• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Before heFEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSIONWashington,.C.20554
In the MatterofSkybridgeSpectrumFoundation,nonprofitcorporation,nd supportingompanies:IntelligentTransportationMonitoringWirelessLLC, EnvironmentelLC,VerdeSystemsLC, andTelesaurusoldingsLLC(eachFCCicensees):Petitionfor a declaratoryulingwhether heCommunicationsct including$332,or thejurisdictionof theFederalCommunicationsCommission,reemptsStateor Federal ourtjurisdictionand awardingof monetarydamagesandotheractionsoughtby one CMRS or PMRSserviceprovideragainstanother,or violationofStateor Federalantitrustaw, tort law, andcertainotheraw.(Theirstoftwo independent ut related,concurrently-submittedetitionsunder47CFR$1.2.)To the CommissionPublic NoticePETITIONFOR DECLARATORYRULINGS
ocT{N$r€dsndffi&olffiWffiff**
For Petitioners:Wanen C.Havens2649BenvenueAvenueBerkeleyC494704Phone: 10.841.2220.ax:510740 3412Nossaman LPPatrickJ. RichardSophieN.Froelich50 California Street.34th FloorSanFrancisco, A94lllPhone:15.438.7278.ax: 415.398.2438October14,2009
 
 
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554In the Matter of Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, a nonprofitcorporation, and supporting companies:Intelligent Transportation & MonitoringWireless LLC, Environmentel LLC, VerdeSystems LLC, and Telesaurus Holdings LLC(each FCC licensees):Petition for a declaratory ruling whether theCommunications Act including §332, or the jurisdiction of the Federal CommunicationsCommission, preempts State or Federal court jurisdiction and awarding of monetary damagesand other action sought by one CMRS or PMRSservice provider against another, for violationof State or Federal antitrust law, tort law, andcertain other law.(The first of two independent but related,concurrently-submitted petitions under 47 CFR§1.2.)Docket ___________________Public Notice ______________To the CommissionPETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULINGSFor Petitioners:Warren C. Havens2649 Benvenue AvenueBerkeley CA 94704Phone: 510.841.2220. Fax: 510 740 3412Nossaman LLPPatrick J. RichardSophie N. Froelich50 California Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.438.7278. Fax: 415.398.2438October 14, 2009
 
- 2 -
TABLE OF CONTENTSTHE TWO PETITIONS1.11.21.31.4Introduction and Summary..........................................................................Request to Place on Public Notice with Pleading Cycle and withStatement of Intent to Issue a Decision.......................................................Petition 1: Parties, Questions Posed (Matters in Controversy in PendingCourt Cases, and Similar Conflicts in Other Case Law), and RulingsRequested.....................................................................................................Petition 2: Parties, Questions Posed (Matters in Controversy in PendingCourt Cases, and Similar Conflicts in Other Case Law), and RulingsRequested.....................................................................................................47812PETITION 1BACKGROUND and NEED2.22.22.32.4Immediate and Nationwide Importance:Need to Extend the Commission’s Declaratory Ruling
Wireless Consumers Alliance
(2000) 15 FCC RCD 17021 to Its Basis:Fair Competition Among Competitors Providing Consumer WirelessServices........................................................................................................The FCC Can Issue the Requested Ruling Without Delving Into Facts of Petitioners’ Pending State and Federal Court Litigation.............................The Requested Ruling Will Provide Needed Guidance Including Under“
Chevron
Deference” to Allow Proper Actions in and Limit MisguidedDecisions by State and Federal Trial and Appellate Courts, and ReduceCompetitor Proceedings and Hearings Before the FCC..............................To Sharpen the Needed Guidance, the Requested Ruling Order ShouldFind that the FCC Should State, in Opinions and Orders on Challengesby an FCC Licensee against Another (including a Petition to Deny, or aPetition to Revoke),
What (if Any) FCC Rules, Communication Act Sections, and/or FCC Orders Were Violated 
, Especially for the Private-Rights-of-Action Purposes of §§ 206, 206, and 401(b) of the Act., butalso for the Antitrust-Law Purposes of §§ 152 Note, 313 and 314, and theGeneral, State-Law-Action Savings Purpose of § 414................................12131314
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...