Public Notice: Open Internet Further Inquiry by technoverse

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 7

									               PUBLIC NOTICE
               Federal C1mmunicati1ns C1mmissi1n                          News Media Inf1rmati1n 202 / 418-0500
               445 12th St., S.W.                                                  Internet: http://www.fcc.g1v
                                                                                           TTY: 1-888-835-5322
               Washingt1n, D.C. 20554


                                                                                                  DA 10-1667
                                                                                            September 1, 2010

                            FURTHER INQUIRY INTO
           TWO UNDER-DEVELOPED ISSUES IN THE OPEN INTERNET PROCEEDING

                                              GN DBcket NB. 09-191
                                              WC DBcket NB. 07-52

CBmment Date: 30 days after publicatiBn in the Federal Register
Reply CBmment Date: 55 days after publicatiBn in the Federal Register

          In #rder t# pr#m#te inn#vati#n, investment, c#mpetiti#n, and free expressi#n, and t# pr#tect and
emp#wer c#nsumers, in late 2009 the C#mmissi#n issued a N"tice "f Pr"p"sed Rulemaking in the Matter
"f Preserving the Open Internet (NPRM). The NPRM seeks public c#mment #n rules that w#uld c#dify
the Internet P"licy Statement’s f#ur principles and strengthen them by pr#hibiting br#adband Internet
access pr#viders fr#m treating lawful traffic in a discriminat#ry manner, and by requiring pr#viders t# be
transparent regarding their netw#rk management practices.1 The discussi#n generated by the
C#mmissi#n’s Open Internet pr#ceeding appears t# have narr#wed disagreement #n many #f the key
elements #f the framew#rk pr#p#sed in the NPRM: First, that br#adband pr#viders sh#uld n#t prevent
users fr#m sending and receiving the lawful c#ntent #f their ch#ice, using the lawful applicati#ns and
services #f their ch#ice, and c#nnecting the n#nharmful devices #f their ch#ice t# the netw#rk, at least #n
fixed #r wireline br#adband platf#rms.2 Sec#nd, that br#adband pr#viders sh#uld be transparent
regarding their netw#rk management practices.3 Third, that with respect t# the handling #f lawful traffic,
s#me f#rm #f anti-discriminati#n pr#tecti#n is appr#priate, at least #n fixed #r wireline br#adband
platf#rms.4 F#urth, that br#adband pr#viders must be able t# reas#nably manage their netw#rks,
including thr#ugh appr#priate and tail#red mechanisms that reduce the effects #f c#ngesti#n #r address
traffic that is unwanted by users #r harmful t# the netw#rk.5 Fifth, that in light #f rapid techn#l#gical and
market change, enf#rcing high-level rules #f the r#ad thr#ugh case-by-case adjudicati#n, inf#rmed by


1
 Preserving the Open Internet; Br"adband Industry Practices, GN D#cket N#. 09-191, WC D#cket N#. 07-52,
N#tice #f Pr#p#sed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 13064 (2009) (Open Internet NPRM); see als" Appr"priate
Framew"rk f"r Br"adband Access t" the Internet Over Wireline Facilities et al., CC D#cket N#s. 02-33, 01-337, 95-
20, 98-10, GN D#cket N#. 00-185, CS D#cket N#. 02-52, P#licy Statement, 20 FCC Rcd 14986 (2005) (Internet
P"licy Statement).
2
 See, e.g., AT&T C#mments at 1-2; C#mcast C#mments at ii; Qwest Reply C#mments at 5; C#mmunicati#ns
W#rkers #f America C#mments at 12.
3
    See, e.g., Cablevisi#n Reply C#mments at 15; C#mcast Reply C#mments at ii; Veriz#n Reply C#mments at 18.
4
 See, e.g., Veriz#n & G##gle, Veriz#n-G##gle Legislative Framew#rk Pr#p#sal, at 1, available at
http://www.g##gle.c#m/g##glebl#gs/pdfs/veriz#n_g##gle_legislative_framew#rk_pr#p#sal_081010.pdf;
C#mmunicati#ns W#rkers #f America C#mments at 14-21.
5
    See, e.g., Free Press Reply C#mments at 10.
engineering expertise, is a better p#licy appr#ach than pr#mulgating detailed, prescriptive rules that may
have c#nsequences that are difficult t# f#resee.6

