CREW: Federal Communications Commission: Regarding McCain, Clinton and Obama: Obama

BARACK OBAMA COMMITTEES:
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAND
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Wnited State8 Senate VETERANS’ AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
April 20,2005
Mr. Dennis Dorsey

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Mr. Dorsey:
I am writing in regard to your agency’s relationship with the Chicago Lighthouse for People
Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired (the Chicago Lighthouse).
It is my understanding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) currently

purchases wall clocks made by the Chicago Lighthouse under the Javits-Wagner-O’Day
(JWOD) Act, which mandates the procurement of office supplies from organizations
employing people who are blind or have other disabilities. This statute has been a
cornerstone of the Federal commitment to promoting the employment of the disabled for
over 70 years. The Chicago Lighthouse is a proud example of the merits of this policy. It
has manufactured quality wall clocks for the federal government for the past 28 years,
extending employment opportunities to 20 blind persons in the process.
Recently, the Wall Street Journal ran a fi-ont page story (2/2/05) on the challenge faced by
the Chicago Lighthouse in competing with overseas clockmakers. Specifically, that article
reports that, “For 28 years, most wall clocks in U.S. government offices have come from one
place: Chicago Lighthouse, a nonprofit enterprise devoted to employing the blind. . .But the
clock is ticking for Chicago Lighthouse, which faces heavy new competition from China.”
The piece goes on to point out that in the past four years, U S . imports of wall clocks have
increased 24% and Lighthouse share of the government market has declined substantially.
What distinguishes Lighthouse clocks from those made in China are their quality and
craftsmanship. As one of their workers notes, a Lighthouse clock she made for her mom in
1979 is still ticking today. This commitment to quality by Lighthouse workers underscores
the fact that, given an opportunity, people who are blind or visually impaired can be just as
productive as any other worker. All they require is a chance, and that is exactly what the
Commission is giving them under the aegis of JWOD.
What’s happened in recent years, however, is a growing erosion of the JWOD, whereby
government agencies are simply bypassing this statute to order less expensive products,
many of which are made overseas by cheap labor. With the current employment rate for
blind or visually impaired people in the United States at a disappointing 34%, it would seem
indefensible for JWOD not to be enforced, particularly at the expense of a proven operation
Mr. Dennis Dorsey
April 20,2005
Page 2
like the Chicago Lighthouse.
For many years the General Services Administration, as the chief procurement arm for the
federal government, made enforcement of JWOD a priority. Then, about a decade ago, the
government decentralized acquisition procedures and encouraged cost cutting procurement
practices. There appears to be little doubt that this change has hurt the Chicago Lighthouse.
Certainly cost should be a priority of government procurement policy. But it should not be
the sole determinant, as it clearly is not in many cases at the Department of Defense and
other agencies. And encouraging the employment of disabled Americans is also a legitimate
government priority.
It is my hope that all Federal agencies would rededicate themselves to honoring the letter and
spirit of JWOD by giving greater weight to the Chicago Lighthouse in their procurement
strategies. Therefore, I strongly urge you to make your contract with the Chicago Lighthouse
for wall clocks an agency priority consistent with the letter and spirit of the Javits-Wagner-
O'Day Act. I would also appreciate being advised of the status of the Commission's contract
with the Chicago Lighthouse, as I am interested to know whether the FCC has cut back on its
acquisition of Chicago Lighthouse wall clocks in recent years in favor of other
manufacturers.
I look forward to hearing fi-om you at your earliest convenience. In the meantime, I will
encourage my Senate colleagues to take their lead from my fellow Illinoisan, Congressman
Danny Davis, who was named a JWOD Congressional Champion this past fall for his tireless
efforts to extend employment opportunities to disabled persons. In a time when American
jobs are vanishing overseas, it is imperative that these disabled but highly capable workers
keep the precious employment opportunities they have, particularly since those rights have
been spelled out in federal law.
Sincerely,
BarackObm a
United States Senator
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D. C.20554
OFFICE OF
MANAGING DIReCTOR May 18, 2005
The Honorable Barack Obama

United States Senate
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Contracting with Chicago Lighthouse
Dear Senator Obama:
I am pleased to report that this agency purchases all applicable supplies, including
clocks from sources covered under the Javits-Wagner-O’Day (JWOD) Act
Our primary office supplies source, BCOP Federal (Boise Cascade Office
Products) is a recognized distributor of JWOD products. This Agency intends to
continue to follow the letter and spirit of the JWOD Act by maintaining our supply
contract with BCOP Federal.
If you have any questions and/or concerns, please contact Mr. Dennis Dorsey,
Manager, Contracts & Purchasing Center, at (202)418-1952.
Sincerely,
Andrew S . Fishel
Managing Director
COMMITTEES
BARACK OBAMA
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENT AND
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Wnited State5 Senate VETERANS' AFFAIRS
May 25,2005
Diane Atkinson
Congressional Liaison Specialist
445 Twelfth Street, SW, Room 8-C453
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received by my Chicago office from my constituent,

Joshua Samos. Attached you will find his letter which gives a more accurate description
and explanation of his issues.
I would appreciate your looking into this matter at your earliest convenience. Please
advise Jennifer Mason, who assists me in these matters, of your findings.
If you require any further assistance or have additional questions, please do not hesitate
to contact Jennifer at 312-886-3506.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
From Joshua Sarnos to 13128663514 on 5/19/2005 7:42 PM 00
From: Enjoy Training Ltd

Joshua Sarnos
Classic PhoneTools
L - 7
/ Fax:
To:
773-248-1 183
Bar& Obama
Phone: 773-5 10-6550
BVRPiofrwers
1 Date : 5/19/2005 Time: 7:42 PM page(s) : 3 I/
Bill O'Reilly of Fox News has repeatedly told lies and mis-informed the public. His show
should be banned and he should be fined and removed from the air.
Thank you,
Josh Samos
email: jsamos@aol.com
3rn Joshua Samos to 13128663514 on 5/19/2005 7:42 PM 00
FCC Complaint Division:
* Here are some recent examples of Bill O'Reilly's lies on Fox TV, as reported
by rnediamatters.org.
His show should be banned. He should be fined expelled from news broadcasting.
Fox should lose their license to broadcast, if they cannot provide programming
that is in the public interest. Telling lies and mis-informing the public, as
Bill O'REilly does on Fox, is not serving the public interest. I expect the
FCC to fine and remove the license of Fox if these violations of FCC
requirements are not rectified immediately. Any station that permits
continuous mis-statements of fact, lying, and rnis-information, without
complete retraction, needs to lose their license to broadcast on the public
airways.
I a m sending copies of this to my senators, Durbin and O b a m a .
In an effort to "clarify the record," Fox News host Bill O'Reilly admitted
that Jane Fonda did not pass secret notes from U.S. prisoners of war to their
Vietnamese captors, as he had previously claimed. Media Matters for America
has previously documented O'Reilly and other Fox News commentators repeating
the smear (here and here). O'Reilly's "clarification" came just one day after
he asserted that "in eight and a half years, we have not had to retract one
story here. I '
Here are some other corrections that O'Reilly has made since Media Matters
began monitoring him, though, as in his 'tclarification"of the Fonda story, he
has not called them "retractions":
* Even as he stood by his criticism of a Houston Chronicle editorial,

O'Reilly admitted on May 13 that he had misattributed a quotation to the
Chronicle during his original report. ! ' M y mistake. No excuses,'I he said. He
a l s o admitted that the Chronicle's editorial didn't say that a new Florida law
on sex offenders "was too harsh."
* O'Reilly admitted that he had called Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) a rlnutlla
day after denying it on his show. On the January 26 edition of Fox News' The
O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly explained: !'I forgot that I indeed did apply that
word to Senator Boxer, while analyzing her strategy, or lack thereof, to fight
terrorism. I t
Media Matters would like to suggest some other cases where O'Reilly should
"clarify the record.
* March 1, 2005: O'Reilly used a February 28 State Department report on

