text:
Response to Add. ICC Brief, In Re: FCC 11-161, No. 11-9900 (10th Cir.)
Download OptionsReleased: March 20, 2013
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 1
(202) 418-1740
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 2
Table of Authorities.......................................................................................... ii
Glossary ........................................................................................................... iv
Issues Presented ................................................................................................. 1
Counterstatement ............................................................................................... 2
Limiting Explicit Subsidies Under The Recovery
Mechanism To Incumbent LECs. ..................................................... 3
Combating Access Stimulation. ........................................................ 6
Accelerating The Transition To Bill-and-Keep For
Non-Access Traffic That LECs Exchange With
Wireless Providers. ......................................................................... 11
Argument ......................................................................................................... 15
The FCC Reasonably Limited CAF Support Under The
Recovery Mechanism To Incumbent LECs. ............................................ 15
II. The FCC's Access Stimulation Rules For CLECS Are
Reasonable. .............................................................................................. 22
III. The FCC Reasonably Adopted A Swifter Transition To Bill-
And-Keep For Non-Access Wireless Traffic Than For Other
Telecommunications Exchanged With A LEC. ....................................... 27
Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 35
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 3
Alenco Commc'ns v. FCC, 201 F.3d 608 (5th Cir.
2000) ..................................................................................................... 15, 28
American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 454 F.3d 329
(D.C. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................... 22
Ark Initiative v. U.S. Forest Service, 660 F.3d 1256
(10th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................... 24
Covad Commc'ns Co. v. FCC, 450 F.3d 528 (D.C.
Cir. 2006) .............................................................................................. 17, 27
Farley Transp. Co. v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co.,
778 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1985) ....................................................................... 8
Farmers and Merchants Mut. Tel. Co. v. FCC, 668
F.3d 714 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 10
IMC Kalium Carlsbad, Inc. v. Interior Bd. Of Land
Appeals, 206 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2000) .................................................... 26
MCI WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 209 F.3d 760 (D.C.
Cir. 2000) ..................................................................................................... 24
Nat'l Ass'n of State Util. Consumer Advocates v.
FCC, 372 F.3d 454 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ........................................................... 18
Qwest Commc'ns Int'l Inc. v. FCC, 398 F.3d 1222
(10th Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................... 15
Rural Cellular Ass'n v. FCC, 588 F.3d 1095 (D.C.
Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................. 15, 21
Sorenson Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, 659 F.3d 1035
(10th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................ 14, 21, 28, 35
Texas Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. FCC, 265 F.3d
313 (5th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................... 19
Worley Mills, Inc. v. NLRB, 685 F.2d 362 (10th Cir.
1982) ............................................................................................................ 26
47 U.S.C. §201(b)............................................................................................ 13
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 4
47 U.S.C. §204(a)(3) ......................................................................................... 8
47 U.S.C. §214(e) ............................................................................................ 19
47 U.S.C. §214(e)(2) ....................................................................................... 19
47 U.S.C. §251(b)(5) ....................................................................................... 28
47 U.S.C. §251(h).............................................................................................. 2
47 U.S.C. §254(g).............................................................................................. 9
Access Charge Reform, 15 FCC Rcd 12962 (2000),
aff'd in part, remanded in part, Texas Office of
Pub. Util. Counsel v. FCC, 265 F.3d 313 (5th
Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................... 19
Access Charge Reform, 16 FCC Rcd 9923 (2001) ................................. passim
Implementation of the Local Competition
Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of
1996, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) ................................................... 12, 29, 30
Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic,
16 FCC Rcd 9151 (2001) ............................................................................ 30
PrairieWave Telecomms., Inc. Petition for Waiver,
23 FCC Rcd 2556 (2008) ..................................................................... 24, 25
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 5
GLOSSARY1996 Act
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Communications Act of 1934
Administrative Procedure Act
Access Recovery Charge
Br. Petitioners'
Connect America Fund
Competitive Local Exchange Carrier
COLR Carrier of Last Resort
ETC Eligible Telecommunications Carrier
ICC Intercarrier
Internet Service Provider
Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
Interexchange Carrier
JA Joint
LEC Local
NECA National Exchange Carrier Association
National Telecommunications Cooperative
RICA Rural Independent Competitive Alliance
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 6
ISSUES PRESENTEDWhether the FCC acted within its discretion in:
(1) Limiting explicit Connect America Fund subsidies, available on a
transitional basis, to incumbent local exchange carriers;
(2) Adopting rules to combat regulatory arbitrage schemes known as
"access stimulation" or "traffic pumping"; and
(3) Adopting a swifter transition to a bill-and-keep framework for local
("non-access") wireless telecommunications traffic exchanged with
local exchange carriers than for other types of traffic.
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 7
In the Order on review, the FCC adopted comprehensive intercarrier
compensation ("ICC") reform for telecommunications traffic exchanged with
local exchange carriers ("LECs"). There are two types of LECs: (1)
"incumbent" LECs (or "ILECs") – companies that provided local telephone
service on a monopoly basis at the time the Telecommunications Act of 1996
("the 1996 Act") was enacted; and (2) newer "competitive LECs" (or
"CLECs") that have entered the local telephone marketplace since 1996.
For many years – and until the reforms adopted in the Order are fully
implemented – federal and state regulators have generally required long-
distance carriers (also known as "interexchange carriers" or "IXCs") to pay
access charges to LECs that originate and terminate long-distance calls. See
FCC Preliminary Br. 4-5. The origination or termination of these long-
distance calls is sometimes called "access traffic." To promote universal
service goals, the access charges long-distance carriers pay to incumbent
LECs have been used to provide implicit subsidies to support the LECs' local
1 Connect America Fund, 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (2011) ("Order") (JA__). On
December 23, 2011, the FCC adopted a sua sponte order on reconsideration
that also is pertinent to the issues presented in this case. Connect America
Fund, 26 FCC Rcd 17633 (2011) ("Reconsideration Order") (JA__).
2 See 47 U.S.C. §251(h) (defining "incumbent local exchange carrier").
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 8
networks. See id.at 3-5. "Non-access" (or "local") telephone calls have been
subject to a different intercarrier compensation framework. See id. at 11-12.
Under the new intercarrier compensation rules adopted in the Order,
the FCC plans to transition both access and non-access traffic to a "bill-and-
keep" framework under which intercarrier compensation obligations will be
eliminated. See Order ¶¶736-737 (JA___). The Order's ICC reforms
address telecommunications traffic that CLECs and ILECs exchange with
each other, as well as traffic that they each exchange with long-distance
carriers and wireless providers. See id. ¶34 (JA__).
Petitioners – a trade association representing rural ILECs, another trade
association representing CLECs, and various individual CLECs – collectively
challenge three facets of the FCC's Order, each of which we address in this
supplemental ICC brief.
1. Limiting Explicit Subsidies Under The Recovery
Mechanism To Incumbent LECs.The Order establishes a multi-year transition to bill-and-keep that
initially caps intercarrier rates for terminating access and non-access
telecommunications traffic at current levels, and then reduces many of these
rates each year to reach bill-and-keep (in six years for price cap carriers, and
in nine years for rate-of-return carriers). Order ¶801 (JA__). The FCC
sought further comment on how to transition to a bill-and-keep methodology
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 9
with respect to the ICC rates for originating access (as well as other rate
elements not specifically reduced by the Order). Order ¶¶1297-1305 (JA__-
__). In the meantime, the Order caps (1) interstate and intrastate originating
access charges for ILECs that are subject to price cap regulation (known as
"price cap carriers"), and (2) interstate originating access charges for ILECs
subject to rate-of-return regulation ("rate-of-return carriers"). Order ¶¶739,
800-801 (JA__, __-__); see also FCC Preliminary Br. 10 & nn.7- 8
(describing price cap and rate-of-return regulation of ILECs).
Unlike ILEC access charges, CLEC access charges have not been
subject to traditional – price cap or rate-of-return – rate regulation by the
FCC. Rather, under the access charge regime that pre-dated the Order,
CLECs were required to set their tariffed access charges at or below the rates
charged by the incumbent LEC operating in each CLEC's service area (a
regulatory method known as "benchmarking"). Under the reforms adopted
in the Order, CLECs must reduce their intercarrier compensation rates
according to the same schedules that govern the ILECs (both rate-of-return
3 In the 2001 CLEC Access Charge Order, the FCC permitted most CLECs,
following a transitional period, to tariff their interstate access charges only if
they are set at or below the levels contained in the access tariff of the ILEC in
the area in which the two carriers compete. Access Charge Reform, 16 FCC
Rcd 9923, 9944-45 ¶¶51-52, 54 (2001) ("CLEC Access Charge Order"). The
FCC also provided for a limited exemption that permits certain rural CLECs
to benchmark their rates to a higher threshold. Id. at 9955-56 ¶¶80-81.
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 10
and price cap carriers) to which their rates are benchmarked. Order ¶801 &
Figure 9 (JA__-__).
As described in our Principal ICC Brief (Argument II), the FCC in the
Order also adopted a transitional recovery mechanism – comprised of a
capped federally tariffed end-user charge (the "Access Recovery Charge" or
"ARC") and, if that is insufficient, direct subsidies from the Connect America
Fund ("CAF") – to mitigate the effect of reduced ILEC intercarrier
compensation revenues. See generally Order ¶¶847-932 (JA__-__). CLECs
also are permitted to recover reduced ICC revenues through end-user charges
– but they (unlike ILECs) benefit from the ability to impose such charges
without the caps to which the ARC is subject. Id. ¶864 (JA__).
Because, among other things, CLECs enjoy greater regulatory
flexibility than ILECs with respect to their rates and service obligations, the
FCC declined to further burden the limited resources of the universal service
fund by augmenting end-user revenues for CLECs with explicit subsidies
from the CAF. Order ¶¶864-865 (JA__-__).
4 The exchange of wireless traffic is subject to a different transition. See
Argument III, below.
5 Carriers "receiving CAF support to offset lost ICC revenues [must] … use
the money to advance [the FCC's] goals for universal voice and broadband."
Order ¶37 (JA__); see also id. ¶918 (JA__).
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 11
2. Combating Access Stimulation.
In the Order, the FCC also took steps to reduce incentives for access
stimulation – also known as "traffic pumping" – and to mitigate the harm to
IXCs that are forced to pay inflated rates for traffic subject to such schemes.
