03 station ID’d
40:03 - 43:30 11:56:33 am - 12:00:03 pm played “This Ain’t a Scene, It’s an
Arms Race” by Fall Out Boy
(contains 12 “G.D.”s)
43:30 - 43:46 11:59:47 am - 12:OO:OONoon station ID’d & time given by ‘90 “
Minutes of the 90’s’ starts now.”

[i.e. 12:OO Noon]
SUMMATION
Within 10 minutes (1 1:SOam - 12:OO noon) I heard 18 “G.D.”s on KEDJ
(103.9 FM) in Scottsdale, Arizona and I want the FCC to fine KEDJ (103.9 FM)
at least the base monetary sanction of $7,000 per violation as per Title 18 of the
United States Code, Section 1464, which prohibits the utterance of “any obscene,
indecent or profane language by means of radio communication.” I believe “G.D.”
meets the FCC’s own definition of “profane”: “those words that are so highly
offensive that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal terms,
amount to a ‘nuisance.”’
Respectfully,
John Edward FOY3-8-07
”. ..._ 41-111. ^---- _-__-__^_ ~ .. . .. , . .. I..

I -. . . . ~ . . , .. __ ...
_,” .. .
.
.
l.
-
l_
l
_
_ .
-
‘.
.
-,
.
I-
.
-
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
October 25, 2007

Chairman
445 12th Street NW
We are writing to bring to your attention a matter

concerning a petitioner and constituent, Maurice Coburn,
which appears to be under the jurisdiction of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC).
It is our understanding that Mr. Coburn is the

proprietor of Eagle Broadcasting Group, Ltd. (”Eagle
Broadcasting”) that owned and operated a radio station in
Parker, AZ, under the call letters KVEZ-FM. In February
2003, Eagle Broadcasting filed an application for
modification of its outstanding broadcast license. Eagle
Broadcasting was notified by the FCC on February 17, 2004,
that its application was moot; therefore, it filed a petition
for reconsideration in March 2004.
According to FCC staff, the petition for reconsideration

was referred from the media bureau to the Commissioners on
August 18, 2005, for final action. Over two years later,
Eagle Broadcasting has yet to receive a response regarding
this petition. Mr. Coburn and our offices have been told by
FCC staff that the petition has not been voted on by all five
Commissioners, thereby delaying a response to Eagle
Broadcasting’s petition.
We would appreciate a response to Mr. Coburn with a copy

sent to us for our information regarding the status of the
petition. We trust that whatever decision or course of
action the Commission takes will be made in the best interest
of the country.
We also ask that this matter be handled in strict
accordance with existing agency rules, regulations, and
ethical guidelines. Our sole interest is to ensure that this
petitioner is treated fairly and equitably, and in a manner
that reflects appropriate and prompt service to citizen
taxpayers.
Sincerely,
Z h n McCain
cc: Commissioner Michael J. Copps

Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate
Commissioner Robert M. McDowell
E R A L COMM u N I CATIO NS COM M ISSI O N
FED
WASHINGTON
OFFICE O F
THE C H A I R M A N
The Honorable Jon Kyl

Dear Senator Kyl:
Thank you for your letter regarding the status of several petitions for reconsideration and
related pleadings that were filed with the Commission by Eagle Broadcasting Group, Ltd.
concerning the license of former broadcast station KVEZ(AM), Parker, Arizona.
As you know, the Commission’s Media Bureau has determined that, pursuant to section
3 12(g) of the Communications Act, KVEZ’s license had been forfeited for failure to operate.
Eagle Broadcasting has filed Petitions for Reconsideration concerning the Bureau’s decision.
The Petitions, as well as the related pleadings, were consolidated by the Bureau and referred to
the full Commission for review.
Last February, I circulated a Memorandum Opinion and Order that addresses Eagle’s
Petitions to my fellow Commissioners. At this time, however, while I have voted the item, a
majority of my colleagues have not. Thus, this matter has not yet been resolved. We will notify
you once the matter has been finally resolved.
I appreciate your interest in this important matter. Please let me know if I can be of
Sincerely,
Kevin J a a r t i n
Chairman
COMM u N ICATIONS COMMISSION
FEDERAL
WASHINGTON
O F F I C E OF
THE C H A I R M A N