        There are tw# c#mplex issues, h#wever, that merit further inquiry. The first is the relati#nship
between #pen Internet pr#tecti#ns and services that are pr#vided #ver the same last-mile facilities as
br#adband Internet access service (c#mm#nly called “managed” #r “specialized” services). The sec#nd is
the applicati#n #f #pen Internet rules t# m#bile wireless Internet access services, which have unique
characteristics related t# techn#l#gy, ass#ciated applicati#n and device markets, and c#nsumer usage.
The NPRM raised b#th #f these issues but addressed them in less detail than many #ther issues, and the
C#mmissi#n’s analysis w#uld benefit fr#m further devel#pment #f these issues in the rec#rd. We
theref#re find it appr#priate t# further inquire int# these areas.

I.        SPECIALIZED SERVICES7

        In the NPRM, the C#mmissi#n rec#gnized that br#adband pr#viders may pr#vide #ther services
#ver the same last-mile facilities used t# pr#vide br#adband Internet access service.8 These services may
drive additi#nal private investment in netw#rks and pr#vide c#nsumers new and valued services.9
H#wever, there appear t# be three general areas #f c#ncern ab#ut h#w t# maintain the investment-
pr#m#ting benefits #f specialized services while pr#tecting the Internet’s #penness:

          (1) Bypassing Open Internet Pr"tecti"ns: Open Internet pr#tecti#ns may be weakened if
              br#adband pr#viders #ffer specialized services that are substantially similar t#, but d# n#t
              technically meet the definiti#n #f, br#adband Internet access service, and if c#nsumer
              pr#tecti#ns d# n#t apply t# such services. A similar c#ncern may arise if specialized services
              are integrated int# br#adband Internet access service; f#r example, if a br#adband pr#vider
              #ffers br#adband Internet access service bundled with a “specialized service” that pr#vides
              pri#ritized access t# a particular website.10

          (2) Supplanting the Open Internet: Br#adband pr#viders may c#nstrict #r fail t# c#ntinue
              expanding the netw#rk capacity all#cated t# br#adband Internet access service in #rder t#
              pr#vide m#re capacity f#r specialized services. If this #ccurs, and particularly if #ne #r m#re
              specialized services serve as substitutes f#r the delivery #f c#ntent, applicati#ns, and services
              #ver br#adband Internet access service, the #pen Internet may wither as an #pen platf#rm f#r
              c#mpetiti#n, inn#vati#n, and free expressi#n.11
6
 See, e.g., Public Interest C#mmenters (PIC) C#mments at Appendix B; Center f#r Dem#cracy and Techn#l#gy
(CDT) C#mments at 38.
7
 The NPRM used the term “managed #r specialized services” t# describe the services that we here call “specialized
services.” We av#id the term “managed services” t# prevent c#nfusi#n with services that have l#ng been pr#vided
by c#mmunicati#ns service pr#viders t# enterprise cust#mers, which may include managing c#mputing and
c#mmunicati#ns facilities #n behalf #f such cust#mers. See, e.g., CDT C#mments at 47; Akamai Reply C#mments
at 11; Wikipedia, Managed services, http://en.wikipedia.#rg/wiki/Managed_services.
8
    Open Internet NPRM, 24 FCC Rcd at 13116-17, paras. 148-53.
9
 See, e.g., Veriz#n C#mments at 8; C#mcast C#mments at 60-61, 64-66; American Cable Ass’n C#mments at 17-
18; Clearwire C#mments at 13-14; OPASTCO C#mments at 11, 13; PAETEC C#mments at 31; Bright H#use
C#mments at 13-14; C#vad C#mments at 9-10; M#t#r#la C#mments at 14-16; Sprint Nextel Reply C#mments at 2.
10
  See, e.g., Netflix C#mments at 9-10; CDT C#mments at 46-48; V#nage C#mments at 27; G##gle C#mments at
75; Free Press C#mments at 111; Dish Netw#rk Reply C#mments at 12; fO C#mmunicati#ns Reply C#mments at
20-21.
11
 See, e.g., CDT C#mments at 46-49; Independent Film & Televisi#n Alliance (IFTA) C#mments at 18-19; G##gle
C#mments at 76; S#ny Electr#nics Reply C#mments at 6-7.
                                                        2
           (3) Anti-c"mpetitive C"nduct: Br#adband pr#viders may have the ability and incentive t# engage
               in anti-c#mpetitive c#nduct with respect t# specialized services, particularly if they are
               vertically integrated pr#viders #f c#ntent, applicati#ns, #r services; #r if they enter int#
               business arrangements with third-party c#ntent, applicati#n, #r service pr#viders c#ncerning
               specialized service #fferings. Such discriminat#ry c#nduct c#uld harm c#mpetiti#n am#ng,
               and private investment in, c#ntent, applicati#n, and service pr#viders.12