Order ¶¶656-701 (JA__-__).
Traffic pumping is a type of regulatory arbitrage that involves
LECs that are able to charge relatively high per-minute rates for terminating
access service, often because they operate in rural areas where their average
per-minute costs historically have been high and are presumed to be high in
the future. In traffic-pumping schemes, LECs typically enter into contractual
arrangements with providers of "high call volume operations" – such as "chat
line[]" providers, "adult entertainment" service providers, and "conference
call[ing]" companies. Order ¶656 (JA__). These businesses often generate
huge volumes of incoming long-distance calls by offering their services to
consumers for free. See 2011 NPRM ¶636 (JA__); Order ¶656 (JA__). As
the LECs terminate more traffic by connecting these calls to their recipients,
the LECs' average termination cost per minute drops sharply. But so long as
IXCs keep paying access charges, the LECs' revenue per minute of traffic
6 Connect America Fund, 26 FCC Rcd 4554, 4761 ¶648 (2011) (JA__)
("2011 NPRM"); Order ¶663 (JA__).
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 12
stays constant. The result is "a jump in revenues and thus inflated profits."
Order ¶657 (JA__). Because these per-minute charges bear no reasonable
relation to the LECs' actual costs of providing service, the FCC found that
the access rates charged by LECs that engage in traffic pumping are "almost
uniformly … unjust and unreasonable under section 201(b) of the Act." Id.
Under traffic-pumping or access-stimulation schemes, LECs share their
revenues with the contracting entities (e.g., the chat line providers or
conference calling companies) pursuant to a pre-existing agreement. The
revenue-sharing arrangement effectively subsidizes the purportedly "free"
services that these entities offer to the public. But these services in fact come
at a cost: the IXCs are paying for them, and ultimately pass those costs on to
their long-distance customers. See 2011 NPRM ¶636 (JA__); Order ¶656
(JA__). Thus, there is a classic implicit cross-subsidy: one group of
customers pays higher rates for one service (in this case, long-distance
service) so that customers of other services (chat lines or conference calling)
pay lower rates or, indeed, nothing at all.
Traffic pumping particularly concerns the FCC because it exploits
several features of the existing regulatory system. First, traffic pumping
relies on LECs' ability to unilaterally set tariffed, non-negotiated charges for
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 13
terminating access services, and on the fact that IXCs often cannot receive
refunds of tariffed charges that are later found to be unreasonable. See 2011
NPRM ¶¶ 644, 646, 653-654 (JA__, __, __-__); 47 U.S.C. §204(a)(3)
(providing that certain tariffs are "deemed lawful" if not rejected or
suspended and investigated by the FCC).
Second, traffic pumping allows LECs to impose tariffed rates that are
untethered to their actual costs. ILEC traffic pumpers do so by setting
tariffed rates based on historical low-volume costs per minute, even as they
use traffic pumping to sharply increase their traffic volume. See 2011 NPRM
¶648 (JA__); Order ¶662 (JA__). CLEC traffic pumpers accomplish a
similar decoupling of rates and costs by charging benchmarked rates equal to
those of the competing ILEC, or to a higher benchmark that is available to
certain CLECs that serve rural areas. A traffic-pumping CLEC's actual per
7 In contrast with an individually negotiated contract, a tariff is a schedule
of charges, terms, and conditions of service that a communications carrier
unilaterally determines and files with the FCC (for interstate service) or a
state commission (for intrastate service). Unless the relevant regulator
suspends or rejects the tariff, those rates, terms, and conditions are "binding
on the parties and ha[ve] the force of law." Farley Transp. Co. v. Santa Fe
Trail Transp. Co., 778 F.2d 1365, 1372 (9th Cir. 1985).
8 See note 3, above; see also CLEC Access Charge Order, 16 FCC Rcd at
9944-45 ¶¶51-52, 54, 9955-56 ¶¶80-81.
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 14
minute costs generally are far lower than its benchmarked rates. See 2011
NPRM ¶¶649-650 (JA__-__); Order ¶689 (JA__).
Third, traffic pumping takes advantage of rules that prohibit IXCs from
blocking traffic to certain LECs or certain telephone numbers. If IXCs could
refuse to deliver traffic pumped pursuant to these schemes, they often would
do so. See 2011 NPRM ¶654 (JA__); see also Order ¶734 (JA__) (discussing
the prohibition on call blocking).
Finally, traffic pumping relies on IXCs' regulatory obligation to charge
their own customers geographically averaged rates. See 47 U.S.C. §254(g).
If IXCs could recover the cost of traffic-stimulation schemes from the
particular customers who use the chat-line and other services at issue, those
customers would effectively pay for the services they received, and the
nominally "free" services would be less appealing to them. See 2011 NPRM
¶654 (JA__); Order ¶663 (JA__). As a result, under the existing regulatory
framework preceding the Order, users of these "free" calling services had
every incentive to continue to use them, while LECs that profit from traffic
pumping had every incentive to continue to do so.
Looking at the extensive record evidence before it, the FCC
found that traffic pumping costs IXCs hundreds of millions of dollars per
year, and billions over the past five years. See Order ¶664 (JA__) (relying on
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 15
"estimates that the total cost of access stimulation to IXCs has been more
than $2.3 billion over the past five years" and that "the overall costs to IXCs
[are] between $330 and $440 million per year"). These costs not only cause
all users of long-distance services to pay more; they also reduce "the amount
of capital available to invest in broadband deployment and other network
investments that would benefit consumers." Id. ¶¶663-664 (JA__).
The FCC further concluded that traffic pumping distorts the market for
services such as conference calling, "harm[ing] competition by giving
companies that offer a 'free' calling service a competitive advantage over
companies that charge their customers for the service." Order ¶665 (JA__).
And that practice spawns disputes that consume scarce judicial and
administrative resources, as well as imposing additional costs on the parties
to those disputes. See id. ¶664 & n.1093 (JA__); Farmers and Merchants
Mut. Tel. Co. v. FCC, 668 F.3d 714 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (reviewing FCC
resolution of traffic pumping dispute).
In light of these widespread harms associated with traffic
pumping, the FCC adopted measures that – while not entirely prohibiting
revenue-sharing by LECs, as some commenters had urged (see Order n.1112
(JA__)) – reduce the incentives to engage in traffic pumping and mitigate the
harms it causes to IXCs and consumers. The FCC first set criteria to
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 16
determine which LECs are engaging in traffic pumping. LECs that meet
those criteria must file new tariffs with rates that usually will be significantly
lower than those they otherwise would be permitted to file. See Order ¶679
(JA__). For rate-of-return ILECs, the new rate must be based on their
projected costs, taking into account the expected increase in volume from
traffic pumping. See Order ¶¶680-687 (JA__-__). For CLECs, the new rate
– which the Order refers to as the "benchmark" rate – must be the same as the
lowest rate for terminating access charged by any price cap LEC in the same
state. See id. ¶¶688-694 (JA__-__). The FCC set this requirement based in
part on AT&T's showing that in several states, traffic-pumping CLECs were
terminating three-to-five times as much traffic as the largest ILEC in the
state. See id. ¶689 & n.1160 (JA__).
3. Accelerating The Transition To Bill-and-Keep For
Non-Access Traffic That LECs Exchange With
Wireless Providers.
exchange of telecommunications between LECs and other wireline carriers,
see Order ¶801 (JA__), it required a faster transition for the exchange of non-
access (i.e., local or "intraMTA") telecommunications traffic between LECs
9 These criteria, which petitioners do not challenge in this case, include the
presence of revenue-sharing; and sharp increases in volume, or a high ratio of
terminating to originating access traffic. See Order ¶¶667-678 (JA__-__).
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 17
and wireless providers. As modified in the Reconsideration Order, the
transition allows existing interconnection agreements without "change of
law" provisions to continue in effect until expiration, and it allows
agreements containing such provisions to continue in effect at least until July
1, 2012. See Reconsideration Order ¶¶6-7 (JA__-__). That decision, the
FCC explained, was based on particular concerns about traffic pumping
involving non-access wireless traffic and the lack of significant reliance
interests of LECs involved in such traffic pumping. See Order ¶¶995-997,
1000 (JA__-__); Reconsideration Order ¶¶5-7 (JA__-__).
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTContrary to petitioners' claims, the FCC acted well within its broad
discretion in adopting the reforms discussed above.
I.The FCC reasonably decided to provide ILECs (but not CLECs)
with explicit subsidies from the Connect America Fund to replace some of
10 An MTA – or Major Trading Area – is the largest FCC-authorized license
area for wireless carriers. Implementation of the Local Competition
Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 15499,
16014 ¶1036 (1996) ("Local Competition Order"). IntraMTA wireless traffic
is treated as local traffic for regulatory purposes, while traffic that travels
outside a wireless provider's MTA is deemed to be long-distance or "access"
traffic. Id.
11 Change of law provisions specify how to take account of intervening
changes in the law (such as new FCC regulations) after the agreement is
executed. See p. 28, below.
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 18
the intercarrier compensation revenues that are reduced by the Order's
reforms. The FCC explained that CLECs are not subject to the same level of
regulation as ILECs, and thus have more flexibility to adjust their end-user
rates and to choose the areas and customer classes they wish to serve. Order
¶864 (JA__). Moreover, ILEC access rates traditionally had been set to
include implicit subsidies to support the local network. Id. ¶¶857-858, 917,
919 (JA__-__, __, __). Given these factors, and the fact that explicit
universal service subsidies under the Communications Act are designed to
benefit customers and not carriers, it was reasonable for the FCC to decline to
create new duplicative subsidies for CLECs (which typically operate in the
same area as an ILEC). Indeed, the FCC's decision not to do so is consistent
with its actions to eliminate duplicative subsidies in other portions of the
Order. Providing CAF subsidies to CLECs would only further burden the
limited resources of the CAF and the consumers who ultimately contribute to
II.The FCC also acted within its discretion in taking steps to combat
traffic pumping (or access stimulation) – regulatory arbitrage schemes that, if
left unchecked, "almost uniformly" lead to unjust and unreasonable interstate
access charges that violate 47 U.S.C. §201(b). Order ¶657 (JA__); see id.