Thank you for your letter regarding the status of several petitions for reconsideration and
related pleadings that were filed with the Commission by Eagle Broadcasting Group, Ltd.
concerning the license of former broadcast station KVEZ(AM), Parker, Arizona.
As you know, the Commission’s Media Bureau has determined that, pursuant to section
3 12(g) of the Communications Act, KVEZ’s license had been forfeited for failure to operate.
Eagle Broadcasting has filed Petitions for Reconsideration concerning the Bureau’s decision.
The Petitions, as well as the related pleadings, were consolidated by the Bureau and referred to
the full Commission for review.
Last February, I circulated a Memorandum Opinion and Order that addresses Eagle’s
Petitions to my fellow Commissioners. At this time, however, while I have voted the item, a
majority of my colleagues have not. Thus, this matter has not yet been resolved. We will notify
you once the matter has been finally resolved.
I appreciate your interest in thir important matter. Please let me know if I can be of
Sincer,ely,
Kevin /Martin
Chairman
241 RUSSELL SENATEOFFICEBUILDING
ARIZONA ( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235

~ ~
COMMITTEE O N ARMED SERVICES SUITE 105
COMMITFEE O N COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION Wnited States Senate PHOENIX, A Z 85016
( 6 0 2 ) 952-2410
COMMITTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS 4703 S O U T H LAKESHORE DRIVE

SUITE 1
TEMPE,A 2 85282
( 4 8 0 ) 897-6289
407 W E S T C O N G R E S S STREET
SUITE 103
TUCSON,AZ 85701
( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
January 8,2008 TELEPHONE FOR HEARINGIMPAIRED

( 6 0 2 ) 952-0170
Kevin Washington
Acting Director
Dear Kevin:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Sharon and Duaine Warren who have
encountered a problem with receiving unsolicited calls from an unknown entity.
Because the situation is under your jurisdiction, I am respectfully referring this matter to
-
you respond directly to Sharon and Duaine Warren.
Thank you.
-
you for consideration. I feel that this issue would be better addressed by you and request that
Sincerely,
W John McCain
JM/zsl

01/07/2008 14: 38 4808169960 AMAZING GRACE UNLTD PAGE 01
January 7,2007
Phoenix 602-952-8702 (or) Tempe 480-897-8389
Re: National Do Not Call list and a persistent violator
The Honorable John McCain’s Offlce(s)
I have a problem and I need your help. We are being “harassed”by a company
that is repeatedly doing computer calls and soliciting by offering lower credit card
rates (they are a generic company who do not identify themselves so it could
very well be a scam to get information).
We are on a national do not call list and I have to listen to a “canned”message

and press 1 in order to talk to a “live”person to tell them we are on a national do
not call list. Typically they just hang up on me. They called again on Friday and I
reported it online to the registry. They called again today and the person hung
up on me when I told them this is a repeated violation of the do not call registry.
The phone number that comes through on our caller 10 is 208 832-1438. When I
tried to call that number it says it iis disconnected. So, obviously they are using
somehow using a false telephone ID, which seems like it would be a federal
offense. I believe that is an Idaho area code.
I tried to do a reverse phone number directory online, but the only company who
claims to have that number charges $9.95 and has to be put on a credit card.
My husband is 76 and has serious heatth challenges. These phone calls are not
only annoying they are disturbing his rest and they are a violation of privacy.
Is there any way you can help to find out who this company is? Obviously the
pbce w e mport violators to online at: https://www.donotcall.uov/
Is not following up and there is no phone number where I can contact them to
talk with a representative of that office.
I would appreciate your help.
Sharon & Duaine Warren, 954 E. County Down Or.,Chandler, At. 85249
Phone: 480 816-9930
*fax: 831 851-9930
FEB 4 2008
Mr. and Mrs. Duaine Warren

954 E. County Down Drive
Chandler, AZ 85249
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Warren:
Thank you for your letter addressed to Senator John McCain regarding unsolicited
telephone calls you are receiving. Specifically, you are concerned with the continued receipt of
such communicationsand ask for assistance in the matter. Your letter has been forwarded to the
Commission for our review.
As you are aware, 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 adopted rules in 2003 to establish a national do-not-
call registry for consumers who wish to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls. Under the 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-call lists if a consumer requests 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-call rules. These include surveys, market research, and political or
Your complaint will be handled as a TCPA complaint. Complaints received by the

Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau regarding alleged TCPA violations are reviewed to
determine: (1) if they contain all the necessary information and can be referred to the
Enforcement Bureau for potential action against alleged violators; (2) whether additional
information is needed; or (3) whether the caller is exempt fiom the rules. Immediately following
the review process, we will send a letter to you acknowledging receipt of the TCPA complaint
and notifying you of its status. Where the Enforcement Bureau finds evidence of an apparent
violation involving a non-common carrier entity, 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
Enforcement Bureau can initiate a forfeiture proceeding against the company. Where the
apparent violation involves a common carrier, the Enforcement Bureau may proceed directly to a
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture. The Commission takes its responsibilities under the
TCPA seriously and, in fact, has issued numerous citations against violators of the TCPA and the
Commission’s telemarketing rules. (See the Enforcement Bureau’s web site at
http:/’n\xm .fcc.co\ ’eh’tcd/Morhinc.html). These enforcement actions can eventually result in
monetary penalties of up to $1 1,000 per violation.
Mr. and Mrs. Duaine Warren Page 2
information that explains the Commission’s efforts to protect consumers fiom receiving
marketing communications to which they object. You 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.
/cgh for additional information. The Commission provides interested
at http: u u M .Li.c.~~o\
parties with an e-mail service designed 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, consumer alerts, and public notices, among other
consumer information. To subscribe, you should visit the FCC Consumer Registry at
http: .fcc.go\ ’cd7’contacts .
questions.
Sincerely,
c;4#.MCHL
Erica H. McMahon
Enclosures

ARIZONA
( 2 0 2 ) 224-2235
5353 NORTH1 6 STREET ~ ~

Wniterl States Senate

SUITE 105
COMMITTEE O N COMMERCE, PHOENIX, AZ 85016
COMMITTEE O N INDIAN AFFAIRS 4703 SDUTH LAKESHOREDRIVE
SUITE 1
TEMPE, A Z 85282
(480) 897-6289

SUITE 103
TUCSON, AZ 85701
( 5 2 0 ) 670-6334
January 17,2008 TELEPHONEFOR HEARINGIMPAIRED

( 6 0 2 ) 952-0170
Kevin Washington
Acting Director
Dear Kevin:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning Mrs. Trina Faust who has
encountered a problem with the broadcasts she receives.
Because the situation is under your jurisdiction, I am respectfully referring this matter to
you for consideration. I feel that this issue would be better addressed by you and request that
you respond directly to Mrs. Faust.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
JM/tar
Enclosure( s)

Carrespondence Snapshot Report Page 1 of 1
/
JAN 112009
For Trina Faust( 869188)

Staff: phx Phoenix Office Casework From DC
-- __II
__ _l.l - - .______________I__-.___-.____I________._x_I_
Salutation: Dear Mrs Faust Email: faustfamily9@gtcinternet.com

Address: 1075 S. 6th St. Organization:
Cottonwood, A2 86326 Title:
Phone: Personal Codes:
(H) (800)555-1212
Correspondence 2273883:
Category: Corr Received Date: 01/08/2008 Due Date: 02/22/2008 File LOC.:2205833
Interest Cd: Staff: phx Letter Code:
Group: In: EML Print Date: Closed Date:
Description:
Comments:
RSP: Yes
Date Received: 1/8/2008 12:10:31 PM

Topic/Subject Desc: RequesffGeneral
I am a born and raised citizen of this wonderful country, the United States of America and of the beautiful state of Arizona. Recently my
children and I are experiencing a disturbing occurance in our fine land. This may seem a trifle, but I fear it is a sign of the times. We live in
Cottonwood AZ. We don't have cable TV or satelite TV, only Public TV. My concern is that within the last month, the transmission we are
receiving from ABC is being broadcast in Spanish. This intrusion of a foreign language being broadcast over our public airways is not
acceptable. This week when we turned on PBS we were once again plummeted into the foreign realm of a Spanish speaking culture with
several of our children's favorite children's programs on PBS being broadcast in Spanish. This is America! Americans speak English! Can
you please explain to me what is going on and how I might proceed with a complaint to the proper committee to stop the Spanish take
over of our public comminications.
Trina Faust
Cottonwood AZ
http://mccainia/Corr -Views/Correspondence-Snapshot.asp?ACTIVITYID=2273883&PE ... 1/11/2008