These c#ncerns, particularly the sec#nd and third, may be exacerbated by w#rries that due t# limited
ch#ice am#ng br#adband Internet access service pr#viders, c#nsumers may n#t be able t# effectively
exercise their preferences f#r br#adband Internet access service (#r c#ntent, applicati#ns, #r services
available thr#ugh br#adband Internet access service) #ver specialized services.13

         There appear t# be at least six general p#licy appr#aches t# addressing these c#ncerns while
pr#m#ting private investment and enc#uraging the devel#pment and depl#yment #f new services that
benefit c#nsumers. These appr#aches c#uld be empl#yed al#ne #r in c#mbinati#n:

           (A) Definiti"nal Clarity: Define br#adband Internet access service clearly and perhaps br#adly,
               and apply #pen Internet rules t# all f#rms #f br#adband Internet access service.14 Specialized
               services w#uld be th#se services with a different sc#pe #r purp#se than br#adband Internet
               access service (i.e., which d# n#t meet the definiti#n #f br#adband Internet access service),
               and w#uld n#t be subject t# the rules applicable t# br#adband Internet access service. But
               such services c#uld be addressed thr#ugh #ne #r m#re #f the bel#w p#licy appr#aches, #r,
               alternatively, the C#mmissi#n c#uld address the p#licy implicati#ns #f such services if and
               when such services are further devel#ped in the market.15

           (B) Truth in Advertising: Pr#hibit br#adband pr#viders fr#m marketing specialized services as
               br#adband Internet access service #r as a substitute f#r such service, and require pr#viders t#
               #ffer br#adband Internet access service as a stand-al#ne service, separate fr#m specialized
               services, in additi#n t# any bundled #fferings.16

           (C) Discl"sure: Require pr#viders t# discl#se inf#rmati#n sufficient t# enable c#nsumers, third
               parties, and the C#mmissi#n t# evaluate and rep#rt #n specialized services, including their
               effects #n the capacity #f and the markets f#r br#adband Internet access service and Internet-
               based c#ntent, applicati#ns, and services.17 The C#mmissi#n #r C#ngress c#uld then take
               acti#n if necessary.