¶¶656-701 (JA__-__). The administrative record amply supported the FCC's
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 19
decision to require traffic-pumping CLECs to benchmark their interstate
access charges to the lowest rate for terminating access charged by any price
cap LEC in the same state. Id. ¶¶688-694 (JA__-__). And the agency's
decision to adopt this benchmarking approach was well within its broad
discretion to fashion effective and readily administrable solutions to complex
regulatory problems.
III.Finally, the FCC reasonably determined that a swifter transition to
bill-and-keep was warranted for non-access wireless traffic than for other
traffic exchanged with LECs. Not only were concerns about abusive access
stimulation particularly acute in the context of non-access wireless traffic
(Order ¶995 (JA__)), the evidence showed that LECs had no substantial
reliance interests with respect to that traffic that would justify a longer
transition to bill-and-keep for such traffic. Id. ¶¶996-997 (JA__-__). The
FCC's decision easily satisfies the "especially deferential" standard of review
this Court accords "transitional" measures. Sorenson Commc'ns, Inc. v.
FCC, 659 F.3d 1035, 1046 (10th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 20
challenges the FCC's decision to provide revenue replacement subsidies from
the CAF to ILECs, rather than to "all carriers." Br. 11. That claim fails from
the start, because it overlooks that such federally-funded subsidies are
intended to promote universal service, and "[t]he purpose of universal service
[under 47 U.S.C. §254] is to benefit the customer, not the carrier." Rural
Cellular Ass'n v. FCC, 588 F.3d 1095, 1103 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ("RCA")
(quoting Alenco Commc'ns v. FCC, 201 F.3d 608, 621 (5th Cir. 2000)). CAF
funds are recovered through contributions from interstate telecommunications
service providers (among others), and are "almost always pass[ed on] … to
their customers," RCA, 588 F.3d at 1099 – that is, virtually anyone who pays
monthly cell phone or landline phone bills. As a result, unnecessary CAF
expenditures may "detract from universal service by causing rates
unnecessarily to rise." Alenco, 201 F.3d at 620; accord RCA, 588 F.3d at
1103. Indeed, this Court has noted the potential of "excessive subsidization"
to "affect the affordability of telecommunications services." Qwest
Commc'ns Int'l Inc. v. FCC, 398 F.3d 1222, 1234 (10th Cir. 2005).
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 21
Accordingly, nothing in the Communications Act requires the FCC to provide
duplicative CAF subsidies to CLECs, which typically operate in the same
area as an ILEC.
In the Order, the FCC reasonably explained why it reserved CAF
subsidies for incumbent LECs, and did not unnecessarily extend additional
subsidies to CLECs. Competitive LECs, the FCC stressed, have regulatory
advantages over ILECs. To begin with, CLECs' end-user charges "are not
subject to … rate regulation" that is "comparable" to that applied to ILECs,
leaving CLECs greater flexibility to raise those charges as their ICC revenues
decline. Order ¶864 (JA__); see id. n.1670 (JA__) (noting, for example, that
the FCC does not regulate CLEC subscriber line charges). In addition, while
ILECs typically have been subject to state carrier-of-last-resort ("COLR")
obligations that require them to provide service (including in high-cost areas)
where no other provider will do so, CLECs are free from such obligations.
Id. ¶864 (JA__). Thus, unlike ILECs, CLECs may elect to provide service
only where it is most profitable. See id. ¶864 & n.1675 (JA__) (CLECs may
define their service areas to target "only the lowest-cost customers.").
12 See, e.g., Order ¶316 (JA__) (concluding, with respect to Mobility Fund
Phase I support, that, "as a general matter, the Commission should not award
… support to more than one provider per area"); id. ¶¶498-511 (JA__-__)
(eliminating "identical support rule," which entailed unnecessary duplicative
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 22
Notwithstanding the greater regulatory flexibility that CLECs enjoy,
RICA contends that, lacking market power, CLECs' end-user charges are
competitively constrained by the ILECs' end-user charges, which (unlike their
own) are supplemented by universal service subsidies. Br. 12 & n.5, 13.
This contention, however, does not undermine the FCC's line-drawing
judgment. See Covad Commc'ns Co. v. FCC, 450 F.3d 528, 541 (D.C. Cir.
2006) (courts are "generally unwilling to review line-drawing performed by
the Commission unless a petitioner can demonstrate that lines drawn … are
patently unreasonable, having no relationship to the underlying regulatory
problem"). As an initial matter, ILECs are eligible to receive CAF support
under the recovery mechanism only if the ARC end-user charges available to
them are insufficient to recover all of the revenues to which the carrier is
entitled. Order ¶918 (JA__). Accordingly, ILECs' end-user rates, in many
instances, are not actually supplemented by CAF subsidies.
More fundamentally, there is no reason to believe – and petitioners
have not shown – that CLECs need CAF support in order to effectively
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 23
compete with ILECs. CLEC interstate access charges never have been set
on the basis of CLECs' own costs, but rather have been benchmarked to
ILECs' regulated rates for well over a decade. See CLEC Access Charge
Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9944-45 ¶¶51-52, 54. The ILEC interstate access
charges to which CLEC rates have been benchmarked, moreover, historically
have been set to cover not only the ILECs' own access service costs, but also
implicit subsidies for their local telephone network. See Order ¶¶857-858,
917, 919 (JA__-__, __, __); see Nat'l Ass'n of State Util. Consumer
Advocates v. FCC, 372 F.3d 454, 457 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("NASUCA").
The CAF funding mechanism, in these circumstances, does not unfairly
burden CLECs. Rather, it is fully consistent with past ICC recovery
mechanisms that employed explicit universal service subsidies for ILECs "to
help offset the reduction in implicit subsidies" occasioned by required
transitions from intercarrier to end-user ILEC charges. NASUCA, 372 F.3d at
458 (describing Access Charge Reform, 15 FCC Rcd 12962 (2000), aff'd in
13 Even if petitioners could make such a showing, universal service
subsidies are not distributed to carriers for the purpose of enabling them to
compete with other providers. Universal service support is designed "to
benefit the customer, not the carrier." RCA, 588 F.3d at 1103. Thus, carriers
"are not entitled to the expectation of any particular level of support, or even
any support, so long as the level of support provided is sufficient to achieve
universal service goals." Order ¶510 (JA__); see also id.¶¶318, 319 (JA__,
__) (noting that "the statute's goal is to expand availability of service to end
users," "not to subsidize competition through universal service").
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 24
part, remanded in part, Texas Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. FCC, 265 F.3d
313 (5th Cir. 2001)). Indeed, the FCC has never adopted an explicit CLEC
recovery mechanism in connection with ICC reforms.
RICA contends that the FCC erred in relying on the fact that CLECs
have greater regulatory freedom than ILECs insofar as they (unlike most
ILECs) are not subject to COLR requirements. Br. 15. According to RICA,
this distinction is irrelevant because CLECs must qualify as eligible
telecommunications carriers – or "ETCs" – in order to be eligible for any
universal service subsidies, and therefore must provide supported services
throughout their service areas in any event. Id. (citing 47 U.S.C. §214(e)).
This contention misses the point that, unlike state-imposed COLR
obligations, which typically are mandatory for ILECs, ETC status is
voluntary for CLECs. See 47 U.S.C. §214(e)(2) (qualifying carriers may
"request" ETC designation). In short, RICA offers no reason to question the
14 Although the FCC has never previously adopted explicit subsidies for
CLECs explicitly, under the "identical support rule," ILECs' per-line
universal service support was available to carriers – mostly wireless
providers, but including some CLECs (see Order n.827 (JA__)) – that were
designated as competitive eligible telecommunications carriers pursuant to 47
U.S.C. §214(e). The FCC eliminated the identical support rule in the Order,
explaining that it did not promote universal service goals. See Order ¶¶498-
511 (JA__-__). See also FCC Response to Wireless Carrier USF Principal
Br. 31-36 (addressing challenges to elimination of the identical support rule).
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 25
FCC's finding that CLECs "typically can elect whether to enter a service
area" or "serve particular classes of customers." Order ¶864 (JA__).
Nor is the FCC's limitation of CAF subsidies to ILECs undermined by
the agency's prior determination (in 2001) that some rural CLECs' access
charges should not be benchmarked to those of competing ILECs that operate
state-wide. See Br. 15-16 (citing CLEC Access Charge Order, 16 FCC Rcd
at 9949-50); see also note 3, above. The CLEC Access Charge Order
explained that ILECs with state-wide operations set geographically averaged
rates that use "low-cost, urban and suburban operations to subsidize their
higher cost, rural operations." CLEC Access Charge Order, 16 FCC Rcd at
9949-51 ¶¶64, 66 & n.140, 9955-56 ¶¶80-81. Because such ILECs may
engage in that cross-subsidization, the CLEC Access Charge Order allowed
rural CLECs that competed with those ILECs to adopt a different
benchmarking methodology: rather than benchmarking their rates to those of
the local ILEC, they could use as their guidepost the rates of the nation's
smallest, highest-cost ILECs, which pool their costs and charge access rates
specified in a tariff filed by the National Exchange Carrier Association
("NECA"). CLEC Access Charge Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9949-51 ¶¶64, 66 &
n.140, 9955-56 ¶¶80-81. That decision benefits rural CLECs. And those
benefits are continued under the current Order: whether or not CLECs
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 26
subject to this alternative benchmarking approach have higher costs than their
competing ILECs, the Order on review allows them to continue to
benchmark their ICC rates to those of the very highest-cost ILECs during the
transition to bill-and-keep (provided that they do not engage in access
stimulation). See Order ¶801, Figure 9 & n.1499 (JA__).