February 27,2008
IN REPLY REFER TO:
CN-0800217
Mrs. Trina Faust

1075 S . 6* Street
Cottonwood, Arizona 86326
Dear Mrs. Faust:
This refers to your letter to Senator John McCain Regarding your network programming
in Spanish. Senator McCain requested that we respond directly to you.
Generally, the Commission has no regulations requiring broadcasters to provide

programming in a particular language. While the Commission is authorized to license broadcast
stations and to regulate their operations to some extent, the First Amendment and the no-
censorship provision in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, limit our role in
overseeing program matters. With certain limited exceptions, such as obscene or indecent
programming, licensees are afforded a great deal of discretion concerning the manner of
presentation of programs on their facilities. Also, it appears that your television set may have
engaged the secondary audio program [SAP] feature which is now built in all television sets.
This feature allows English language programming to be broadcast on an audio sub-channel in a
different language. This feature is activated by use of the television remote control and can be
easily activated. I recommend that you consult your television user’s manual to disengage the
SAP.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
W
Deputy Chief
Video Division
Media Bureau

CREW: Federal Communications Commission: Regarding McCain, Clinton and Obama: McCain Doc: Part 2

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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: McCain Doc: Part 2

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

J2 -y%& 2 r-3- % 7 L 3

Universal Service Administrative Company

Administrator’s Decision on Appeal - Funding Year 2002-2003 4”

Re: Billed Entity Number: 150596

Funding Request Number: 882674

0 Upon thorough review of this appeal it is determined that charges contained in

Schools and Libraries Division

3 . I d e n t i f y t h e p a r t i c u l a r Funding R e q u e s t Number (FRN) t h a t is t h e s u b j e c t of y o u r

FCDL/Schools and L i b r a r i e s Division/USAC .Page 2 of 6 06/17/2002

FCDL/Schools and L i b r a r i e s Division/USAC .Page 3 of 6 06/17/2002

A G U I D E TO THE F U N D I N G COMMITMENT REPORT

3. An FRN t h a t is "AS Yet Unfunded" r e f 1 e c t s . a t e m p o r a r s t a t u s t h a t i s assi ned t o

FCDLjSchools and L i b r a r i e s Division/USAC .Page 4 of 6 06/17/2002

. DISCOUNT PERCENTAGE APPROVED BY THE SLD: T h i s i s t h e d i s c o u n t r a t e t h a t t h e SLD h a s

FCDL/Schools and L i b r a r i e s Division/USAC .Page 5 of 6 06/17/2002

FCDL/Schools and L i b r a r i e s Division/USAC .Page 6 of 6 06/17/2002

(Funding Year 5: 07/01/2002 06/30/2003) -

Re: Form 471 A p p l i c a t i o n Number: 328123

Schools and L i b r a r i e s Division/USAC Page 2 . o f 4 471RA L t r . 04/11/2002

Schools and L i b r a r i e s Division/USAC Page 3 . o f 4 471RA L t r . 04/11/2002

Schools and L i b r a r i e s Division/USAC Page 4 . o f 4 471RA L t r . 04/11/2002

Connie Fletcher Laird

RE: Latch School, Inc.

Dear Ms. Laird:

The Honorable Michael K. Powell

Dear Chairman Powell:

RECEIVED TIME NOV. 3, 6:31PM PRINT TIME NOV, 3. 6:33PM

cc: Commissioner Kathleen Abemathy

RECEIVED TIME NOV. 3, 6:31PNi PRINT TIME NOV. 3. 6 : 3 3 P M

Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Honorable John McCain

Dear Chairman McCain:

445 12th Street

United States Senator

I am a subscriber to “Dish Network.” t subscribe to the “Top

I will be forwarding copies of this letter to other individuals

Fcde ral Comm UII icat i o 11s Co In m i s s II) 11

Ms. Deborah J. Diteman

Dear Ms. Diteman:

The Federal Communications Commission has authority to enforce statutory provisions

To be obscene, material must satisfy each element of a three-prong test: { 1) an average

complaint to the Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations &

Chief, Enforcement Bureau

Obscene Broadcasts Prohibited at All Times

Indecent Broadcasts Restricted to 10 p.m. - 6 a.m.

Enforcement Procedures and Filing Complaints

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 2400 E A S TARIZONA

450 WEST PASEOREDONDO

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Senator John McCain

There is a $6.50 “FEDERAL ACCESS CHARGE”, on my $13.18 Quest stateme%

That is a total of $9.72 on my residence telephone charge of $13.18, which is 73.7% in

Thanking you in advance for your answep

Mr. James Shepherd

Dear Mr. Shepherd:

The Universal Service Support Mechanisms ensure that affordable access to

The Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) enables telephone conversations between

Enclosed is information to further assist you in understanding the charges on your

Additional information on telephone-related issues is also available to the public by

TT K. Dane Snowden 'J

cc: Senator John McCain

The Honorable Conrad Burns

Dear Chairman Burns:

I am pleased to provide you with the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”)