12
  See, e.g., Netflix C#mments at 9; S#ftware & Inf#rmati#n Industry Ass’n at 6, 8; V#nage C#mments at 27-28;
Dish Netw#rk Reply C#mments at 12.
13
     See generally Free Press C#mments at 14; V#nage C#mments at 7-8; Open Internet C#aliti#n C#mments at 71-73.
14
  See, e.g., V#nage C#mments at 27; CDT C#mments at 49-50; Netflix C#mments at 10; G##gle C#mments at 75-
76; Int’l D#cumentary Ass’n, et al. Reply C#mments at 16; Qwest Reply C#mments at 33-34; Sprint Nextel Reply
C#mments at 16-18.
15
  See, e.g., PAETEC C#mments at 31; G##gle C#mments at 76-77; PIC C#mments at 32; Free Press C#mments at
110-11; NTCA C#mments at 11; Akamai Reply C#mments at 11; CCIA Reply C#mments at 19-20; Dish Netw#rk
Reply C#mments at 14; Open Internet C#aliti#n Reply C#mments at 27-28.
16
     See, e.g., IFTA C#mments at 20; PIC C#mments at 35; CCIA Reply C#mments at 20.
17
 See, e.g., PIC C#mments at 35; CDT C#mments at 47, 51; CCIA Reply C#mments at 21-22; Int’l D#cumentary
Ass’n, et al. Reply C#mments at 16-17.

                                                        3
           (D) N"n-exclusivity in Specialized Services: Require that any c#mmercial arrangements with a
               vertically-integrated affiliate #r a third party f#r the #ffering #f specialized services be
               #ffered #n the same terms t# #ther third parties.18

           (E) Limit Specialized Service Offerings: All#w br#adband pr#viders t# #ffer #nly a limited set #f
               new specialized services, with functi#nality that cann#t be pr#vided via br#adband Internet
               access service, such as a telemedicine applicati#n that requires enhanced quality #f service.19

           (F) Guaranteed Capacity f"r Br"adband Internet Access Service: Require br#adband pr#viders
               t# c#ntinue pr#viding #r expanding netw#rk capacity all#cated t# br#adband Internet access
               service, regardless #f any specialized services they ch##se t# #ffer. Relatedly, pr#hibit
               specialized services fr#m inhibiting the perf#rmance #f br#adband Internet access services at
               any given time, including during peri#ds #f peak usage.20

        We seek c#mment #n each #f these c#ncerns and suggested p#licy resp#nses, as well as any #ther
c#ncerns #r p#licies regarding specialized services that the C#mmissi#n sh#uld c#nsider. Which p#licies
will best pr#tect the #pen Internet and maintain incentives f#r private investment and depl#yment #f
inn#vative services that benefit c#nsumers? In additi#n, we seek c#mment #n whether specialized
services pr#vided #ver m#bile wireless platf#rms raise unique issues.

II.        APPLICATION OF OPEN INTERNET PRINCIPLES TO MOBILE WIRELESS
           PLATFORMS

        The NPRM seeks c#mment #n “h#w, t# what extent, and when” #penness principles sh#uld apply
t# m#bile wireless platf#rms, with a particular emphasis #n furthering inn#vati#n, private investment,
c#mpetiti#n,21 and freed#m #f expressi#n.22 In light #f devel#pments since the issuance #f the NPRM, it
is n#w appr#priate t# update the rec#rd #n certain questi#ns related t# the applicati#n #f #penness
principles t# wireless. M#bile br#adband pr#viders such as AT&T M#bility and Leap Wireless (Cricket)
have recently intr#duced pricing plans that charge different prices based #n the am#unt #f data a cust#mer
uses.23 The emergence #f these new business m#dels may reduce m#bile br#adband pr#viders’ incentives
t# empl#y m#re restrictive netw#rk management practices that c#uld run af#ul #f #pen Internet
principles.24 Additi#nally, Veriz#n and G##gle issued a pr#p#sal f#r #pen Internet legislati#n that w#uld
exclude wireless, except f#r pr#p#sed transparency requirements.25