human rights around the world to argue that the Bush administration is
adequately addressing allegations of torture by U.S. interrogators. In fact,
the report did not examine alleged human rights violations by the United
States.
* February 16, 2005: O'Reilly used phony budget statistics to claim a
"staggering increase" in federal spending on food stamps and housing
assistance.
* February 15, 2005: O'Reilly claimed that "No lies have been told about
anyone . . . and you can't produce one, madam." Media Matters highlighted a few
falsehoods he has told about Democrats.
* January 19, 2005: O'Reilly attacked Boxer with a series of lies and I
distortions, including a false claim that Boxer had accused then-Secretary of
State nominee Condoleezza Rice of allowing her "ideological loyalty" to
President Bush to take precedence over her support for the troops. In fact,
Boxer never mentioned Rice's "respect for the troops,ll instead claiming that
Rice had allowed her loyalty to Bush to overwhelm her "respect for the
truth." (Even after several callers to his radio s h o w tried to,correct the
misquotation, 0'Reilly defended his falsehood. )
,m Joshua Samos to 13128663514 on 5/19/2005 7:42 PM 00
* January 4, 2004: O'Reilly said that the Geneva Conventions apply only to
soldiers, when in fact, the Fourth Geneva Convention ("Geneva Convention
relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War") lays out
separate protections for civilians, which the International Committee for the
Red Cross has stated ought to apply to so-called I1unlawfulcombatants.Il
* December 21, 2004: O'Reilly said that a school in Washington "banned'l a
stage production of A Christmas Carol because the school feared it would
violate the constitutional separation of church and state. In fact, the school
cancelled the show because the theatre company putting on the play planned to
charge admission, a violation of school policy, and because the principal had
not approved the event.
* December 16, 2004: O'Reilly asserted that "you donlt see prominent
conservatives cursing out Democratic members of Congress.I1 Unless the moniker
Ilprominent conservative" does not apply to Vice President Dick Cheney,
O f R e i l l y l sassertion is false.
* July 26, 2004: O'Reilly falsely claimed that as a candidate in the
Democratic presidential primaries, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean advocated
"pull[ ing] out of Iraq immediately.
* July 19, 2004: After a viewer questioned the legitimacy of Bush's
election in 2000, O'Reilly falsely claimed that "Bush would have won [in
Florida] no matter what."
* April 27, 2004: O'Reilly fabricated evidence that his "boycott" of
French imports had been successful by citing a non-existent publication -- the
Paris Business Review" -- that had supposedly reported on the success of his
French boycott campaign.
JUN 2 2 2005
IN REPLY REFER TO:
CN-0501142

Unites States Senate
John C. Kluczynski Federal Office Building
230 South Dearborn Street
Suite 3900
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joshua Samos, regarding his
concerns about the programming available on The Fox News Channel, a nonbroadcast television
network. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and federal statute limit the Commission’s
authority to regulate the content of television and radio programming. With respect to broadcast
programming, any authority the Commission has to regulate content would stem from the broad
language of Title I11 of the Communications Act which empowers and requires the Commission
to ensure that broadcast stations serve the public interest. In addition, the few rules the
Commission has concerning the content of television programming have been tied to an explicit
and unambiguous statement in federal law. For example, current federal laws prohibit electronic
media subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction from advertising certain tobacco products and
limit the amount of commercial advertising during children’s television programming. Federal
law also authorizes the Commission to prohibit all programming that qualifies as “obscene” and
to restrict “indecent” programming on broadcast television and radio stations. The
Communications Act also requires broadcast stations and cable television systems to provide
“equal opportunities” to qualified candidates for public office.
The Commission’s authority to regulate programming content is even more limited when
the programming is provided by a nonbroadcast television network, such as The Fox News
Channel. The Communications Act generally authorizes the Commission to license broadcasters
who utilize the public airwaves and whose programming is available to consumers at no charge.
The Fox News Channel, however, is not a broadcast television station and is not licensed by the
Commission. Rather, The Fox News Channel is a nonbroadcast network that is available to
consumers who elect to subscribe to cable, satellite, or other type of paid subscription television
service. Consequently, many of the statutes and regulations that govern broadcast licensees do
not apply to The Fox News Channel or to other nonbroadcast networks. Moreover, there is no
federal law that authorizes the Commission to regulate nonbroadcast or broadcast programming
content that may be biased and, except as discussed above, the Commission generally does not
have the authority to require that television and radio stations include or exclude specific content
Page 2-The Honorable Barack Obama
in their programming. Therefore, the Commission does not have the authority to prevent a
television or radio station from airing biased, unpopular or offensive viewpoints in its
programming. As a general matter, programming decisions are made by the television or radio
station and are not approved or reviewed by the government.
Mr. Samos may wish to contact The Fox News Channel directly so that persons with the
authority to make programming decisions will be aware of his views. Both broadcast and
nonbroadcast television stations are interested in hearing from viewers and often take into
account the preferences and opinions of listeners when developing programming structure and
formats.
I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of

further assistance.
Sincerely,
C h.Q
Chief, Office of Communications and Industry Information
Media Bureau
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
United StsteB Senate 16 VETERANS' AFFAIRS
June 20,2005
Chairman Kevin J. Martin

445 12th Street SW
Dear Chairman Martin:
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from my constituent Paul Davidson

expressing concern over Voice Over Internet Protocol regulations.
I hope you will take these views into close consideration.
Please respond directly to Mr. Davidson, with a copy of your response provided
to Joshua DuBois of my staff. Thank you for you attention to this matter.
With appreciation,
Barack Obama
Dear Senator Obama-
I own a small business, just starting out, here in Illinois. My primary focus
is in the relatively new world of Voice over IP- telephone systems for other
small business, that represent a cost-effective approach to advanced phone
features. As such, my services help other businesses by keeping costs down-
and that helps our state grow.
Recently, I've become aware that the FCC is soon to pass a rule stating that
all Voice over IP providers provide e911 services to their customers. This in
itself is a good idea- as it helps emergency services crews get to persons in
need. Unfortunately, the ruling as presently drafted does nothing to ensure
the local phone companies will work with the VoIP providers- traditionally,
they are competitors, so they do not work well together, and this will cause
problems. Since the rule as drafted requires compliance within the year, there
simply isn't enough time for the VoIP providers to comply- the technology is
new, and the existing 911 infrastructure isn't ready to quickly deal with the
problem. This will force many small Illinois businesses in the VoIP market out
of businesses, and will impact my business, as my clients may opt for other
types of service.
Mr. Obama, I would like to request that you do what you can to get the FCC to
rethink this rule- and quickly, before it truly impacts our economy.
Thanks very much,
Sincerely,
Paul Davidson, CEO, PlanCommunications, LLC.
847-444-1575
Deerfield, IL 60015
July 19,2005
CN: 0501290

Washington, D.C. 205 10
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your June 20,2005 letter regarding the inquiry from you constituent Paul
Davidson, CEO, PlanCommunications, LLC, on Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services.
As you are aware, the Commission on May 19,2005 adopted an Order requiring providers of
“interconnected” VoIP service to supply enhanced 9 11 (E9 11) emergency calling,capabilitiesto
their customers as a mandatory feature of the service. The Commission released the Order on
June 3,2005.
The IP-enabled services marketplace is the latest new frontier of our nation’s
communications landscape, and the Commission is committed to allowing IP-enabled services to
evolve without undue regulation. But the 91 1 system is critical to our nation’s ability to respond
to a host of crises. The Commission acted to minimize the likelihood of situations like recent
incidents in which users of interconnected VoIP dialed 91 1 but were unable to reach emergency
operators. The Order represents a balanced approach that takes into consideration the
expectations of consumers, the need to strengthen Americans’ ability to access public safety in
times of crisis, and the needs of entities offering these innovative services.
In adopting this Order, the Commission recognized that the successful nationwide
deployment of E9 11 service by interconnected VoIP providers is dependent on the cooperation
of interconnected VoIP providers, incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs), third-party vendors
and the public safety community. Such cooperation is already taking place in several major
markets, and we have every reason to believe that this cooperation will continue throughout the
country.
In order to avoid undue regulation of these innovative services, the Commission did not
dictate the technical means by which interconnected VoIP providers must come into compliance.
To comply with our rules, interconnected VoIP providers may interconnect directly with the
incumbent LEC’s E91 1 network or purchase access to this network from competitive carriers
and other third-party providers. The Order specifically states that incumbent LECs are required
to provide access to their E91 1 networks to any requesting telecommunications carrier, including
trunks, selective routers and E91 1 databases. Further, recent actions by the Bell Operating
Companies are allowing interconnected VoIP providers to access the incumbent LECs’ E91 1
networks, and the Commission expects further action in the near future. The Commission will
continue to monitor the situation closely in order to ensure that those expectations are met.
Page 2-The Honorable Barack Obama-July 19,2005
Please note that the Commission, in connection with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
issued with the Order, currently is seeking comment on what additional steps the Commission
should take to ensure that providers of VoIP services that interconnect with the nation’s public
switched telephone network provide ubiquitous and reliable E91 1 service. The Commission
appreciates your interest in this very important area and looks forward to your participation in
that proceeding.
Sincerely,
u i e A. Veach
Acting Chief, Competition Policy Division
Wireline Competition Bureau
COMMITTEES
BARACK OBAMA ENVIRONMENT AND
ILLINOIS
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
11
.. .
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 j;'*a ..,J
,
;
:
I
pi
July 13,2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received by my Chicago office from my constituent, Ms.
Barbara Hirsch Pekow. Ms. Pekow writes of consumer fraud. Attached you will find her letter
which gives a more accurate description and explanation of her issues.
Upon completion of Ms. Pekow's case, please forward your findings to Jennifer Mason at the
following address:
Office of U.S. Senator Barack Obama