Finally, RICA argues (Br. 18-19) that denying CAF support to CLECs
under the recovery mechanism will discourage the deployment of advanced
services to rural areas of the country, contrary to the objectives of section 706
of the 1996 Act, 47 U.S.C. §1302. But nothing in the Communications Act
or the 1996 Act requires duplicative universal service subsidies, and the FCC
reasonably determined that extending such support to CLECs – whose
existing rates "[are] not based on any demonstrated level of need" – was
unwarranted. Order ¶866 (JA__); see id. ¶¶864-865 (JA__-__). The FCC's
reasonable choice in balancing various policy goals – including the need to
avoid unnecessary waste and inefficiency in administering federal funds – is
entitled to deference. See RCA, 588 F.3d at 1103 (FCC "enjoys broad
discretion" in balancing competing universal service policies); Sorenson, 659
F.3d at 1045 (the FCC "has discretion to balance" competing statutory
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 27
to IXCs, their customers as a group, and the public interest. Indeed,
petitioners Core Communications, Inc. ("Core") and North County
Communications Corp. ("North County") do not challenge the FCC's finding
that – absent prophylactic regulatory measures – traffic pumping "almost
uniformly" yields unjust and unreasonable rates that violate section 201(b) of
the Communications Act. Order ¶657 (JA__). See pp. 3-11, above. Rather,
these two CLECs contend that the FCC acted arbitrarily in determining how
best to tackle this regulatory problem. Petitioners face a particularly heavy
burden in showing that the agency exceeded its broad discretion in crafting
appropriate remedial measures to enforce that Act. See, e.g., American Tel. &
Tel. Co. v. FCC, 454 F.3d 329, 334 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("agency discretion is …
at zenith" when fashioning remedies for statutory violations) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
In light of its undisputed findings about the detrimental effects of
access stimulation, the FCC reasonably determined that it should take actions
to reduce the economic incentives to engage in such schemes. The agency
did precisely that by requiring traffic-pumping LECs to file new tariffs with
rates that usually will be significantly lower than those they otherwise would
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 28
be permitted to file. See Order ¶679 (JA__). Under the Order's benchmark
rule, CLECs must tariff rates no higher than the lowest rate for terminating
access charged by any price cap LEC in the same state. See id. ¶¶688-694
(JA__-__). The FCC set this requirement based in part on record evidence
submitted by AT&T showing that in several states, traffic-pumping CLECs
were terminating three-to-five times as much traffic as the largest ILEC in the
state. See id. ¶689 & n.1160 (JA__).
Core and North County argue (Br. 31-32) that the FCC did not
sufficiently explain why, instead of adopting the benchmark rule, it would not
permit CLECs to submit cost studies of the kind traffic-pumping ILECs are
required to submit. That assertion lacks merit. One commenter, Bluegrass
Telephone Co., made this suggestion – albeit only in a cursory manner. See
Bluegrass Section XV Comments 14-15 (April 1, 2011) (JA__-__). In
rejecting it, the FCC cited the comments of Free Conferencing Corporation,
a traffic-pumping participant, which had explained that "a bright line
approach" to benchmarking CLEC rates "'is particularly desirable given the
current legal and practical difficulties involved with comparing CLEC rates to
any objective standard of reasonableness.'" Free Conferencing Section XV
Comments 35 (April 1, 2011) (JA__) (quoting CLEC Access Charge Order,
15 See Order ¶694 & n.1172 (JA__).
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 29
16 FCC Rcd at 9939 ¶41). The FCC was not required to say more to respond
to an argument that a commenter hardly bothered to develop. See MCI
WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 209 F.3d 760, 765 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ("[I]t is one
thing to preserve a point for judicial review and quite another to raise the
issue with sufficient force to require the agency to formally respond.");
accord Ark Initiative v. U.S. Forest Service, 660 F.3d 1256, 1262 (10th Cir.
Petitioners' claim (Br. 30-31) that the FCC acted arbitrarily in
distinguishing between ILECs and CLECs for purposes of submission of cost
studies also fails. First, the FCC reasonably predicted that the price cap
LEC-based benchmark is "appropriate and reasonable" based on the volume
of traffic that traffic-pumping CLECs generate. Order ¶689 (JA__). Second,
the burden of such studies would fall not just on the CLECs themselves, but
also on the FCC and the IXCs that would have to review the studies
carefully. Third, the FCC's benchmarking approach was entirely consistent
with its prior decisions to curb CLEC abuses – whenever possible – without
16 See CLEC Access Charge Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9939 ¶41 (discussing
the "legal and practical difficulties involved with comparing CLEC rates to
any objective standard of 'reasonableness'"); PrairieWave Telecomms., Inc.
Petition for Waiver, 23 FCC Rcd 2556, 2561 ¶14 (2008) (rejecting CLEC
request to waive benchmarking rule and to tariff cost-based access rates in
light of "administratively difficult cost study analysis" that would be
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 30
applying to CLECs the legacy, cost-based regulations long applicable to the
access services of ILECs. It was thus reasonable and consistent with
longstanding precedent for the FCC to reject a "one-size-fits-all" approach to
CLECs and ILECs with respect to the submission of cost studies.
Core and North County finally contend that the FCC's benchmark
arbitrarily applies "regardless of whether a CLEC operates in the territory of a
rate-of-return LEC." Br. 32-33 (emphasis omitted). The FCC's adoption of
the benchmark, however, was based explicitly on the agency's finding that
the access traffic volumes of traffic-pumping CLECs were more like those of
price cap LECs than those of the smaller rate-of-return LECs. See Order
¶689 & n.1160 (JA__) ("AT&T shows that 'rural' access stimulating
competitive LECs in Iowa, Minnesota and South Dakota collectively are
terminating three to five times as many minutes as the largest incumbent
LEC operating in the same state.") (citing AT&T Dec. 3, 2009 Ex Parte
Letter, Attach. at 4 (JA__)) (emphasis added); see also Order n.1158 (JA__)
17 See CLEC Access Charge Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9939 ¶41; PrairieWave
Telecomms., 23 FCC Rcd at 2561 ¶14. See also Order ¶¶692, 694 (JA__, __)
(explaining decision to deal with CLEC traffic-pumping abuses within the
parameters of the existing CLEC benchmarking regulatory structure for
access charges).
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 31
(citing additional evidence submitted by AT&T in 2011). By contrast, Core
and North County did not identify their own traffic volumes before the FCC,
nor did any traffic-pumping CLECs. This omission is significant, as the
traffic-pumpers themselves are best positioned to offer evidence about their
own volumes. The FCC was entitled to draw an adverse inference from the
fact that they declined to provide such information and then argued that the
record had been insufficiently developed.
In short, petitioners have shown no evidentiary basis for overturning
the FCC's considered judgment. See IMC Kalium Carlsbad, Inc. v. Interior
Bd. Of Land Appeals, 206 F.3d 1003, 1011 (10th Cir. 2000) (an agency "may
draw reasonable inferences from the evidence," which "'are not to be
overturned on review unless they lack a reasonable basis'") (quoting Worley
Mills, Inc. v. NLRB, 685 F.2d 362, 365 (10th Cir. 1982)). And petitioners
present no basis for second-guessing the agency's determination regarding
the best remedy for the undisputed problem of access stimulation: the
benchmark the FCC adopted and fully explained was a reasonable choice
18 This evidence refutes petitioners' claim that there was no "evidence in
the record comparing the volumes of traffic terminating to [traffic-pumping
LECs] with [that terminating to] … the RBOC/ILEC carriers." Br. 34-35.
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 32
among alternative remedies, some stricter and others more lenient. No
more was required. See Covad Commc'ns, 450 F.3d at 541 (petitioners
challenging FCC line-drawing decision must "demonstrate that lines drawn
… are patently unreasonable").
Cooperative Association ("NTCA"), and U.S. TelePacific Corp. ("U.S.
TelePacific") challenge (Br. 19-30) the FCC's decision to adopt a more
accelerated transition to bill-and-keep for non-access (or local) wireless
traffic than for other types of telecommunications exchanged with a LEC. As
shown below, the FCC fully explained its reasons for the schedule it adopted.
That explanation easily satisfies the "especially deferential" standard of APA
19 The FCC adopted its benchmarking approach as a more tailored
alternative to "declar[ing] revenue sharing to be a per se violation of section
201(b) of the Act," which numerous parties urged but which the agency
considered "overly broad." Order ¶672 (JA__).
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 33
review that applies to "transitional" measures. Sorenson, 659 F.3d at 1046
(quoting Alenco, 201 F.3d at 616).
As an initial matter, petitioners' challenges (Br. 20) rest in part on their
mistaken premise that the FCC adopted a "flash cut" to bill-and-keep for such
traffic. That is not what the agency did. The FCC stressed in the Order that
it was "not abrogating existing commercial contracts or interconnection
agreements." Order ¶1000 (JA__). Thus, any existing interconnection
agreements would continue to apply according to their own terms, which
might or might not contain "change of law" provisions allowing for
renegotiation or the addition of contractual language reflecting the new
regulatory landscape. See id. Moreover, in the subsequent Reconsideration
Order, the FCC delayed the effective date of the bill-and-keep default rule by
6 months – from December 29, 2011, to July 1, 2012 – for carriers that were
exchanging non-access wireless traffic pursuant to interconnection
agreements that already existed at the time the Order was adopted.
Reconsideration Order ¶¶6-7 (JA__). The effect of that change was to ensure
20 Although their challenge focuses almost exclusively on reasoned
decisionmaking claims, petitioners briefly contest (Br. 22) the FCC's
statutory authority to adopt a bill-and-keep framework for non-access
wireless traffic. As explained in the FCC's Principal ICC Brief (at 12-22, 24-
25), the FCC has two independently sufficient statutory bases to adopt a bill-
and-keep framework for such traffic: 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(b)(5) and 332. See
Order ¶1001 (JA__).
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 34
no such carrier would be required to convert to bill-and-keep before the
FCC's recovery mechanism went into effect in July 2012, even if its
interconnection agreement had a change of law provision that "relate[d] back
to the [December 29, 2011] effective date of the new rule." Id. ¶6 (JA__).
The FCC also reaffirmed on reconsideration that carriers operating pursuant
to long-term interconnection agreements without change of law provisions
would be able to continue under the terms of those agreements until they
expired. Id. n.30 (JA__). Accordingly, although the FCC provided carriers
with a shorter transition period than some might have preferred, there can be
no dispute that the agency provided a transition – and not a "flash cut" – to
bill-and-keep for non-access wireless traffic. Nor do petitioners identify any
actual problems with the transition the FCC adopted, which ended well
before they filed their brief in this case.