18
     See, e.g., V#nage C#mments at 28-29; IFTA C#mments at 18; CCIA Reply C#mments at 21.
19
     See, e.g., Institute f#r P#licy Integrity Reply C#mments at 12-13, 17.
20
  See, e.g., IFTA C#mments at 19-20; PIC C#mments at 33-35; CDT C#mments at 50; CDT Reply C#mments at
37-40; S#ftware & Inf#rmati#n Industry Ass’n C#mments at 8-9.
21
     Open Internet NPRM, 24 FCC Rcd at 13068, para. 13, 13117-18, para. 154.
22
     Id. at 13095, paras. 75-78, 13102, para. 95.
23
  See AT&T, AT&T Ann"unces New L"wer-Priced Wireless Data Plans t" Make M"bile Internet M"re Aff"rdable
t" M"re Pe"ple, http://www.att.c#m/gen/press-r##m?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=30854 (June 2, 2010);
Leap Wireless, Cricket Launches Industry-First All-Inclusive M"bile Br"adband Service Plans, Press Release,
http://phx.c#rp#rate-ir.net/ph#enix.zhtml?c=191722&p=ir#l-newsArticle&ID=1455833&highlight= (August 3,
2010).
24
  See, e.g., Leap Wireless and Cricket C#mmunicati#ns Reply C#mments at 11 (“carriers that charge #verage fees
t# cust#mers exceeding a certain usage level may n#t need t# empl#y such techniques” as limiting thr#ughput speeds
                                                             4
           A.      Transparency

         We seek c#mment #n what discl#sure requirements are appr#priate t# ensure that c#nsumers and
c#ntent, applicati#n, service, and device pr#viders can make inf#rmed ch#ices regarding use #f m#bile
br#adband netw#rks. What inf#rmati#n sh#uld be discl#sed ab#ut device and applicati#n requirements
and certificati#n pr#cesses? Are there any existing m#dels that c#uld pr#vide guidance f#r shaping such
rules?26

           B.      DeXices

         We seek further c#mment #n the ability #f new techn#l#gies and business m#dels t# facilitate
n#n-harmful attachment #f third-party devices t# m#bile wireless netw#rks. Can adherence t# industry
standards f#r m#bile wireless netw#rks ensure n#n-harmful technical inter#perability between m#bile
br#adband devices and netw#rks? Will depl#yment #f next-generati#n techn#l#gies (e.g., LTE) further
facilitate inter#perability? T# the extent that c#mpliance with technical standards needs t# be validated
thr#ugh lab#rat#ry testing, c#uld such testing be c#nducted thr#ugh independent auth#rized test centers?27
Were the C#mmissi#n t# require m#bile pr#viders t# all#w any n#n-harmful device t# c#nnect t# their
netw#rk, subject t# reas#nable netw#rk management, h#w w#uld m#bile br#adband pr#vider c#nduct
have t# change, if at all, in light #f existing device certificati#n pr#grams?

        As n#ted ab#ve, s#me m#bile pr#viders have intr#duced usage-based data pricing. T# what
extent d# these business m#dels mitigate c#ncerns ab#ut c#ngesti#n #f scarce netw#rk capacity by third-
party devices?

           C.      ApplicatiBns

        We seek c#mment #n h#w best t# maximize c#nsumer ch#ice, inn#vati#n, and freed#m #f
expressi#n in the m#bile applicati#n space, while ensuring c#ntinued private investment and c#mpetiti#n
in m#bile wireless br#adband services. T# what extent sh#uld m#bile wireless pr#viders be permitted t#
prevent #r restrict the distributi#n #r use #f types #f applicati#ns that may intensively use netw#rk
capacity, #r that cause #ther netw#rk management challenges? Is the use #f reas#nable netw#rk
management sufficient, by itself #r in c#mbinati#n with usage-based pricing, t# address such c#ncerns?
Sh#uld m#bile wireless pr#viders have less discreti#n with respect t# applicati#ns that c#mpete with
services the pr#vider #ffers? H#w sh#uld the ability #f devel#pers t# l#ad s#ftware applicati#ns #nt#
devices f#r devel#pment #r pr#t#typing purp#ses be pr#tected?

