47 C.F.R. § 1.720

Purpose

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The following procedural rules apply to formal complaint proceedings under 47 U.S.C. 208, pole attachment complaint proceedings under 47 U.S.C. 224, and advanced communications services and equipment formal complaint proceedings under 47 U.S.C. 255, 617, and 619, and part 14 of this chapter. Additional rules relevant only to pole attachment complaint proceedings are provided in subpart J of this part.

[83 FR 44832, Sept. 4, 2018]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Global Naps, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 247 F.3d 252 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Global Naps, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 247 F.3d 252 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “” 47 C.F.R. § 1.720 (a). As interpreted by the FCC, these rules bar a complainant from amending or otherwise “introducing new issues late in the development of the case.”

Stiles v. GTE Sw. Inc., 128 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 1997). “” 47 C.F.R. § 1.720 . In short, formal complaint proceedings are more akin to traditional judicial proceedings.”

Mexiport, Inc. v. Frontier Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 253 F.3d 573 (11th Cir. 2001). “47 C.F.R. § 1.720 , § 1.721. This process is more akin to a traditional judicial proceeding than the informal complaint process.”

Am. Message Centers v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Sprint Commc'ns Co., L.P., Intervenor, 50 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “fully and with specificity,” 47 C.F.R. § 1.720 (a) (1994), by providing a “[e]omplete identification or description, including relevant time period, of the communications, services, or other carrier conduct complained of,” id.”

At&T Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 317 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “” 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720 (a), 1.721(a)(6) (1994).”

Minnesota Telecom All. v. FCC (8th Cir. 2026). “See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720 -.740. Sixth, the FCC adopted a presumption of compliance with its digital discrimination rule for policies and practices that comply with the non-discrimination requirements of related broadband programs.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.