230 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60604
Sincerely,
Barack Obama

Chicago, IL 60604
BARBARA HIRSCH PEKOW
20 EAST CEDAR STREET - UNIT 10 B
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6061 1
TELEPHONE (312) 943-0063

FACSIMILE (312) 649-5807
April 25, 2005
The Hon. Barack Obama

230 S. Dearborn St.
Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Sir:
I am writing to you because I am of the victim of an abuse by RCN

Telecom Service, Inc. which appears to be using its position to
perpetrate a consumer fraud. I shall endeavor to set for the facts on
which I base that belief in the hope that I may enlist your help to compel
RCN to cease its course of conduct.
For several years my condominium association has had a contract with

RCN that provides both basic cable and premium channels including
HBO and Showtime. For this service I have received monthly bills from
RCN which I have paid promptly. I thought that it would be nice to add a
few channels such as BET Jazz, the Independent Film Channel (IFC),
and Sundance and in early April telephoned RCN to find out what the
charge would be to make that addition. I was told that the charge was
$9.95 per month after a ninety day free period and that the service could
be terminated whenever I chose with no furtther obligation. I was told that
was the total charge with no other charges. I therefore agreed to have
RCN do what was necessary to start that service at that charge.
On April 6, 2005, an RCN representative came to my condo unit and

brought new cable boxes. I told him I had no intention of paying for new
cable boxes and that my total charge was as quoted to me, ninety days
free and then $9.95 per month. I was told that there was no charge but
that RCN was merely “exchanging cable boxes to bring its equipment up
to date” and doing so “as it was making calls.”The RCN representative
removed the old cable boxes and remotes and did make the exchange,
but RCN has such a reputation that I repeated that I would not make any
Page 2
April 25, 2005
payments beyond my agreement. The RCN representative assured me

that there was no charge for this equipment and pointed out the “.OO”
notations on the service receipt, a copy of which is enclosed for your
reference. (You will note that the representative circled the 00 columns
as he was assuring me that there were no further or other charges
beyond what 1 had been quoted and agreed to pay.)
On April 8, 2005, RCN returned because of an installation mistake they

had made and again represented that there would be no charge at all to
me other than that $9.95 which I had agreed to pay. I am enclosing a
copy of that service record as well and you will note the “no charge --
waive” notation and the 00 indications.
On April 11, 2005, I received a telephone call from a person identifying

herself as RCN and she said she “wanted my credit card number.”
Although I am an elderly widow, I am not quite so gullible as to provide
that. (I wonder however how many unwitting RCN customers have
provided their credit card numbers to RCN and received improper
charges). I told her that I would not give her my credit card number, that I
was receiving and paying proper RCN bills for years and that I would do
so in the future based on the representations that RCN made to me as
to the additional channels I requested. She asserted that I would be
billed for “new equipment” although I did not order such equipment, did
not want it, had returned the existing RCN equipment and that charge
was not in accordance with the representations RCN had made to me. I
assure you that to add those few channels I would not have agreed to
any such additional charges and did not agree to them. Rather I had
been repeatedly assured by the RCN representatives that there would
be no such charges.
I believed that when RCN reviewed their documents they would agree
that the telephone representative had been mistaken, but that was not
the case. On Saturday, April 23, 2005, I received a bill from RCN
purporting to charge me for that equipment. That bill with a due date of
May I O , 2005, is enclosed for your reference and you will see that RCN
has billed me $79.08.
I apologize for the length of this letter, but did think it appropriate to
provide sufficient detail and documentation to you.
Page 3
April 25, 2005
RCN is in the position to abuse its customers and has obviously done
so. I therefore enlist your help. Please accept my assurance that I stand
ready to cooperate with you fully in your investigation and any
prosecution you undertake.
I look forward to hearing from you.
/BARBARA HIRSCH PEKOW
Encls. 3 consisting of two service records and one bill.

Customer Name BARBARA PEKOW Service address:
Account Number 1001-0122632-01 20 E CEDAR ST
APT 106
Amount Due $79.08 CHICAGO, IL 60611-5114
Connect to something more:"
Due Date 05/10/05
PAGE 1 O F 4
Monthly Statement - April 2005
Questions about your bill or how to read it? ACCOUNT SUMMARY
Go to hap://www.rcn.com/bill
To pay your bill on-line, obtain account

balance information and find answers to
many of your questions, please visit our
website: www.rcn.cm
DETACH AND MAIL REMITTANCE -- Please allow five business days for processing your payment.
RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF BARBARA PEKOW

Total Amount
CHICAGO Phone Number: Due by 05/l0/05
C o n m t lo somehng mare"
CHICAGO, IL 60654-2989 312.943.0063
Account Number:
1001-0122632-01
Amount enclosed 7
1
Please write account number on your check
Make check payable to RCN
AV 01 0 0 1 126 32012 B 5 A**5DGT

BARBARA PEKOW
20 E CEDAR ST APT 1OB
CHICAGO, I L 6061 1-51 14
RCN
PO BOX 747089
11111111111111111111lllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIlllllllllll PITTSBURGH, PA 15274-7089
TELEPHONE CUSTOMERS PAGE 20F 4
Non-payment of the following telephone charges will not result in disconnection of your basic local service: Toll charges,
900 numbers, inside wiring, 911 surcharge, Line Features (Le. Call Waiting, 3-Way Calling, Caller ID, etc.), Operator Charges,
DA Charges and Directory Advertising. Please be advised non-payment of all other services will result in disconnection of
your basic local telephone service.
If you are dissatisfied with our telephone service for any reason and you are unable to obtain resolution after speaking with
our Universal Agents, you may contact Customer Service Division, Illinois Commerce Commission, Ste C-800,160 N. LaSalle
St, Chicago, lL60651 1.800.524.0795
DIAL-UP INTERNET CUSTOMERS
You are responsible for verifying with your local telephone provider that ttie phone number your computer is dialing in order
to access the Internet through RCN is a local access number. RCN SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OFYOUR
TELEPHONE CHARGES FOR ANY REASON. For a complete list of terms and conditions for RCN Internet service, please see
http://www.rcn.com/customer/internet_access_agreementphp
CABLE CUSTOMERS
Franchise fees paid tothe local franchising authority are itemized on your statement Afee paid tothe federal government
is a!so detailed.
Your local franchise authority is: City of Chicago, Area 1 (CUID: IL 1663, Department of Consumer Services, Office of Cable
Communications, 33 N LaSalle St,Ste 1650, Chicago, lL60602 312.744.5000
PAYMENT OPTIONSAND PAYMENT LOCATIONS

YOU CAN PAY YOUR BILL BY CHECK Please mail your payment with the Payment Coupon on the bottom of Page 1 of your
Statement of Service using the return envelope provided. Please allow at least (7) days for your payment to be processed.
YOU CAN PAY YOUR BILL USING RCN'SAUTOMATICPAYMENT PROGRAMS. Visit our website atwww.rcnchicago.com or
contact our customer care center at 1.8OO.RING.RCN(1.800.746.4726)
YOU CAN PAY YOUR BILLBY CREDIT CAW. Simply call one of our Universal Agents at 1.800.RING.RCN(t.800.746.4726) and
provide customer information, credit card number, expiration date and amount of your payment W e accept Visa,
Mastercard, Discover and American Express.
YOU CAN PAY YOUR BILL IN PERSON. Visit one of our Bill Payment agents. Locations can be found on our website at
www.rcnchicago.com or contact our customer care center at 1.800.RING.RCN(1.800.746.4726).
ABOUTYOUR STATEMENT
RCN bills for monthly services one month in advance. Installation charges, telephone usage and PPVpurchases appear on
your first statement after the installabon, usage of event/movte.
QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR BILL
'th your bill or think an error has occurred, please call us at 1.800 RING RCN(1.800.746.4726). During the
pending, we willnot cancel your service, provided you pay the undisputed portion of your bill.
ORK
Illinois State Law and to avoid service interruptions, please call one of the free notification services that
wners and companies of planned digging in areas with any underground facilities at least 48 hours
xcavating activities. In Chicago, please call Utility Alert Network (CUAN) at 312.744.7000. Outside of
int Utilities Locating Information for Excavators (JULIE) at 1.800.892.0123.
IMPORTANT CUSTOMER INFORMATION Website: www.rcn.com

Change of Address or Customer Inquiries:
Please call us at 1.800.746.4726
All services, including telecommunications services, are provided
by RCN Telecom Services of Illinois, LLC. Federal EIN #41-2071474
Send Correspondence to:

RCN Customer Care
PO Box 2909
Chicago, IL 60654-2989
xc;{*
Connect to something more?
Customer N a m e
Account Number
Amount Due
BARBARA PEKOW
1001-0122632-01
$79.08
PAGE 30F 4
ACCOUNT DETAIL
AMOUNT
RCN balance from last bill $1289
payments and Adjustments:
Payment received on 03/30/2005 -thank youl $12.89 CREDIT
PAGE 40F 4
TAXES, FEES AND SURCHARGES
RCN is in full compliance with Federal and State application of taxes. Visit our website @ www.rcn.com
for more detailed information regarding your tax.
Amount
Cable
Franchise Fee $3.92
City Entertainment Tax $0.73
Total taxes, fees and surcharges $4.65
$79.08
DST W943-2 (3/05) 11

Customer N a m e BARBARA PEKOW Service address:
Account Number 1001-0122632-01 20 E CEDAR ST
APT 106
Amount Due $79.08 CHICAGO, IL 60611-5114
Connect to something more:"
Due Date 05/10/05
PAGE 1 OF 4
Monthly Statement - April 2005
Questions about your bill or how to read it? ACCOUNT SUMMARY
Go to http://www.rcn.com/bill
Balance from last bill $12.89

To pay your bill on-line, obtain account
balance information and find answers to
many of your questions, please visit our
website. www.rcn.cm
DETACH AND MAIL REMITTANCE -- Please allow five business days for processing your payment.
xc;{* Connect to something more..

RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF
CHICAGO
CHICAGO, IL 60654-2989
BARBARA PEKOW
Phone Number:
312.943.0063
Account Number:
Total Amount
Due by mnom
Amount enclosed 7
1
1001-0122632-01
Please write account number on your check.
M a k e check payable to RCN.
AVO1 00112632012 B 5 A * * 5 D G T
BARBARA PEKOW
2 0 E CEDAR ST APT 1OB
CHICAGO, IL 60611 -5114 Il,,11,1,1,,,I,II,,,I,I,III,IIIII,,,I,,I,I,I,,I,,1,1,11,11,,II
RCN
PO BOX 747089
PITTSBURGH, PA 15274-7089
.. . . ,I .._, . ~ ".
TELEPHONE CUSTOMERS PAGE 20F 4
Non-payment of the following telephone charges will not result in disconnection of your basic local service: Toll charges,
sa0 numbers, inside wiring,911 surcharge, Line Features (i.e. Call Waiting, 3-Way Calling, Caller ID, etc.). Operator Charges,
DA Charges and Directory Advertising. Please be advised non-payment of all other services will result in disconnection of
your basic local telephone service.
If you are dissatisfied with our telephone service for any reason and you are unable to obtain resolution after speaking with
our Universal Agents, you may contact Customer Service Division, Illinois Commerce Commission, Ste C-800,160 N. LaSalle
St,Chicago, lL60651 1.800.524.0795
DIAL-UP INTERNET CUSTOMERS
You are responsible for verifying with your local telephone provider thatthe phone number your computer is dialing in order
t o access the Internet through RCN is a local access number. RCN SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY OF YOUR
TELEPHONE CHARGES FOR ANY REASON. For a complete list of terms and conditions for RCN Internet service, please see
http://www.rcn.com/customer/internetaccess-agreementphp
CABLE CUSTOMERS
Franchise fees paid tothe local franchising authorii are itemized on your statement A fee paid t o the federal government
i s also detailed.
Your local franchise authority is: C i o f Chicago, Area 1 (CUID: IL 1663, Department of Consumer Services, Office of Cable
Communications, 33 N LaSalle St, Ste 1650. Chicago, I L W 2 312.744.5000
PAYMENT OPTIONSAND PAYMENTLOCATIONS

YOU CAN PAY YOUR BILL BY CHECK. Please mail your payment with the Payment Coupon on the bottom of Page 1 of your
Statement of Service using the return envelope provided. Please allow atleast (7)days for your payment to be processed.
YOU CAN PAY YOUR BILL USING RCN'SAUTOMATIC PAYMENT PROGRAMS. Visit our website atwww.rcnchicago.com or
contact our customer care center a t 1.800.RING.RCN(l.NlO.746.4726)
YOU CAN PAY YOUR BILL BY CREDIT CARD. Simply call one of our Universal Agents at 1.800.RlNG.RCN(1.800.746.4726) and
provide customer information, credit card number, expiration date and amount of your payment We accept Visa,
Mastercard, Discover and American Expr
YOU CAN PAY YOUR BILL IN PERSON. Vi four Bill Payment agents. Locations can be found on our website at
www.rcnchicago.com or contact our customer care center a t 1.800.RING.RCN (1.800.746.4726).
AEOUTVOUR STATEMENT
RCN billsfor monthly services one month in advance. Installation charges, telephone usage and PPV purchases appear on
your first statement after the installation, usage of eventhwie.
QUESTIONSABOUT YOUR BILL
If you disagree with your bill or think an error has occurred, please call us a t 1.800.RING.RCN(1.800.746.4726).During the
time any dispute is pending, we willnot cancel your service, provided you pay the undisputed portion of your bill.
UTILITY ALERT NETWORK
In compliance with Illinois State Law and to avoid service interruptions, please call one of the free notification services rhat
alerts utility facility owners and companies of planned digging in areas with any underground facilities at least48 hours
prior to digging or excavating activities. In Chicago, please call Utility Alert Network (CUAN)at 312.744.7000. Outside of
Chicago, call the Joint Utilities Locating Information for Excavators (JULIE) at 1.800.892.0123.
IMPORTANT CUSTOMER INFORMATION Website: www.rcn.com

Change of Address or Customer Inquiries:
Please call us at 1.800.746.4726
All services, including telecommunications services, are provided
by RCN Telecom Services of Illinois, LLC. Federal EIN #41-2071474
Send Correspondence to:

RCN Customer Care
PO Box 2989
Customer Name BARBARA PEKOW
Account Number 1001-0122632-01
AmountDue $79.08
Connect to something more’”
PAGE 30F 4
ACCOUNT DETAIL
PAGE 4 0 F 4
TAXES, FEES AND SURCHARGES
RCN is in full compliance with Federal and State application of taxes. Visit our website Q www.rcn.com
for more detailed information regarding your tax.
Amount
C i Entertainment Tax E0.73

Total taxes, fees and surcharges $4.65
Current RCN charges $79.08
11
9 DST W943-2 (305)
/I
- [
. . . /. 1
.I
ms (exduding cable modern
r
invoiced monthly fw servws).
pay RCN all reasonableawitional
to:acts of God,Rre, flood, explosh or other

ncies;unavailabilltyof righboff-wayormatetials;or
- ~ ----------... ~.
IIIII-- , . . ” ”_”__ ~
b
b
1. General: Customer understands that S e M m provld n b s and by certain t

aoolicable RCN tariff on file wth such authonties. In the event of any conflict between the terms condibons set foilh herein and those provided under any govemme
&s and condibons set forth In the regulahons or
2, Credit Check RCN reservesthe right to venfy
their account for the last six (6) consecutrve mon
invoiced monthly for services).
3. Payment of Charges: Customer billed. Customer will be billed monthly for pey per view or
other services ordered where charg onthiy charges as itemized on the RCN monthly invom
and/or notify RCN of disputed ltems
equipment and in the imposition of a late payment or S~MR
addlonal collecbon charge may be
brought to its attentron by Custome I be at RCNs sole dlscrabn. or as
otherwise requiredby applicable law.
4. Special Construction: IfCustomer requestsa change in locabn of all or part of the Service prior to the completron of constructionor mstallatiin,Customer agrees to pay RCN all reasonable addibonal
cost incurredfrom Customer change in locabon.
, nduding, but not limited to:ads of God,fire,

authority; nahonal emergenaes; unavailabiltty
pt as may be permitted
from its point of inlbal installaMn. Any alteration, tampering, removal or