          We als# seek c#mment #n the extent t# which certain applicati#n distributi#n m#dels—such as a
m#bile br#adband Internet access service pr#vider acting as b#th a netw#rk #perat#r and an app st#re
pr#vider/curat#r—may affect c#nsumer ch#ice. If pr#viders were t# be pr#hibited fr#m denying #r
restricting access t# applicati#ns in their capacity as netw#rk pr#viders, sh#uld they nevertheless have
discreti#n regarding what apps are included in app st#res that they #perate? Are there safe-harb#r criteria
that, if met by a pr#vider, w#uld ameli#rate p#tential c#ncerns? F#r example, if a pr#vider’s cust#mer

f#r cust#mers that are heavy bandwidth users); AT&T Reply C#mments at 94 (“T# be sure, pr#viders can—and
s#me will—begin t# address c#ngesti#n challenges, in part, by ad#pting usage-sensitive data plans.”).
25
  See T#m Tauke, Veriz#n & Alan Davids#n, G##gle, J"int P"licy Pr"p"sal f"r an Open Internet,
http://p#licybl#g.veriz#n.c#m/Bl#gP#st/742/J#intP#licyPr#p#salf#ranOpenInternet.aspx (Aug. 9, 2010).
26
  F#r instance, the C#mmissi#n ad#pted transparency requirements f#r licensees in the 700 MHz Upper C Bl#ck.
Service Rules f"r the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands et al., WT D#cket 06-150, Sec#nd Rep#rt and
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15501 (2007).
27
     See generally New America F#undati#n C#mments at 29-31, 34; Veriz#n Reply C#mments at 56.

                                                       5
had a ch#ice #f several app st#re pr#viders that #ffered applicati#ns that c#uld be d#wnl#aded #nt# the
cust#mer’s m#bile device, w#uld that adequately mitigate c#ncerns ab#ut p#tentially anti-c#mpetitive #r
anti-c#nsumer effects #f a pr#vider excluding applicati#ns fr#m its #wn app st#re?

        Finally, we seek c#mment #n h#w differences between web-based and native applicati#ns sh#uld
inf#rm #ur analysis. Sh#uld a m#bile pr#vider have m#re discreti#n t# restrict c#nsumers’ d#wnl#ading
and/#r use #f native applicati#ns than they sh#uld with respect t# web-based applicati#ns?

                                                              ***

         The NPRM in this pr#ceeding included an Initial Regulat#ry Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant
t# 5 U.S.C. § 603, expl#ring the p#tential impact #f the C#mmissi#n’s pr#p#sal #n small entities.28 The
matters discussed in this n#tice d# n#t m#dify in any way the IRFA we previ#usly issued. H#wever, we
received c#mments c#ncerning the IRFA with regard t# matters discussed in this Public N#tice.29 Parties
that filed c#mments #n the IRFA, and any#ne else, are invited t# file c#mments #n the IRFA in light #f
this additi#nal n#tice.

                                                              ***

         Interested parties may file c#mments and reply c#mments #n #r bef#re the dates indicated #n the
first page #f this d#cument. When filing c#mments, please reference GN DBcket NB. 09-191 and WC
DBcket NB. 07-52.

         C#mments may be filed using the C#mmissi#n’s Electr#nic C#mment Filing System (ECFS) #r
by filing paper c#pies.30 C#mments filed thr#ugh the ECFS can be sent as an electr#nic file via the
Internet t# http://www.fcc.g#v/cgb/ecfs/. Generally, #nly #ne c#py #f an electr#nic submissi#n must be
filed. If multiple d#cket #r rulemaking numbers appear in the capti#n #f the pr#ceeding, c#mmenters
must transmit #ne electr#nic c#py #f the c#mments t# each d#cket #r rulemaking number referenced in
the capti#n. In c#mpleting the transmittal screen, c#mmenters sh#uld include their full name, U.S. P#stal
Service mailing address, and the applicable d#cket #r rulemaking numbers. Parties may als# submit an
electr#nic c#mment by Internet e-mail. T# get filing instructi#ns f#r e-mail c#mments, c#mmenters
sh#uld send an e-mail t# ecfs@fcc.g#v, and sh#uld include the f#ll#wing w#rds in the b#dy #f the
message, “get f#rm.” A sample f#rm and directi#ns will be sent in reply. Parties wh# ch##se t# file by
paper must file an #riginal and f#ur c#pies #f each filing. If m#re than #ne d#cket #r rulemaking number
appears in the capti#n #f this pr#ceeding, c#mmenters must submit tw# additi#nal c#pies f#r each
additi#nal d#cket #r rulemaking number.