Petitioners nonetheless contest the deadline. They point out that the
FCC previously declined to "singl[e] out [wireless]-LEC traffic and subject[]
it to bill-and-keep" when it undertook comprehensive ICC reform in 1996,
and that "it was unwilling to adopt" bill-and-keep for Internet Service
21 Br. 23 (citing Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16058 ¶1118).
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 35
Provider ("ISP")-bound traffic in 2001. That is true, but irrelevant. Neither
of those decisions discussed the pace of incremental reform during a
transition period. In the 1996 Local Competition Order, which first adopted
rules to implement the 1996 Act, the FCC declined to mandate bill-and-keep
for "all LEC-[wireless]" traffic "[i]n light of the overall … policy" adopted in
that decision, which rejected a bill-and-keep framework for any traffic. 11
FCC Rcd at 16058 ¶1118. Similarly, in the 2001 ISP Remand Order, the
FCC was "unwilling" to take any action that would result in permanently
different rates for "local voice and ISP-bound traffic" based on an
administrative record that failed to establish any "inherent differences" in the
cost of delivering the two types of traffic. 16 FCC Rcd at 9194 ¶90. Here, by
contrast, the FCC adopted the same regime – bill-and-keep – as the end point
for all traffic exchanged with a LEC, and it fully justified the different
transition paths it adopted for non-access wireless traffic and other traffic.
In the 2011 Order on review, moreover, the FCC found evidence of "a
significant and growing problem of traffic stimulation and regulatory
arbitrage in LEC-[wireless] non-access traffic." Order ¶995 & n.2099 (JA__)
(citing record evidence). The FCC also saw little evidence of similar traffic
22 Br. 23 (citing Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic, 16 FCC
Rcd 9151, 9194-95 ¶90 (2001) ("ISP Remand Order")).
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 36
pumping for non-access wireline traffic, and it emphasized the risk that –
absent FCC action – existing traffic pumping schemes involving access
traffic could be "quickly adapt[ed]" to the non-access wireless traffic context.
See id. ¶995 (JA__).
Petitioners speculate (Br. 25) that traffic pumping could not occur with
non-access wireless traffic, because rates for such traffic are too low to make
traffic pumping profitable. But they ignore the record evidence that many
CLECs were seeking to impose high rates on non-access wireless traffic (as
much as $0.011 or $0.015 per minute, when most ILECs exchange such
traffic for $0.0007 or less). See Verizon 6/28/10 Ex Parte at 6-7 (JA__-__);
see also CTIA 11/24/10 Ex Parte at 1 & Attach. (JA__, __-__) (noting that
wireless carriers are involved as victims of traffic pumping in more than 60
disputes nationwide); Order ¶991 & n.2085 (JA__) (citing additional record
evidence of CLEC attempts to impose high rates); id. ¶997 (JA__) (noting
23 By contrast, the traffic pumping schemes involving wireline
communications that pose the greatest concerns about regulatory arbitrage
involve access or long-distance traffic. See Order ¶995 (JA__).
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 37
lower ILEC charges). Petitioners' argument also overlooks the FCC's
findings that per-minute rates need only be above incremental cost to enable
significant arbitrage, and that the cost of delivering voice service is nearly
zero (as low as $0.0000001 per minute). See id. ¶752 (JA__).
The FCC further explained that, in the context of non-access traffic
between CLECs and wireless carriers, there were no reliance interests
requiring a longer transition to bill-and-keep. First, under pre-existing law,
CLECs "had no basis" for relying on the assumption that they would receive
ICC payments for non-access wireless traffic; "until recently [the agency] had
no pricing methodology applicable" to CLEC-wireless traffic. Order ¶996
(JA__). Accordingly, the FCC determined that, "in setting a methodology
[for such traffic] for the first time," it was reasonable to require swifter
compliance by CLECs, "particularly given that [they] are not subject to retail
rate regulation in the manner of [ILECs], and therefore have flexibility to
adapt their businesses more quickly." Id.
24 Petitioners posit (Br. 24) that the more accelerated transition to bill-and-
keep for non-access wireless traffic (as compared with other traffic) itself
may lead to arbitrage. But the FCC explained at length that bill-and-keep
would lead to more efficient pricing, not wasteful arbitrage. See Order
¶¶744-759 (JA__-__). Petitioners do not even attempt to show how a swift
transition to bill-and-keep would encourage arbitrage.
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 38
Petitioners complain (Br. 26) that one reason CLECs did not receive
payment for non-access wireless traffic in the past was a lack of clarity in the
FCC intercarrier compensation rules governing such traffic. That claim does
not advance petitioners' argument, however. Indeed, precisely because the
law was unclear, CLECs "had no basis for reliance" on the premise that they
would be entitled to such payments. See Order ¶996 (JA__).
Petitioners also cite (Br. 27) two filings that post-date the Order, in
which CLECs identified pre-Order agreements allowing wireless carriers to
receive payments for the exchange of non-access wireless traffic. But
petitioners ignore the fact that the FCC addressed such evidence on
reconsideration, when it deferred the effective date of its bill-and-keep rule to
July 1, 2012. See Reconsideration Order ¶¶6 & n.21, 8 (JA__, __)
(discussing late-filed letters). Nor do petitioners explain why the FCC's
extension of the effective date did not give CLECs sufficient time to adapt to
the new rule. See id. ¶7 (JA__).
As for incumbent LECs, the FCC noted that some – those without
interconnection agreements with wireless providers setting a rate for such
traffic – "do not receive any compensation" for transport and termination of
non-access wireless traffic today. Order ¶997 (JA__). And most of those
ILECs that do get paid under existing agreements are receiving "$0.0007 or
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 39
less." Id. Petitioners challenge the relevance of the $0.0007 figure (Br. 29)
on the ground that such rates were "all but mandated" by an earlier FCC
order. But that objection misses the point: the FCC's focus was on adopting
a transition period that would "minimize market disruption."
Reconsideration Order ¶7 (JA__). To do so, it was appropriate – indeed
necessary – for the agency to consider existing compensation rates.
Finally, petitioners cite (Br. 29) some pre-Order agreements (mostly
involving rate-of-return ILECs) with higher rates for non-access wireless
traffic. But petitioners do not seriously challenge the FCC's finding that the
record contained no evidence that a prompt transition to bill-and-keep for
such traffic "would have a harmful impact." Order ¶997 (JA__). That was
particularly so in light of other safeguards the FCC adopted in the Order,
such as the new recovery mechanism and a special rule for rate-of-return
carriers limiting their responsibility for the cost of transport for non-access
wireless traffic. Id. ¶¶997, 999 (JA__, __).
25 Petitioners offer the conclusory assertion that "the recovery mechanisms
the FCC adopted do not protect [rate-of-return LECs] from flash cuts." Br.
30 (citing petitioners' joint principal ICC and USF briefs). Neither of the
cited briefs addressed the FCC's special transport rule for rate-of-return
LECs. See Order ¶¶997, 999 (JA__, __). And the FCC demonstrates in
Argument II of its Principal ICC Brief that challenges to the recovery
mechanism are meritless.
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 40
In sum, the FCC fully explained why its longer transitions to bill-and-
keep for other types of traffic were justified by the different circumstances
that traffic presents. Under the "especially deferential" standard of review
that applies to such FCC action, the Court should reject petitioners' challenge
to the transition schedule for the exchange of non-access wireless traffic.
Sorenson, 659 F.3d at 1046 (citation omitted).
CONCLUSIONThe petitions for review should be denied.
/s/ Laurence N. Bourne
(202) 418-1740
March 20, 2013
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 41
Certificate of Compliance With Type-Volume Limitations, Typeface
Requirements, Type Style Requirements, Privacy Redaction
Requirements, and Virus Scan
This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of the Second Briefing
Order. It does not exceed 15% of the size of the brief to which it is responding. The
Uncited Additional Intercarrier Compensation Issues Brief was certified to be
6,942 words in length. Therefore, the FCC may file a response brief up to 7,983
words in length. This brief contains 7,386 words, excluding the parts of the brief
exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and 10th Cir. R. 32(a) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(6) because this filing has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface
using Microsoft Word 2010 in 14-point Times New Roman font.
All required privacy redactions have been made.
This brief was scanned for viruses with Symantec Endpoint Protection,
version 11.0.7200.1147, updated on March 19, 2013, and according to the program
is free of viruses.
/s/ Laurence N. Bourne
Laurence N. Bourne
March 20, 2013
Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019022576 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 42
I hereby certify that on March 20, 2013, I caused the foregoing Federal
Respondents' Uncited Response to Petitioners' Additional Intercarrier
Compensation Issues Brief to be filed by delivering a copy to the Court via e-mail
at email@example.com. I further certify that the foregoing
document will be furnished by the Court through (ECF) electronic service to all
parties in this case through a registered CM/ECF user. This document will be
available for viewing and downloading on the CM/ECF system.
/s/ Laurence N. Bourne
Laurence N. Bourne
March 20, 2013
Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.


text:
Please forgive me if this has already been addressed in another thread but I couldn't find anything on it specifically. I currently have a 2007 Jamis Coda Comp (http://www.bikepedia.com/quickbike/B...Comp&Type=bike) and am wondering if it would be possible to replace the crank with a Dura Ace 7703 triple 30/39/53. One was given to me so I thought I would at least see if it was possible. From what I understand just from reading, the R443 front derailleur on my bike should be able to handle up to 53t which is what the crank is. If anyone has any insight on this, I would be very grateful. I have the correct bottom bracket to go along with the crank as well. Thanks in advance for your help.
PS. I know this crank is kind of overkill for my bike and all but I figured since it was free, I would give it a try since the current crank on the bike isn't all that.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Product Description
The perfect afternoon tea and spa day in London, Kensington. Spend the day in a London spa being pampered with two luxury treatments and enjoy a lavish afternoon tea in a five star hotel.
This afternoon tea and spa day takes place at the Baglioni Hotel in London, opposite Hyde Park, which has an enchanting view of Kensington Gardens and Palace and is the perfect setting for this luxury five star day. The Spa offers a tranquil and intimate urban escape, and your day includes 2 lavish treatments and full use of the facilities.
Enjoy your afternoon tea at the Baglioni Restaurant within this stunning London boutique hotel. Your afternoon tea will include a selection of delicate finger sandwiches mouthwatering Italian pastries a choice of teas and a glass of Prosecco. The perfect relaxing day in the city.
Additional Information
|Please Note:
Please note the Spa will be closed 1 Feb 2014 until April 2014 for refurbishment. This certificate is valid for 6 months from date of purchase and is valid for one person only available Sunday to Friday. Please book in advance and take your certificate along on the day. Experience updated 15th October 2012
|Your amazing day will include:
|2 Lavish Spa Treatments
Be totally relaxed with;
Two Terrake Spa Treatments (one 55 mins and one 25 mins)
|Full use of the facilities
Your experience includes use of the Baglioni Gym, Aromatic Steam room and relaxation area.