13. Access to Customer Premlees: Customer warrants that Custome
ndonment thereof, except as provided by law.

14. Asslgnment or Transfer: Thls Agreement and the Equipment supplied by RCN are n or otherwise transferable by Customer. Custo CN of any change of ocarpancy or
ownership of the premisesImmediately upon such transfer of ownership or te
call.
23. Entire Agreement: This Service Order, together with the terms and condtbbns wnQirpd herein, constiMe the @&agrtxpnt behveen the Customer and RCN. No undertaking, representationor warranty
made by any agent or representativeof RCN m'conqection vd!h thesale, installation, maintebnca or removal of RCNS services shall be binding on RCN.except.asexpressly included herein. RCN may amend
this Agreement on thirty (30) days prior notice to Cuslomer. Customet's election to continue receMnq the servke thergafte!shall be deer@ fo qnstitute Customeh acceptance of such amendmt
"' " ' .'
24. Customer Privacy Notice:As a Customer of dble services, you are entjtJed under Federallaw to know the fdlawihg: '
a. In order that we may provide reli@ble;quality service la yoq. and 5 make sure that you are M,rqbilled for the services yw receiva,,we keep regular buslness reconis relattng to you as a Customer.
T k s a rewrds contain personzlly IdentiEableinfomntion which may indude your pame, ~u&i:rdk;address, phone nhber. MentiRcatbn mjmben (scich ddver's llcense andlor social security
number), credit card informaCon as required for payment for services. records relabng to deposits ( iany), cable service and installation agreements, &rk 3o e f s, billing and payment Information.
a
service options you have chosen, the number of television sets in your houehoid connected to our =%;and wards relating to senrica repain,.malntenance and complaints at ywr address. Such
\
information is collected and used for billing and colledion purposes, programming, markeling and other cable-related aspects of pmvidicg, auditing and mainining your servica;and to keep legal,
financial, aaounting. tax, pmperty and other records as may be rsquired by RCNC'caMBtelevisiOnhanchise'orauthwiption:
' ' .
r..---I-- -L--.*-- --+..A -11 ---.--I*. iA-&-hlo inkvmi(inn ic Mhi tor thh 'nrirmnl hiicinnec nllmnca* x & s t d with nRp"iVt and randhim n h h wMrn In vnll I1 k a-dble as often as
.. -
i i r d
--_11__1-"- ..- . . . . ... . . _
h
related business a
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
AUG 8 2005
Control No. 0501478/kah

Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Barbara Hirsch Pekow,
regarding the difficulties she is experiencing with her cable service provider, RCN.
Except as otherwise specified in the Communications Act, the Commission has

jurisdiction over interstate and foreign telecommunications service matters. Many issues,
however, are subject to the rules of other agencies. The matters described in Ms. Pekow’s
correspondence appear to be within the jurisdiction of the Local Franchise Authority because it
relates to charges assessed by RCN to its subscribers. Authority over suchmatters is
specifically reserved to the states under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The
name of the Local Franchise Authority may be listed on Ms. Pekow’s cable bill. If not, she
may contact her local government for this information.
Ms. Pekow may also wish to contact her state consumer protection agency by writing to
the Office of Attorney General, Consumer Protection Bureau, 500 South Second Street,
Springfield, IL 62706. Ms. Pekow may call them toll free at 1-800-243-0618,or visit their
web site . w w ~ ~ , ~ ~ , s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ! . u s .
The Commission has available an e-mail service designed to apprise consumers about
developments at the Commission, to disseminate consumer information materials prepared by
the Commission to a wide audience and to invite comments from other parties on Commission
regulatory proposals. This free service enables consumers to subscribe and receive FCC fact
sheets, consumer brochures and alerts, and public notices, among other consumer information.
To subscribe Ms. Pekow should visit the FCC Consumer Registry at
h t ~ ~ I ~ ! ~ ~ w ~ ~ f c c ~ g o ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ o ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
The Honorable Barack Obama Page 2
We appreciate your inquiry. Enclosed is information pertaining to cable television

service that Ms. Pekow may find helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have
further questions.
Sincerely,
-’*--
Thomas D. Wyatt I
Deputy Bureau Chief

Enclosure
T I 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580
Office of the Secretary 3L 2 f 2005
Re: FTC Ref. No. 6362357
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dick Chicklas of Chicago,
regarding overbilling by his telephone company, XO Communications. As you know, the
Federal Trade Commission has been directed by Congress to act in the interest of all consumers
to prevent deceptive or unfair practices and unfair methods of competition, pursuant to the
Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq. In determining whether to take
enforcement or other action in any particular situation, the Commission may consider to a
number of factors, including the type of violation alleged; the nature and amount of consumer
inquiry at issue and the number of consumers affected; and the likelihood of preventing future
unlawful conduct and securing redress or other relief. As a matter of policy, the Commission
does not generally intervene in individual disputes. However, letters from your constituents
provide valuable information that is frequently used to develop or support Commission
enforcement initiatives.
I appreciate learning of your constituent's problem, but primary jurisdiction over this
issue lies with the Federal Communications Commission. Therefore, I have taken the liberty of
forwarding your inquiry to the Commission for their review. I appreciate your interest in this
matter, and please let us know whenever we can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Secretary of the Commission
&c: Director of Congressional Liaison

445 - 12" Street, SW
___._--- O F / 3 0 / 0 5 .12:57 FAX 312-8_86 ,3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @l001~009
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
NOTES/COMMENTS:
230 SOUTH DE'ARBORN SUITE 3700 CliICAGO, I L 60604

P H O N E 3 1 2 8 6 6 - 3 5 0 6 FAX 3 1 2 8 8 6 - 3 5 1 4
06/30/05 12:57 FAX 312 556 3514 .. . SENATOR BARACK OBANA Ga 002/009
CQMMITIEES!
BARACK OBAMA
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENT A N 0
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Wnittd states %enate VETERANS' AFFAIRS
June 30,2005
Ms. Anna Davis

Director, Office of Congressional Relations
Federal Trade Cormnission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 404
Dear Ms. Davis,
The enclosed correspondence was received by my Chicago office fkom my constituent,

Dick Chicklas. Mr. Chicklas writes of alleged overcharging by his telephone company.
According to Mr.Chicklas, the XO Communication Services, Inc.is billing him double
the amount agreed upon in his phone service plan4 Attached you will find his documents
which give a more accurate description and explanation of his issues.
I would appreciate yolv looking into this matter at your earliest convenience. Please
advise Jennifer Mason, who assists me in these matters, of your findings.
If you require any further assistance or have additional questions, please do not hesitate
to contact Jennifer at 312-886-3506..
Sincerely,
Barack Obania
~ -.__
II_ I . . . . . . . -. . 1 . . . . .
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA [;?003/009
- 013/30/05 12:57 FAX 312 886 3514
- o ~ s / 2 7 / 2 0 0 5 21:21 17739895432 BRENDA PACE E15
I I
Adjustments P a 2 h a Amount Current Amount Total Amount Due

1 1- 13.710.7$ I
Did you forget to pay your bill? Your account balance is past due, Payment Due Dste
I J~1l1,2005 ~
1
Late Payment Charge
0.00
COMPUTER CREDlT SERVICE CORPOR

5340 N CLARK
CHICAGO, IL 6064S2167
SUMMARY OF CHARGES AND CREDITS ( for period b May 31,2005)

Recurring Charges 1,132.55
Non-Reouning Charges 45.30
Dlscourrts and Allowances 63.33 CR
U h g e Charges 504.35
Total N e w Cherges 1,618.87
Total Taxes 3es,49
Current Amount 1,977-38
Past Due Amount 1,733.43
Total Amount Due 3,710.79
EzFqIzZqlGFq Piiymeflt Due Date Total Amount Due Amount Enclosed
(Fer furthwlnformatlan bn Itow to pay plcaseaee the buck aCthls page]

0
0 Localion COkWJTER CREDIT SERVICE CORPORATION Page 22 0191
OLD 534[3 N CLARK STREET,FLOOR 2
CHICAGO. IL 60640 Account Number 2153344
lnvojce Number: 169110644
mu
2 Service DetaUs b r COMPUTER CREDIT SERVICE CORPORATlON Service DeblIs for CO1W LITER CREDIT SERVtCE CORPOFUUION
LATA (Continued)
(Conllnued)'
APACaII OetaiIsf1~~73)56t1286
Call Rate
);dt Tlmc WkdKo CaIledFrom CalledLtMka lvpe Dumon Code Amount
zm P 0.19
290 P 0.19
am P 0.10
iw P (3.10
im P (1.10
7m P a.io Long Dtsbnce
2m P 9.19
2m P 0.19
1m P 0.10
1:w P 0.10
1m P 0.10
. rm P 0.m 0.10
1:oo 0 om ai@
la0 P me 0.10
f:O P 0.9s e10
1m P 0,fO 010
2:o P 0.79 D.7Q
fm P om D-IO
1190 P 0.10 0.3 3
1m P D.10 0-111
1m 0 0-10 P.10
la P 0.10 o.ia
?DO P D.10 0.11
*a P 0.10 0.14
*m P 0.10 e10
fm P 0.10 q10
2:w P 0.19 0d7
rm P 0.12 0.10
I:oo P 0.NJ 0.D7
*$XI P 0.m 0.10
Irn P om 0.1D
-cm 0 0.10 0.10
Irn 0 0.10 0.1 2
0.1 D
0.10
9.10
0.10
0.07
0.10
0.10
025
0.10
O.fO
Cunbirued.
@l005/009
-.. 06/30/05 __ 1 2 : 5 8 FAX 3 1 2 896 3 5 1 4 SENATOR BARACIZ OBAMA PAGE El-
8 6 ~ , ' 2 7 / 2 0 0 5 21 : 21 17739895432 BRENDA
COMPUTER COLLECTlON SERVICE CORPORATION