         Filings can be sent by hand #r messenger delivery, by c#mmercial #vernight c#urier, #r by first-
class #r #vernight U.S. P#stal Service mail (alth#ugh we c#ntinue t# experience delays in receiving U.S.
P#stal Service mail). Parties are str#ngly enc#uraged t# file c#mments electr#nically using the
C#mmissi#n’s ECFS. All filings must be addressed t# the C#mmissi#n’s Secretary, Office #f the
Secretary, Federal C#mmunicati#ns C#mmissi#n, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washingt#n, D.C. 20554.

              §    Effective December 28, 2009, all hand-delivered #r messenger-delivered paper filings f#r
                   the C#mmissi#n’s Secretary must be delivered t# FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW,
                   R##m TW-A325, Washingt#n, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held t#gether with


28
     Open Internet NPRM, 24 FCC Rcd at 13136-52, App. C.
29
     See, e.g., American Cable Ass’n Initial Regulat#ry Flexibility Analysis; NTCA C#mments at 12-13.
30
  See Electr"nic Filing "f D"cuments in Rulemaking Pr"ceedings, GC D#cket N#. 97-113, Rep#rt and Order, 13
FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).

                                                          6
                   rubber bands #r fasteners. Any envel#pes must be disp#sed #f bef#re entering the
                   building. The filing h#urs at this l#cati#n are 8:00 a.m. t# 7:00 p.m.

               §   C#mmercial #vernight mail (#ther than U.S. P#stal Service Express Mail and Pri#rity
                   Mail) must be sent t# 9300 East Hampt#n Drive, Capit#l Heights, MD 20743.

               §   U.S. P#stal Service first-class, Express, and Pri#rity mail must be addressed t# 445 12th
                   Street, SW, Washingt#n DC 20554.

         Parties shall als# serve #ne c#py with the C#mmissi#n’s c#py c#ntract#r, Best C#py and Printing,
Inc. (BCPI), P#rtals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., R##m CY-B402, Washingt#n, D.C. 20554, (202) 488-5300,
#r via e-mail t# fcc@bcpiweb.c#m.

         D#cuments in GN D#cket N#. 09-191 and WC D#cket N#. 07-52 will be available f#r public
inspecti#n and c#pying during business h#urs at the FCC Reference Inf#rmati#n Center, P#rtals II, 445
12th St. S.W., R##m CY-A257, Washingt#n, DC 20554. The d#cuments may als# be purchased fr#m
BCPI, teleph#ne (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, TTY (202) 488-5562, e-mail
fcc@bcpiweb.c#m.

        T# request materials in accessible f#rmats f#r pe#ple with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electr#nic files, audi# f#rmat), send an e-mail t# fcc504@fcc.g#v #r call the C#nsumer & G#vernmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (v#ice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

         This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-discl#se” pr#ceeding in acc#rdance with the ex parte
rules.31 Pers#ns making #ral ex parte presentati#ns are reminded that mem#randa summarizing the
presentati#ns must c#ntain summaries #f the substance #f the presentati#ns and n#t merely a listing #f the
subjects discussed. M#re than a #ne- #r tw#-sentence descripti#n #f the views and arguments presented
generally is required.32 Other requirements pertaining t# #ral and written presentati#ns are set f#rth in
secti#n 1.1206(b) #f the rules.33

           F#r further inf#rmati#n, c#ntact William Keh#e, (202) 418-7122, #r J#hn Spencer, (202) 418-
2487.

                                                      -FCC-




31
     47 C.F.R. § 1.1200 et seq.
32
     See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).
33
     47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).

                                                        7

								
To top