Plus herbal tea tops ups throughout your day
|Afternoon Tea
Afternoon tea is available between 2.30 pm and 5.30 pm in the Baglioni Restaurant and includes:
|UK areas
|Cities and Towns


text:
|Blurbarian Since
|January 2010
|Jonathan Marrow
|The Wirral, England
|My Occupation
|Retired surgeon
|My Bio
Worked as a young doctor as a Government Medical Officer in Botswana. Spent most of my career caring for patients brought to hospital as emergencies. My design portfolio includes the preparation of material for lecture presentations and posters, internal publication of volumes of clinical guidelines and the production of family greetings cards by many different methods and over many years. More recently I have held a brief to create and reinforce a brand image for the College of Emergency Medicine, which was established in 2006.
Now retired from clinical work, much of my time is spent organising and copying photographs, writings and art work collected over the years.


text:
Conflict, Security and Development Series - Spring 2014 - Islamic Studies and Early Childhood Education in Countries Affected by Conflict: The Role of Mosque Schools in Remote Afghan Villages
Islamic Studies and Early Childhood Education in Countries Affected by Conflict: The Role of Mosque Schools in Remote Afghan Villages
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
TedxManhattan "Changing the Way We Eat" Viewing Party hosted by the Wagner Food Policy Alliance and Columbia Food Policy & Obesity Prevention
TedxManhattan "Changing the Way We Eat" Viewing Party hosted by the Wagner Food Policy Alliance and Columbia Food Policy & Obesity Prevention
Presented by the Wagner Food Policy Alliance and Columbia Food Policy & Obesity Prevention
Date: March 1, 2014
Join the Wagner Food Policy Alliance and Columbia Food Policy & Obesity Prevention for a TEDx viewing party! Lunch and afternoon coffee with be served. Here is the day's schedule. We hope to see you there!
If you are unfamiliar with TEDx, a description of the movement is below:
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TED has created a program called TEDx. TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. Our event is called TEDxManhattan "Changing the Way We Eat", where x = independently organized TED event. At our TEDxManhattan event, TEDTalks video and live speakers will combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events, including ours, are self-organized.
Speakers include:
A Book Launch for The Color Bind: Talking (And Not Talking) About Race at Work
A book launch for The Color Bind: Talking (And Not Talking) About Race at Work
Presented by NYU Wagner and the Research Center for Leadership in Action (RCLA)
Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Join authors Erica Gabrielle Foldy, Associate Professor at NYU Wagner, and Tamara R. Buckley, Associate Professor at City University of New York, as they discuss their new book The Color Bind. The discussion will be moderated by Melody Barnes, Vice Provost at NYU and former Director of President Obama's Domestic Policy Council. NYU Wagner Professor David Elcott will provide opening and closing remarks.Public service organizations regularly face issues related to race and ethnicity, but usually resist actually talking about them. The authors have identified this as the color bind. This book grew out of a study of child welfare workers. Foldy and Buckley observed teams over several years to see how their members discussed race and ethnicity in their work, and found that most teams barely broached the topic. In fact, only one team regularly brought race or ethnicity into their conversations. They dug into what made this team different and gleaned some important lessons for social service organizations, advocacy groups, public agencies, schools, health providers, and other social sector contexts.
The Color Bind shares in-depth case studies of this team and others, and outlines strategies - including modeling desired behavior and encouraging movement toward color cognizance - for organizations looking to transcend the color bind and engage race in ways that advance their mission and create trusting relationships.
Moderated by:
Opening and closing remarks by:
More information about the book can be found here.
Conflict, Security and Development Series - Spring 2014 - Security and Development Challenges in Afghanistan: Which Comes First?
Security and Development Challenges in Afghanistan: Which Comes First?
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
with a special guest speaker.
OPEN DATA NOW @ NYC: Presented by the GovLab at NYU Wagner
Monday, February 24, 2014
JOIN US for a reception to launch the new book, Open Data Now - written by Senior Advisor to the GovLab, Joel Gurin - and to learn how free public data is creating new opportunities for innovators in New York and across the country. Refreshments will be served.
NYU Wagner DC Alumni Career Panel
NYU Wagner Alumni Public Service Career Panel (in Washington, DC)
Date: Friday, February 21, 2014
Please join us for an alumni career panel at NYU's DC campus, featuring successful NYU Wagner alumni working in exciting public service positions in the Washington, DC area. Panelists will discuss the nature of their current work, how they secured their jobs, and how their Wagner education helped them transition into their current role. A networking reception will immediately follow the panel discussion.
4th Annual NYU Social Innovation Symposium: New Ideas for Urban Ecosystems
4th Annual NYU Social Innovation Symposium: New Ideas for Urban Ecosystems
Friday, February 21, 2014
NYU Social Innovation Symposium (SIS), a tri-school organized event, provides an annual forum for nearly 500 practitioners, scholars, and students to share game-changing concepts and ideas spanning a wide array of social matters from education, public health, and environmental issues to democratic institutions, financial inclusion and economic inequality.
This year's NYU SIS theme, Beyond Skylines: New Ideas for Urban Ecosystems, will frame a conversation on social innovations that aim to make urban communities around the world smarter and stronger.
The NYU SIS student board is pleased to welcome America's premier social innovators to lead the day's program. Ben Rattray, Founder and CEO of Change. org, will deliver this year's morning keynote, prominent thought leaders will share game changing ideas as part of the NYU SIS keystone event, 10 Minutes to Change the World, and the NYU SIS panel series will feature distinguished practitioners working to strengthen urban communities.
NYU Women: Take the Lead Challenge! Turning our Careers and Leadership Intentions Into Reality
NYU Women: Take the Lead Challenge! Turning Our Careers and Leadership Intentions into Reality
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
There is a national conversation happening now about the challenges women face in the workplace and their transforming role in society and business (thank you Sheryl Sandberg, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Melissa Harris-Perry, and many more). But women still earn 77 cents to men's dollar. And while making up half the workforce, only 18 percent of the top leadership positions are held by women.
Find out more information at www.taketheleadwomen.com.
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 Time: 11:30am - 12:30pm Location: NYU Wagner, 295 Lafayette Street, 2nd Floor, NYC Jersey Conference Room
Although the rates of Latinos enrolled in college and universities has increased and, for the first time in 2012, surpassed that of non-Latino whites, only 51% are graduating from these institutions.
For more information please read the Gates Foundation Press Release and The Pew Research Center Fact Sheet.
Conflict, Security and Development Series - Spring 2014 - Securing Land Rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel
Securing Land Rights for Palestinian Citizens of Israel
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
RESCHEDULED: An Insider's View of the Affordable Care Act: Lecture and Q&A with Dean Sherry Glied
Due to inclement
weather, this event has been rescheduled for Thursday, April 24, 2014. Please stay tuned for more information, and we hope to see you then. If you have any questions, please contact us at email@example.com.
An Insider's View of the Affordable Care Act: Lecture and Q&A with Dean Sherry Glied
Rescheduled Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014
Join us for an exciting opportunity to learn more about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), from an insider's perspective. Dean Sherry Glied, a health care policy reform expert, served as an Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from 2010-2012, where she was intimately involved in the implementation of the ACA. Dean Glied will share her insider's knowledge of the legislation, and will answer questions after her presentation.
Following the program, there will be a reception for all attendees.
The Power of AND: Learning to Think with AND Instead of OR to Accomplish Seemingly Incompatible Goals
The Power of AND: Learning to Think with AND Instead of OR to Accomplish Seemingly Incompatible Goals
Date: Wednesday, Februrary 12, 2014
Social entrepreneurs think with the "AND philosophy" when conceiving unorthodox solutions. Daniel Lubetzky, founder of KIND Healthy Snacks, the OneVoice Movement and PeaceWorks, shares how to retrain your brain to constantly challenge false assumptions and enhance your creativity and output across all channels – including strategic planning, budgeting, hiring, product design, marketing and even the personal choices we face every day. Daniel will showcase how this philosophy helped him to grow KIND Healthy Snacks to one of the fastest growing healthy snacks brands in America.
Conflict, Security and Development Series - Spring 2014 - Food Insecurity and Conflict in Afghanistan
Food Insecurity and Conflict in Afghanistan
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Conflict, Security and Development Series - Spring 2014 - Stabilization and Development: Risk Frameworks and Programs in Somalia,
Stabilization and Development: Risk Frameworks and Programs in Somalia,
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
An Evening with Jamie Shupak
An Evening with Jamie Shupak
January 28, 2014
Join the NYU Rudin Center in welcoming Jamie Shupak, NY1 Traffic and Transit Reporter, host of TV Dinner, and author of the book Transit Girl. In her new book, Ms. Shupak delivers a provocative tale of navigating NYC life as a single girl, while delivering its transportation news every morning. In an intimate evening of conversation with Ms. Shupak, we'll discuss the ins and outs of her daily delivery of commuter news and separate truth from fiction in her novel.
Can't make the event? Follow along with @NYURudin, and submit your questions/comments with the tag #JSatRudin.
This event is co-sponsored by the University Transportation Research Center at City College of New York.
Faculty Brainstorming Session #3
Faculty Brainstorming Session #3
WFPA Holiday Happy Hour and Open Board Meeting
Wagner Food Policy Alliance Holiday Happy Hour and Open Board Meeting
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
The NYU Wagner Food Policy Alliance board will be hosting a holiday happy hour in conjunction with an open board meeting--all students are welcome! Come and have some tasty beers, talk about what you'd like to see happen with the WFPA next semester, get involved and take a breather from studying for finals! We would love to meet fellow students who are interested in food policy issues so that we can work together to create impactful events next semester. Hope you can join us!
Global Kids Environmental Education Panel
Global Kids Environmental Education Panel
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
WEPSA is partnering with Global Kids, the Alliance for Climate Education, and the Center for Urban Environment Reform to host a panel on environmental education and activism. Come meet with NYC climate change activists and learn more about what is being taught in our classrooms about this vital issue.
The panel will discuss a number of important topics including the impact of climate change both domestically and around the world, the state of environmental education in NYC schools today, and expanding efforts to "green" NYC schools under the de Blasio administration.