5340 NORM CLARK SjREEs
CHICAGO, IllllNOIS 60640, U.S.A.
T'ELEPJ-IONE(773)068-8800
F M (773)989-0511
JUNB A3. Zd05
ATZ"; .TORX VESSELS
ACCOUNT MANAGBR .
xo S ~ S T E ~ I S .
ALLEGEANCE TELECOW
' 9201 NY,!CBMERAL EXPRESSWAY I*
DALLAS, TEXAS 75231
DEAR TORI: , I , '
a . .
YOUR PHONE PLAN:
$809.47&lONTH; INCLUDI~NG: 3.6 CENTS/MINUTE FOR LONG DISTANCE SERVICE

*'[WAS *PAYING 5 - ' 9 * * - C E m / M I N U T ELONG DISTANCE SBRVICE,
.
( f ) RB'FBRENCEf LHTTBR FROM YOU 4;(54j'J)5 (ATTACHBD)
.BILLS FOR YOUR NBKttPHONE PLAN .
-
APRIL $ l , S O O . ' O O
MAY $1,733..43 . ' .
JUNB $1,977136
I .
WHEN I RECEIVED AND PAID'YOUR MAW'!JBILL, YOU SAID THAT YOUR NEW PLAN
WOULD ' K I C K INm NbXT MONTH AND THAT XOU-UULD GO DOWN TO THE
AMOUNT YOU PROMISEDq IN YOUR NEW 'PLAN'
INSTWD, #I RECEIVED A LARGER BILL I N MAY. AGAIN, I CALLtBD YOU AND YOU
SA5D THAT THE NEXT MONTHS BILL WOULD GOnDOWN TO THE AMOUNT AGREED TIP-
Y0UR"BLA.N'. c
'ALSO, I NOTICE T d T I'M NO LONQGR BEING CHARGED THE J.6/MINUTE RATE

NOR THE 5 . 9 MYNUTB U T E THAT I WAS. PAYI'NG' BEFORB. (LONG DISTANCE SERVICE)
-
PLEASE
10 CHt$xS N~TE:. ZN CURRENT
AND lZ:-<.CENTS qomAND
m
A'MINUTE. B I I'M
L ~(ATTACHBD.~
ALSO. BEINGYOU ARE'CNARGINGJIME
CKARGED 10 CENTS
m* I N- , U T E F O R T m I ; CHICAGO CALLS NOW, (,@fiICAGO .SUBURBS)
'MAYBE .THIS EXP~AINS WHY Y O ~ ~ A A'CHARGING
RE .MB DOUBLE AND ,NOW,' i i / z TIMES
THB V T B PLAN THAT YOU PROPOSBD AND AGREED.
MY ATTORNEY, DAVID 0BQWWG SUGGBSTED- THAT 1' PAY YOU THE $ 8 0 9 - 4 7 FOR
THE MONTHS .OF 'MAY AND J U N B THHSB CHECKS. ARE ATTACHED.
PLEASB, AT YOUR EARLIEST COlJ?T"ENCB, e SEND ME AN EXPLALNATION AS
TO YOUR REUSONS FOR DOUBLING.,THH AMOUNT OF TH6 SAME PHONE PLAN THAT
YOU SVGGESTElBD AND A T 5 H B SAME TIME, TRIPLING THE LONG DISTAWCE U T E S
THAT YOU PROPOSBD IN YOUR'PLAN, (YOUR PLAN OF 4 / 2 7 / 0 5 , ATT&IED.
YOUR PHONB BILL OF 6/1/05; INCLUDING LONG D'ISTANCB C M G B S 'OF 10 CENTS
I.
AND 12/ CENT8 A MINUTE .IS A m ] *
- . .~.._.-" . .. ... .... , , ,___.

. .,
- 0(3/30/05 12:58 FAX 342 886 3514-. SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
OS?"27 ,' 20 05 21 : 21 17739095432 BRENDA
- PAGE 2 -
YOU CAN WDBRSTAND WHY I DON'T TRUST YOU AND CAN'T BELXEVB WHAT
YOU SAY. PLEASE 'GO OVl?R'My EHOMli BILL ANR CORRECT IT TO SOMETHING
THAT RESEMBLES WHAT YOU PROMISED.
IWANT TO PAY WHAT'S OWBD, As you PROPOSED.AND.:AGIED TO AND NO MORE.
THBN, I WANT TO BE FREE TO GO TO ANOTHER PMONB COMPANY, WITHOUT
PENALTY
I NEED TO WORK WITH A PHONE COMPANY THAT IS COMPETENT, THAT DOESN'T
PLAY G M E S WITH.ME. I CAN'T AFFORD ANOTHER MONTH WAITING F O R YOUR
PROMISES TO COME TRUE.
SINCERELY 9
PRESIDENT,
F
r
06,'30/05. 12:58 FAX 312 888 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBANA @l005/009
' BE?'27/2885 21:21 17739895432 BRENDA PAGE 10
COMPUTER t2OLLECT'lO$4 SERVICE CORPORATION

5340 NORTH CLARK,STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60640, U.S.A.
TELEPHONE (773)989-8860
FAX: (n3) 9890511
JUNe 8 , 2 0 0 5
ATTN: TORI VESSELS
ALLEGIANCE TBLECOM
XO COMMUNICATIONS
DALLAS, TEXAS 75231
DEAR TORI:
1 WROTE TO YOU ON MONDAY COMPLAINING ABOUT THE S I Z E OF MY PHONE
BILL, NAMELY $1,977.36, THIS MONTH, WHEN YOU HAD PROMISED ME
PHONE BILLS OF $ 8 0 9 . 4 7 ...
ALSO, YOU PROMISED MY LONG DISTANCE RATES WOULD BE 5.6 CENTS A
MINUTE ( MY FORMER U T E MAS 6CENTS A MINUTE).
HOWEVER, ON LOOKING OVER M y BILL YOUR COMPANY SENT ME. ..
I NOTICED
THAT ENSTEAP OF 3.6 CENTS A MINUTE AS PROMISED ... YOUR COMPANY IS
CHARGING MI? 6 CENTS AND IN OTHER CASES, 10 CENTS ANpl EVEN I t CENTS
PER MINUTB,
I CALLED YOU AND TRIRD TO REACH YOU NUMEROUS TIMBS, YESTERDAY AND
TODAY WITH NO REPLY,
YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT x AM NO LONGER COMFORTABLE WITH THE CHANGE
OF MANAGEMENT AT YOUR FIRM,
I DON'T TRUST XO COMMUNICATIONS AND 3 DON'T L I K E BEING LIED TO AND
CHEATED.
I WANT T O BE RELEASED PROM ANY FURTHER ASSOCIATION WITH YOU.
B E I N G CHARGED ABOUT $2,000/ MONTH IS A LOT DIFFERENT 'FROM A PROMISED
RATE OF $803.47 P E R MONTH, THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PROMISING FOR THE
LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.
I WANT TO BE FREE TO USB ANOTHER TBLBPHONE COMPANY. IF IN THE FUTURE,
YOUR,REPUTATION IMPROVES, PERHAPS WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AGAIN.
THB SERVICE WITH ALLEGIANCE TBLECOM WAS ALL' RIGHT,
YOUR COMPANYS ACTIONS HAVE PROVED TBAT YOU CAN'T BE TRUSTED
WITH YOUR W,OD,S O R WITH ANYBODY5 FINANCES.
SINeERELY.
D I C K CHICKLAS
OG/30/05
~ ~ ---..- 312 886 3514
12:59 FAX ~ SENATOR BARACK OBAM.4 Ip009/009
8 6 ~ . 2 7 / 2 8 0 5 21: 21 17739895432 BRENDA

PAGE 11
COMPUTER COLLECTION SERVICE CORPORATIC~N

5340 NORTH CLARK STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60640,U.S.A.
TELEPHONE: (773) geg-moo
FAX: (773)989-0511
J U N E 6, 2 0 0 5
AWN: TORI VESSELS
ALLEGIANCZ TEKECOM
XO COMMUNICATIONS
DALLAS, TEXAS 75231
DEAR TORI:
I'M VERY UNHAPPY VUTH THBSE TELEPHONE BILLS YOUR COMPANY IS SENDING ME.
(1) YOU PROMISED THAT WITH YOUR NEW PLAN LAST APRIL, MY PHONE BILLS
WOULD BE $809.47/MONTH #IND MY LONG DISTANCE,FATE WOULD B E . 5 3 , 6 CENTS
PER MINUTE.
INSTljAD, I'M PAYING G$BBWES./MINUTE LONG DISTANCE IN ANN ARBOR, MICHIGA;;
ST. L O U I S , .MISSOURI; QUEENS, NEW YORK, ETC.
INSTEAD OF THE $ 8 0 9 . 4 7 YOU PROMISED, IN'WRITING,TRE .AR,R3X41.,BB 1 . LL WAS
$ 1 , 5 0 0 ; T.HE MiUS'B6hL WAS $ 1 , 7 3 3 . 4 3 ... I CALLEQ YOU ABOUT THE HIGH

MAY BILL. AND YOU SAID THXT THB NEXT MONTHS S I L , L WOULD G O DOWN TO THE
AMOUNT YOU PROMI SED, WHEN YOUR NEW AGREEMENT XI.CKEDJIiIN. YOUR LAST
'
PROMVSB, W A S N T TRUE BECAUSE THIS M!E& PHONE BILL IS $ 1 , 9 7 7 . 3 6 .

