47 U.S.C. § 208
Complaints to Commission; investigations; duration of investigation; appeal of order concluding investigation
This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.
1996—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 104–104 substituted “such investigation within 5 months” for “such investigation within 12 months” and struck out before period at end “, or within 15 months after such date if the investigation raises questions of fact of such extraordinary complexity that the questions cannot be resolved within 12 months”.
1988—Pub. L. 100–594 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).
Amendment by Pub. L. 104–104 applicable with respect to any charge, classification, regulation, or practice filed on or after one year after
Nothing in amendment by Pub. L. 104–104 to be construed to limit authority of Commission to waive, modify, or forbear from applying certain requirements, see section 402(b)(3) of Pub. L. 104–104, set out as a note under section 204 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2023 · leading case: NetworkIP, LLC v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 548 F.3d 116 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
NetworkIP, LLC v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 548 F.3d 116 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “What finally tips the scale in favor of our having jurisdiction is a statute enacted in 1988, 47 U.S.C. § 208 (b). As happened here, agencies can bifurcate a single grievance into separate proceedings for liability and damages.”
Verizon Tel. Companies v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 269 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “In this case, however, the relevant jurisdiction-conferring statute, 47 U.S.C. § 208 (b), provides that an order “concluding an investigation .”
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994). “On August 7, 1989, AT&T filed a complaint, pursuant to the thirdparty complaint provision of the Communications Act, 47 U. S. C. § 208 (a), which alleged that MCI's collection of unfiled rates violated §§ 203(a) and (c).”
At&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999). “[3] I agree with the majority, ante, at 386, that respondents' challenge to the FCC's assertion that it has authority under 47 U. S. C. § 208 to consider complaints arising under the 1996 Act is not ripe for review.”
Global Crossing Telecomm., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 259 F.3d 740 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “Nonetheless, Global Crossing continued to refuse to pay, and, on July 15, 1998, Verizon filed a formal complaint with the FCC pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 208 . 5 The complaint alleged that Global Crossing had violated 47 U.”
Qwest Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 252 F.3d 462 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “filed a series of complaints with the Commission under 47 U.S.C. § 208 (authorizing complaints “of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier subject to this chapter, in contravention of the provisions thereof’).”
CenturyTel of Chatham, LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., 861 F.3d 566 (5th Cir. 2017). “The proper procedure, according to CenturyLink, was to initiate a grievance proceeding with the FCC pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 208 . The FCC has not squarely addressed the propriety of the claw-back scheme Sprint utilized, and at issue are the terms “unjust or unreasonable”.”
Hi-Tech Furnace Sys., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 224 F.3d 781 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “*790 To the contrary, and as the FCC properly emphasizes, section 208 of the Communications Act expressly authorizes the Commission “to investigate the matters complained of in such manner and by such means as it shall deem proper.”
Frank H. Boomer, on Behalf of Himself & All Others Similarly Situated v. At & T Corp., a New York Corp., 309 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2002). “ion 208 provides: "(a) Any person, any body politic or municipal organization, or State commission, complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier subject to this chapter, in contravention of the provisions thereof, may apply to said Commission by…”
At&t Corp. v. Fcc, 970 F.3d 344 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “Four of AT&T’s allegations are relevant here: First, Aureon’s interstate and intrastate access charges violated the transitional pricing rules.”
Ramette v. AT & T CORP., 812 N.E.2d 504 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “Section 207 of the FCA provides that any person alleging damage by a common carrier can file a complaint with the FCC.”
SBC Commc'ns Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 407 F.3d 1223 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “, filed a joint complaint with the FCC under 47 U.S.C. § 208 , alleging that nine SBC affiliates had improperly refused to allow them to use shared transport to complete intraLATA toll calls in violation of the Act, the FCC’s implementing rules, and the Merger Order.”
— 47 U.S.C. § 208(b) — 1 case
NTCH, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 877 F.3d 408 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
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.