Workshop for Small and Mid-Size Nonprofits - Presented by the IRS Exempt Organizations Unit
Workshop for Small and Mid-Size Nonprofits - Presented by the IRS Exempt Organizations Unit
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
This hands-on workshop will provide an opportunity for small and mid-sized nonprofits and students in nonprofit management to learn more about: the benefits and responsibilities of tax-exempt status; the redesigned 990 form; required disclosures; restoration of tax-exempt status; employment topics, including classification and filing requirements; and Unrelated Business Income Tax issues.
The event is hosted by the Center for Nonprofit Strategy and Management at the School of Public Affairs, Baruch College in partnership with NYU Wagner, The Nonprofit Coordinating Committee of New York, and the Foundation Center.
RSVP at
NYU Wagner Philanthropy Presents: SOUP for Dinner - a micro-granting event
SOUP for Dinner
Presented by NYU Wagner Philanthropy
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Join us for SOUP for Dinner - a night in which we come together as a community to share a meal for a donation of $10. Hear from 4 local nonprofit organizations about their missions and the great work they are doing, and at the culmination of the evening, learn about how even a small donation can make a significant impact when pooled with other donations—as we collectively decide which nonprofit project we want the proceeds to support.
Our co-sponsors include: Wagner Management and Leadership Organization, Stonewall Policy Alliance, SNEAC, and Wagner Student Alliance for Africa.
A simple micro-granting event, SOUP seeks to 1) engage students in the positive experience of individual philanthropy; 2) support a small local nonprofit organization; 3) demonstrate the impact of collective action. This event will also be an opportunity for a few nonprofits to present to an audience of students who care about various themes and issue areas and to ultimately win a grant.
100% of each $10 donation will go to the nonprofit grant recipient.
Debate on Fiscal Policy and the Federal Budget
A Debate on Fiscal Policy and the Federal Budget
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Please join WPA and WEFA for a discussion of the federal budget and fiscal policy. The event will feature two leading fiscal policy experts, Romina Boccia of the Heritage Foundation and Mark Schmitt of the Roosevelt Institute, and will be facilitated by NYU Wagner professor, Thad Calabrese.
The debate will explore questions such as: What are the fiscal challenges facing this country and how should we address them? How should we tackle challenges with entitlement programs? What should the nation's tax policy look like? What are the economic implications of different fiscal policies?
OEA Test Event
Rising Above the Challenges: Effective Global Public Policy in the 21st Century
Monday, September 30
Moderated by:
International Specialization Faculty Research Dinner
International Specialization Faculty Research Dinner
Tuesday, November 26, 2014
IPSA invites all graduate students to come enjoy dinner and discussion with NYU faculty and practitioners involved in international development and public service-related research. The International Specialization Faculty Dinner is an opportunity to interact with professors at Wagner and other NYU schools, and dicuss current trends in research.
Faculty Brainstorming Session #2
Faculty Brainstorming Session #2


text:
Meet the international network for the social fight against organised crime and corruption
FLARE news-observatory gives you an overview of transnational organised crime
Read more!
Take action and contribute to the spreading of legality
Find out how, when and where!
The first online magazine focused on transnational organised crime
Go Bright!
Interactive and multimedia contents.
Your virtual guide through legality
Come and play!


text:
With well-earned accolades such as 'Best Business Lunch Venue' for the past eight years and recognised by 'Eat Out' as one of the fifteen 'best of the best' restaurants, Browns of Rivonia is one of Joburg's most popular spots.
If you don't love wine quite so much, there is a beautiful patio that overlooks a stunning private garden and pretty koi pond, or dine on the deck, which is very well suited to lunchtime meals. For some sophistication there is an executive lounge where champagne, cognacs and cigars can be savoured.
A very unique feature of this intriguing restaurant is the cheese room, which proffers more than 30 delicious international cheeses. Visit the cheese room alone or pop in before your meal to select the cheese you'd like to finish your dining experience with.
A truly unique and elegant dining experience.
The tantalizing menu and award winning wine list accompanies distinct palates with an unbeatable ambiance.
Here embassy and government officials find sanctuary in international cuisine and fine dining surrounds.
A myriad of dining options beacon intimate dinners, private conversations and languid lunches enjoyed alongside impeccable service.
Find out why Cynthia's Indigo Moon is the favoured meeting place for distinct palates in Gauteng.
Kongoni Camp has rooms, restaurant and bar. Its situated on the edge of Nanyuki Town overlooking Mount Kenya in the distance. The restaurant specializes in international cuisine, has great steak and homemade pizzas cooked Italian style in a wood-fired oven. Has a great top-shelf in the bar and the coffee is the best in Nanyuki. All reasonably priced.
IPerched along the beachfront, Nautilus captures a bygone setting rich in cultural traditions.
During balmy summer days, dine indoors cooled by the welcoming air conditioner or dine alfresco on the esplanade.
The restaurant prefers a more formal setting and a la carte menu with buffet choices.
The Esplanade offers snacks and light meals including exotic cocktails.
Tuck into some refreshing international cuisine at Nautilus Beach Resort.
The Docks Restaurant is in Cape Town's V & A Waterfront is next to the Nelson Mandela Gateway, home of the Robben Island ferry. Popular with passersby and locals, the area in front of The Docks is the playground for the local seal population. Known as the seal pen, The Docks is on the same site as the old Bertie's Landing. Its extensive menu, relaxed atmosphere and fabulous location right on the water's edge, in front of the Clock Tower, make The Docks a popular place to sit back and relax, and take in the fabulous views of Cape Town, Table Mountain and the harbour.
The Docks serves breakfast, lunch, dinner, light meals and cocktails. The wine list is extensive and features some of the best South African wines. The menu has something for everyone, from burgers to seafood, grills to pasta, as well as salads and traditional South African fare. The dinner menu also features specialities such as ostrich, game and lobster.
Relaxed and family orientated, with fabulous views The Docks Restaurant offers patrons a varied menu that caters for all tastes and good friendly service. Patrons are often treated to shows from the local buskers on the dockside next to the restaurant, with acts including gumboot dancers, a marimba band, mimes and signers.
Located within the clubhouse, the all day dining menu offers light meals and South African cuisine with a touch of International flair.
Signature dishes are the order of the day, best enjoyed on the terrace overlooking the extravagant pool and spectacular mountain ranges of Paarl and Franschhoek.


text:
Open Daily 10:00 - 17:00 Call: 0191 515 5555
Open Daily 10:00 - 17:00 Call: 0191 515 5555
Cate Watkinson trained in 3-D design, Glass with Ceramics at Sunderland Polytechnic. After leaving college she worked in Cambridge and the Channel Islands before returning to the north east to set up her architectural glass practice in 1988. Cate's designs range from decorative glass panels for private buildings, etched glass screens for offices, to street furniture and major public sculpture commissions. She took up the post of part time Senior Lecturer and Subject Leader in Architectural Glass in 2006 at Sunderland University. Cate carries out both research at the University and commissioned public art work.
With almost twenty years as a practising glass designer Cate has built on her experience gained through working on large scale architectural projects, optimising developments in new technologies, including new developments and techniques in construction. She is interested in developing research around the sustainability agenda and continues to develop her work in a range of different materials. She is now designing architectural pieces in steel, stone and light.
For a full list of research click here
Glass Artist
I am an Israeli artist based in the UK working primarily in kiln cast glass.
Glass Maker and Artist
I have worked at National Glass Centre since finishing my degree in 2005.
Head of Enterprise, Commissioning & the Studio
I am Head of Enterprise, Commissioning and the Studio at National Glass Centre at the University of Sunderland, England and am a member of the Senior Management Team.
Glass Artist
My practice is interdisciplinary combining drawing, sculpture and film.
Marketing and Communications Coordinator
Sara Jo Harrison joined National Glass Centre in 2012 to support the Centre's marketing and Communications strategy.
My work uses a range of media which acknowledges the interface between both traditional practice and new media.
Learning and Engagement Officer
Rachel joined National Glass Centre in 2007 to support the Centre's learning and engagement programme having completed MA Glass the previous year.
Glass Artist
Kalki Mansel is one of National Glass Centre's resident glass artists.
Professor of Glass and Ceramics National Glass Centre
Kevin Petrie is Professor of Glass and Ceramics' and leads the academic team in Glass and Ceramics at the University of Sunderland, which is based at National Glass Centre.
0191 515 5555


text:
Welcome to CNC LABOur valued customers and visitors are welcome to use our website to get the latest news about techno
MATLAB & ARDUINONow you can interface and program Arduino Microcontrollers using Matlab MCode or Simulink. Imagine d
Raspberry PiRaspberry Pi & Pi AccessoriesWho
Makeblock Custom RobotsUnleash your creativity with Makeblock structural robotics kits. Create custom robots Mobile 2WD, Mo
CNC LAB Facebook pageCheck out CNC LAB Facebook page for most recent products highlights and product demos.Like US
Mini PC FamilyMini PC Products
Computerized Numerical Control Laboratory "CNC LAB" was founded early
2010. We provide products and services for the academic field such as
university instructors and students as well as for hobbyists and
We provide products that cover all electrical and
computer engineering projects needs from sensors, actuators, power,
controllers, interfaces and gadgets. We focus on providing universities
with custom lab equipment and kits for their educational needs.
Our services range from free support for our products to professional consultancy and contracting of products prototyping.
currently have a record of more than 200 projects in the educational
and professional field combined in Lebanon, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and the Netherlands.
Using our website customers can browse
our inventory, download products manuals and make orders as well as
getting the latest news from CNC LAB and world technology.
CNC LAB - Rami Nassouh & Co.Tripoli, LebanonBahsas, Haykalieh Str.Harba Bld., Ground Flr.
Phone: +961 6 412 895E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Artist's Rock features beautiful views.
- Filed Under
Winter is a great time to explore this beautiful campground and its extensive trail system - the crowds are gone, and you'll enjoy trails and popular viewing areas perhaps in complete solitude.
Drive into the campground and turn right to the end of South Lake at a winter parking area. Cross the broad lawn to an information board and walk along the west side of South Lake, where you'll be treated to amusing signs of beaver activity, such as almost gnawed-down trees - one wonders why they stopped so close to success.
Enjoy a level walk and follow yellow foot trail markers as you reach a campground road ...