WOULD YOU OX SOMEONE FROM YOUR FIRM PLEASE GET RACK TO ME NO LATER
THhH SPmM TOMORROW, 6 / 7 / 0 5 ,
UNTIL THESE R,ECENT OUTRAGEOUS PHONE BILLS, x FELT THAT YOUR SERVICE
WAS SATISFACTORY.
WILL SOMEBODY PLEAS1 GET BACK TO ME TOMORROW AND Lb,2T ME KNOW

I F THERE IS SOME , K I N D OF MISUNSERSTANDING.
SINCERELP,
RICK CHI CKLAS

FOR i
usMk.cem .
mbank.
&%s&Qpbsd@
t218344 JUNE PHONE SERVICE

FOR
Washington, D.C.20554
AUG 1 6 2005
Control No. 0501500/aw

John C. Kluczynski Federal Office Building
Suite 3900, 39* Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Senator Qbama:
Thank you for your letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on behalf of your
constituent, Mr. Dick Chicklas, regarding the dlfficulties he is experiencing with the services
and charges provided by XQ Communications, Inc. The FTC forwarded your letter to us.
The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau has conducted a priority review of
your inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Mr. Chicklas to XO
Communications, Inc., in previous complaints filed directly with the Commission and directed
the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed the company to
send Mr. Chicklas a copy of the response that the company submits to the Commission.
Mr. Chicklas may obtain information about the status of his complaints by writing to
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Inquiries & Complaints
Division, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free 1-888-225-
5322. TTY users may call 1-888-835-5322. Mr. Chicklas would need to include the informal
complaint tracking numbers, 05-10181357 & 05-10185069 and the Congressional tracking
number listed at the top of this letter to facilitate a prompt response to his inquiry.
We appreciate your inquiry. If you have any further questions or require additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
x9.q
Thomas D. Wyatt
Deputy Bureau Chief

1 T
7/26/05 16:02 FAX 312 886 3514
.~ -.
-S E N-
A T O R BARACK OBAMA a 001
UNITED STATES SENATOR BARACK OBAMA

CHICAGO OFFICE n
P A X NLrMBER TOTAL NO.OF PACES I N U U D N G COVER:

ZnL- 4 Ik- 26oL4
PHONE W E & SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBEk
...... . I . . .
230 SOUTH D E A R B O R N SUITE 3 9 0 0 CHICAGO, IL 60604
P H O N E 3 1 2 8 8 6 - 3 5 0 6 F A X 312 8 1 1 6 - 3 5 1 4
R E C E I V E D T I M E JUL. 26. 5:41PM PRINT T I M E J U L , 26, 5:4?PM

_I I_II~l_l_-"x-- - - _ I I - _ _ ~ I
16:02 FAX 312 886 3514
07/26/05
, -. ~- -. SENATOR
-. BARACK OBAMA la 002
COMMLTKES;
ILLINOIS
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Wnitd $!!itate0 senate VETERANS' AFFAIAS
July 26,2005
Ms. Dime Atkinson

Washington, District of Columbia 20554
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was sent to Senator Obama's Chicago office from Catherine
Dclaney. On April 13,2005, Ms. Delaney's letter was forwarded to your agency, but we have
not yet received a response.
I assist the Senator on matters such as these, and I would greatly appreciate any help or
information you could offer as I work with Ms. Delaney.
If you require any further assistance or have additional questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 3 12-886-3506.
Sincerely,
r\
Jennifer Mason
Constituent Service Agent
KECEIVED TIME JUL. 26. 5:41FM PRINT TIME JUL. 26, 5:43FM
- 07/26/05 1 6 : 0 2 FAX 3 1 2 8 8 6 3 5 1 4 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @ I
003
,
. .
. _ . ,_,.
. ,,.., ,. ,. ,,,. , , / . .
, ., .. . . . .._.
. ... .. . . .
..
.. .. . ,.. - .
. . ,- . , . I ( . '
. ..
0712 6/05
- 1 6 . 0 -2. FAX 3 1 2 556 -3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @I004
RECEIVED TIME JUL. 26. 5 : 4 1 F M PRINT T I M E JUL. 26. 5 : 4 3 F M

I I ~
07/26/05 ,.-. 312 8 8 -6
16:03 FAX . 3514
. SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
-
I - -
@I0 0 5
..
-- - -
RECEIVED TIME J U I . 26. 5:41FM PRINT TIME JUL. 26. 5 : 4 3 P M
-- --- I x --__l
. I_l
I I"_II~III_-
- _ _- ~
07/28/05 18:03
_.--- -
F A X 312 8 8 8 3 5 1 4 . SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @0I 0 8
- .. .--
. . . . , .. , ....
., .-..
- ~
R E C E I V E D TIME JUL. 26. 5 : 4 1 P M
----~---I--_cI__- ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~- . - - ~ " . -__"
-I
PRINT TIME JUL. 26. 5:43PM
AUG 8 2005
The Honorable Barak Obama

230 South Dearborn, Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Catherine Delaney, regarding
the difficulties she is experiencing with her local telephone company, Bullseye Telecom. We
regret that we could not respond to your letter dated April 13, 2005. It appears that it was
never received at the Commission.
Except as otherwise specified in the Communications Act, the Commission has

jurisdiction over interstate and foreign telecommunications service matters. Many telephone-
related issues, such as complaints against local service providers or disputes about charges for
calls that do not pass through state boundaries, however, are subject to the rules of state public
utility commissions. The subject of Ms. Delaney's correspondence indicates that it is under the
jurisdiction of the State of Illinois. Therefore, we have forwarded copies of her
correspondence to the Illinois Commerce Commission, 527 E Capitol Avenue, Springfield, IL
62701, for its review and appropriate action. Ms. Delaney may call them toll free at 1-800-
524-0795, or visit their web site w.ww.~ccstate~~i!us.
Although we cannot assist Ms. Delaney at this time, letters from consumers such as
Ms. Delaney's provide valuable information that may be used to develop or support
Commission initiatives for consumers. We appreciate your inquiry. Please do not hesitate to
contact us if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Wyatt''
Deputy Bureau Chief
cc: Illinois Commerce Commission
I
COMMITTEES
BARACK OBAMA
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Wnited statui %;mate VETERANS' AFFAIRS
July 27,2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445Twelfth Street, SW, Room 8-C453
Dear Ms. Atkinson,
My constituent, Mr. Michael R. Ward, contacted my office concerning an issue with the
Federal Aviation Administration. Enclosed you will find information surrounding his
case.
Your assistance in addressing this matter is greatly appreciated. David LeBreton, one af
my staff members, is in contact with Mr. Ward and will apprise him of your findings. If
you have any questions surrounding this matter or require further information, please
contact David at (3 12) 886-0826.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
c5!-db4k
Barack Obama
230 S . Dearborn St.