text:
- F1 Merchandise
- By Driver
- Nico Rosberg
After his maiden victory at the Chinese Grand Prix in 2012, Nico Rosberg will look to get some more wins under his belt with Mercedes AMG. in 2013. Show your support for Nico with the Nico Rosberg Mercedes cap and official Mercedes AMG merchandise.
- Mercedes AMG 2015 Rosberg cap - black


text:
Most U.K. stocks advanced, with the FTSE 100 (UKX) Index rebounding from two months of losses, as Lloyds Banking Group Plc (LLOY) reported profit that beat estimates.
The benchmark FTSE 100 Index increased 8.96, or 0.2 percent, to 5,746.74 at 8:04 a.m. in London, as four shares rose for every one that declined. The gauge retreated 0.5 percent last month as Britain slipped into a double-dip recession and concerns that the euro-area debt crisis may deepen returned. The FTSE All-Share Index added 0.1 percent today, while Ireland's ISEQ Index gained 0.4 percent.
Lloyds climbed 2.2 percent to 31.7 pence after Britain's biggest mortgage lender said first-quarter profit more than doubled as impairments shrank.
Pretax profit, excluding one-time items and asset sales, rose to 628 million pounds ($1 billion) from 284 million pounds in the year-earlier period, the London-based bank said. Analysts had predicted a profit of 422 million pounds, according to the median estimate of seven surveyed by Bloomberg. Total impairments fell by 36 percent, helped by the lender's Irish and Australian units.
BP Plc (BP/), Europe's second-largest oil company, dropped 2.1 percent to 435.65 pence as it said first-quarter net income fell to $5.9 billion from $7.3 billion a year earlier.
To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Rummer in London at firstname.lastname@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew Rummer at firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Time to Focus
Posted: September 19, 2012|
Ford's 2005 Focus had one of the toughest tasks faced by any family car.
It had to reprise the success of its ground-breaking predecessor.
Not only that, but it was faced with a whole host of rivals who had taken the previous generation Focus apart, copied its technology, employed its development engineers and done all they could to try to one-up Ford.
While it's true that the 2005 model year Focus no longer enjoys the huge gulf in capability over its rivals that its predecessor could indulge in, it's still one of the very finest family hatches around and, from a driver's perspective, is still the one to have. The styling may have become a little lower key but the Focus has, in most of the key areas that count, become a markedly better car. Used examples are now appearing in meaningful numbers and make very decent buys.
A good deal more conventional in outward appearance to the striking original, some saw this as a sign that Ford had lost their edge when it came to product development, but a short spell behind the wheel would dispel this myth for good.
Despite rivals like the Volkswagen Golf and Vauxhall Astra closing the gap, the Focus was still the best value package in its class and sales soon ramped up to very encouraging levels.
An estate version followed within a couple of weeks of the three and five-door hatches appearing and in March 2005, a very handsome four door saloon version appeared, erasing memories of the rather awkward-looking first generation Focus saloon.
Performance fans were sated in late 2005 with the launch of the 2.5-litre ST models, powered by a 220bhp Volvo-sourced turbocharged five cylinder engine.
Although prices are settling fast, £5,275 is currently the kick off point for a second generation Focus, that sum buying you a 1.4-litre Studio hatch. If you're looking for something with a little more engine (and it is recommended), the 1.6-litre Zetec three-door is just dipping under £5,750 for average mile examples. The 2.0-litre petrol engines have proven surprisingly sought after and a five-door example in Titanium trim starts at £7,075. The Focus ST is still rare as a used buy although initial sales volumes suggest that this is unlikely to remain so for too long.
The diesel models are big hits and £6,400 will buy a five-door 1.6TDCi LX with the first of the 1.8 TDCi Estates in Zetec trim going for around £7,350. The 2.0-litre diesels are perhaps the pick of the entire range and these start at £8,225 for a Zetec five-door hatch.
Ford's engines are, on the whole, reliable, so give the car the usual once-over looking for signs of wear and indications of hard fleet, company or rental car use. Worn carpets, and scuffed trim are the usual clues. The 1.4-litre engine is a little underpowered for such a substantial car, so avoid high mileage ex-fleeters with this powerplant.
Check that all the electrical items work properly, ensure that the air conditioner delivers chilled air soon after the engine is started and remember that a full service history always helps when selling on, too.
If you're looking at ST model, make sure the tyres still have some tread on them, and that the car hasn't been thrashed or crashed. Focuses are tough but some will inevitably have been abused. It is always worth checking the dashboard lights up and all the instruments work. If all the instruments fail, it will be the circuit board that needs replacing, this used to be expensive, but Ford will now provide the replacement for £99. You're not exactly going out on a limb but playing it safe will net you a very good car. Avoid the gutless 1.4-litre petrol models and you should be very happy indeed with your purchase.


text:
After an evaluation of 10,000 drink industry brands, Chilean winery Concha y Toro appears as number 22 on the recently released Intangible Business list of "Power 100: The world's most powerful spirits & wine brands 2009."
The list, now in its fourth year, factors in "hard measures" such as market share, brand growth, price positioning, and market scope, and well as "soft measures" that consider brand awareness, brand relevancy, brand heritage, and brand perception.
While distilled spirits clearly led the way, with Smirnoff Vodka in the number 1 spot (and no wine brands in the top 10), the general sector rating placed Still Light Wine in the 5th position (after whisky, the clear leader, vodka, flavored spirits, and rum). Sparkling wine placed 7th.
When the Wine Brand category was analyzed, Concha y Toro-the only Chilean brand-placed a close third after Gallo and Hardy's both of the USA,who had slightly higher total scores, although Concha y Toro's overall brand score was higher
For more information and to download the full report, click here to see Intangible Business: "The Power 100 2009″.


text:
Our applications offer a great experience!
We are pleased to announce that Scalado is now able to offer our superior products as apps for all consumers.
Our world leading mobile imaging solutions have been used for over a decade by most of the companies in the mobile business (OEM, ODM, sensor & platform providers etc.). Now we also offer the consumer direct access to our technologies thru apps.
We constantly working on creating the best imaging experience for the end user, and now we can get direct feedback.


text:
Alastair Craig was a Reporter for the Chronicle, Journal and Sunday Sun from 2007 to 2013.
FIGHTER pilots, parachutists and stunt fliers have been thrilling the crowds at the Sunderland International Airshow.
IN a matter of days, they'll be playing at Wembley Stadium in the biggest sporting competition on the planet...
A huge gas explosion occurred this afternoon in Huntcliffe Gardens, Heaton, Newcastle.
A MAJOR innovation in surgical procedures has arrived in the North East.
CHEF Marco Pierre White has officially opened his latest eatery in Newcastle.
ONE is a star of the Harry Potter movies, the other is a Geordie crooner.
FORMER Darlington FC chairman Raj Singh says he feels "let down" by local council leaders over the club's demise.
A NORTH East man has appeared in court accused of murdering his parents.
MURDER suspect Christopher Hodgson wept uncontrollably as he denied the intentional knifing of his stepdad.
Newcastle Chronicle
For the latest local news straight to your Twitter, Facebook feed or e-mail inbox.
Is there something happening in your area you would like us to report on?
Tell us about it and, if possible, send us a picture.
The Chronicle is read by more adults than any other regional newspaper on sale in the area. With 170,115 average issue readers, this reach extends to 366,753 weekly readers – that's over 1/4 of adults in the area!
The average time spent reading the Chronicle is 31 minutes; which shows the length of time that readers are engaging with the editorial and advertising content.
49,199* copies of the Chronicle are sold on average each day as it continues to be an integral part of the region.
*ABC Newcastle Chronicle 100% paid, Mon - Sat, JICREG, 1/10/2012
Unique Users: 1.6m
Page Views: 10m
Audience figures from Omniture, monthly average (Jan - Jun 2014).
More than 1 in 3 ChronicleLive users have clicked through to an online advertisement, demonstrating that our users are responsive and receptive to Internet advertising messages.
ChronicleLive reaches an internet-savvy audience, with 84% of users having purchased products or services online in the past 12 months.
Download our rate cards for all the prices of our print and digital products.
Click here to complete our advertising enquiry form.
Editor, The Chronicle Editor-in-Chief, Trinity Mirror North East
Darren was appointed editor of the Chronicle in September 2011, following a six-year spell as editor of the Evening Gazette in Teesside.
He has held a number of senior roles on regional newspapers across England, Scotland and Wales over the last 15 years and is now editor-in-chief of Trinity Mirror North East.


text:
Search Results: Sinclair, Wyoming
- SinclAir Baptist ChurchSinclair, WY 82334Baptist
Looking to find the closest church in your neighborhood? Below is a comprehensive list of churches across the USA. Next time you're out of town and need to find a church to worship on Sunday. Take a look at our list below.


text:
Time is flying by, and I'm not totally sure I remember all the story to go with this yummy, thick, salad-dressing-of-sorts. Perhaps Lisa will edit it soon. If I remember correctly, a Yumm Sauce is more from an Indian background. Lisa says although Indian food is a favorite for them, most foods are not made gluten-free. So, Lisa found this recipe on line and it makes a perfect topping. I'm most impressed by the quality of ingredients, like garbanzo beans and almonds, which add good nutritional value to the sauce.
Notes from Lisa
This sauce is great with rice or pasta. It can also be used as a dressing for salads, a topping on soup & chili, a spread for sandwiches, a dipping sauce for veggies, a basting sauce for grilling, or a mayo alternative. It's really quite versatile! But best of all, it's egg free, dairy free, wheat free, gluten free, sugar free, cholesterol free and low in sodium. There are nuts in it, however, for anyone with allergies to nuts. My kids love it! I'm sure if you make it you'll find a ton of creative uses for such a flavorful, yummy sauce. Go for it!
Recipe for Original Yumm Sauce
Source: http://mpchickchat.blogspot.com/2005/11/recipe-rip-off-edited.html
- ½ cup oil
- ½ cup almonds
- ⅓ cup brewers yeast
- ⅓ cup garbanzo beans, (or more- 1/2 c.)
- ¼ cup soybeans, (or 1/2 c. silken tofu)
- ½ cup water
- ½ cup lemon juice
- 2 cloves garlic
- ½ teaspoon salt
- 1 teaspoon curry powder
Blend nuts, beans and oil in food processor. Then blend in yeast and liquids one at a time. Puree until smooth. Voila!