Suite 3900
(312) 886-3506
FROM, : FAX NO. : J u l . 13 2665 08:22AM P1
M I C H A E L R. W A R D
PACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO kR0M:
The Honorable Barack Obama Michael R. Ward
yl... .
COMPANY DATL
U.S. senate 7/13/2005
PAX NUMBER. TOTAL N O Or: P A W ' S INCLUDINC C0VE.K.
262 228 5417 25
PHOT2 NOMbLR KNJnF;R'S RGFhkL.NCh NUMBER
202 224 2854
Rli YDIln REFERENCE NUWl3R
Request for assSistmce rU obminhg
v e t a $ prefame
I
The material hereby submitted reveals that an agcnq has u n l a w denied protected
entitlemmq, and that Fcdetal agettdes responsible for enforcing law a d replation clast
their eyes to viohuons atld refusc to correct the vloLtions. I despuatev necd your
assistance.
-
1'. 0.BOX 6 4 5 4 , E A S T ST. C O U I S , I L 62262
FROM, : FRX NO. : J u l . 13 2005 08:22AM P2
Michael R. Ward
Post Office Box 6454 East St, Louis, E 62202 (618) 274-1206 E-md: mobqudl@phoo.cOm
Suly 13,2005

us. senate
713 Hart Senate Office Buildmg
Dear Senator Obama:
As a constituent wi,th more than twenty years of military service in the U S . Army, a
Vietnam combat veterm with a servim-connecteddisability rated at 70 percent (a lo-poipt
veteran), I: am personally pleased that you decided to serve o s the Senate Veterans’ Maih
Committee. However, the purpose of this communication ie not pleasant.
For 1 I years 1 have been denied my veterans’ preference in employment with the Federal
Government by various agencies. Though m y veterans’ preference and competitive statuses,
as well ag my qualifications are never questhed, agencies refuse to honor law. The U.S.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is eBpecially egregious and unremtting. When
I compXain, as I have to the US.Office of Perwnnel Management’s (OPM) and the U,S.
Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board), they respmd, if at all, to unrelated matters.
Essentially, they take advantage of their pwitions and my lack of legal training t o deny
protected entitlements.
Very respectfdly I request ihat you inquire of the FCC on my behalf about its refusal to
grant my veterans’ preference, and with the b a r d about its delay in deciding a four-year
appeal. My position relevant to law and regulatim is included within the enclosed letter ta
the OPM.
I submitted the enclosed letter to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM),
Associate Director for Human Capitdl Leadership and Merit System Accountability, Marta
Brito P4rez. After four years and several letters, the OPM finally responded to the
American Legion’s request t o examine the denial of my veteran$’preference rights by the
FCC. The substance of the letter is self-explanatory; it is enclosed because it contains
factual issues and documentation that I reference herein that are necessary to understand
my dilemma.
I applied for two positions with the FCC and was denied my veterans’ preference in the
FCC‘s selection procedures for both. The facts are included within the letter to Ms.P&res.
(Ltr. 2-3).My letter t o MS. P&ez wag necessary because her letter to the Legion is not
responsive to the issue of my veterans’ preference. I put the issue of my complaint squarely
before her, (Ltr. 2):
07/13/2005 09:46AM
FROM - . FAX NO. : J u l . 13 2865 88:23AtI P3
n e only &sue I am reqwA.ng the CPM to decide and correct is: mether the PCC granted @e
or my applicationu the vctcmns’ preference requkacnE ro which I am entitled for Vacancy
Annoumcemenc Numbers 94-127 and (14-128.
First Senator, based on my experience with the FCC during the past 11 yease, 1can @at$
with certainty that employees of the agency are dishonest,cunning,and deceptive becau$e
they -areaware their pogitions as government officials add credibility to their words.
A fimt hand example of it8 deceit appeared when I requested U.S. Repreeentative Jerry
Costello to look into thia matter. The FCC responded ta him that it does not comment about
issue^ that are pending before a US. Federal. Court. However, the FCC drd not identrfy the
court or a docket number. I wrote to Congressman Coetello that the FCC “lied” to him, that
I did not have any cases againat the FCC pending before a US.Federal Court, and that the
FCC wa8 using that lie as an excuse to cover-upthe issue and avoid culpability,
Unfortunately, the congressman’s office dropped the issue.
1 believe the FCC made the identical representation to the OPM (Ltr- 1).The OPM
obviously accepted the explanntion without requiring the PCC to provide additional
infwmation or analyw the issues, Ms. PQrezmust know that I cannot be divested of my
veterans’ prefeerence entitlements without due process of law,ie., notice, hearing, or an
opportunity to respond to the reasons why.
It is not a diEcult matter to prove that the FCC denied my veterans’preference because it
refused to implement any affirmative actions required by law and regulation to my
application for the position advertised at 94-12” - my application was completely ignored.
For the position advertised at 94-128, the FCC failed to examine, score, rate, or rank the
application, then placed my n a w on a certificate for which I was not qualified. (Ltr, 5).
The treatment of my applications by the %CCand the failure of the OPM to enforce its
regulations are indicative of the reactions to my valid complaint for 11 years. My military
service and veterans’ preference entitlements are cheapened by the misdeeds of these
agencies. My preference is permanent, absolute, nnd protected.
~e OPM took four years before answering letters about thia matter fmm the American
Legion and myself. I do wt want to wait another four y e a @for an irrelevant response. 1
remind the OPM that its iwtructions permit the FCC to correct this matter without outside
intervention. &tr. 6).
In this regard I have drafted a letter to the C h d a n of the FCC that I humbly request you
to send to its chairman. It is attached as ‘‘DJUFT FCC.” It is a request that my veterans’
preference in employment be homred. I hope you find it suitable. A main pUrpOQeof the
letter is to prevent the FCC from avoiding its culpability by hiding under the cover of n
pending court action that does not exist and to answer for its violations.
Additionally, I appealed to the US.Merit Systems Protection b a r d {the Board) from an

Initial Decision of its Washington Regional Office in a c m e initiated against the FCC for its
actions and failures to act for the position advertised at 94-128 under the Uniformed
Service8 Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). There 1 claim the FCC
2
07/13/2005 09:46AM
J u l . 13 2665 68:23AM P4
I ,
discriminated against me because of my service when it failed to honor veterans‘ prefererne

law and stigmatized my application by scrawling “military”on the Ratinr Sheet, (Ltr, E*.
C), and appointing an applicant who drd not submit an application for the position. Thie lie
discriminationcase.
I filed the appeal with the Board October 27,2000. I have written the Board sevefal tim$s
about the status of my appeal only to be told it i s still being decided, L do n ~feel
t thie delay
& the usual practice for appeals to the Board. Instead, I suspect thin delay is a subtle form
of “blackballing“and retaliation for daring to complain about the preferential treatment
granted to others at the expense ofthe violations of my veterans’ preference. In each of the
complaints 1haw submitted for adjudication, agencieB have irregularly, and in some
instances unlawfully hired preordained candidates.I suppose the modern term for m y
actions io “truthto power.” T h e attached letter, ”DRAFT MSPB,” is intended to awaken the
Board t o action.
What you may discover is that government agencies and employees have little, if any,
reepect for the nation’s disabled veterans or civil service law and regulation. The reason i s
that they know the agencies that are reeponsible for adforcing the laws, the OPM, the
Office of Special Counsel (OSC),and the Board will behave as they have in my cases. Theiy
simply do nothing but respond to serious degations condescendingly,with trite, irrelevat,
deceptive, drivel.
In the meanwhiIe, agency employees who violated the law continue to work without bekg
disciplined or dismisaed; the persons who were illegally selected are s t U employed and
prosper.ing, while 1, a qualified disabled veteran remain unemployed and mu& “jump
through hoops” for 11 years €or entitlementa the Congress bestowed.
I hope you feel this cauw is worthy of your attention.Thank you for any consideration
given thia request.
Very respectfully,
Michael R. Ward
Enclosures: Privacy Disclosure Consent
Dxafk FCC
Draft MSPB
Letter, OPM w/Exhibits
3
07/13/2005 09:46FIM
' FROM, :
FRX NO. Jul. 13 2865 68:24AM P5
PRWACY DISCLOSUFCE CONSENT

1hereby authorize US. Senator Barack Obama, and/or any representative he
may designate, to disclose my m e , address, social security account
number, or other information deemed necessary on my behalf with U.S.
Government Agencies.
Michael R Ward \
P. 0.Box 6454
East St. Louis, TL 62202
(618) 274 1206
SSAN: 350 30 2317
FROM' _. ..- . . .
,
FAX NO. : J u l . 13 2885 08:24AM P6
Kevin J. Martin, Chairman

U. S.Federal Communications Commission
445 12th street, sw
A constituent, Michael R.Ward, a veteran of more than twenty y m bonorabk %r\rice with
the U.S ,Amy, a decorated Vietnam combat vetem with a service-connecteddisability rated
at 30 percent or more, claims employees of the Commission denied him statutory veterans'
preference in employment ifi1994, and despite 11 y w s of pleading the Commission
steadfitstly refuses to grant his entitlements.
Mr. Ward states he submitted to the Commission applications for two WfiterMtor
positions, Vacancy AnnouncementNumbers 94-127 (GS-12), and 94-128 (GS-13). The
requisite Standard Form IS, Amlication for 1@point Veterans Reference and certification of
his service-connecteddisability rated at 30 percent or more issued by the Department of
Veterans Affairs were submitted dong ~ 4 t the h applicatiom. He indicates that he worked 8s
a writerleditor and B public affairs specialist at the QS-12 grade level for several years and
resigned from a position within the competitive service for personal reasons. Thus, he has
permanent competitive status and reinstatement eligibility consistent With 5 C.F.R. $6
315,201and315.401.
Notwithstanding these statuses, qualifications and ex+ence, Mr.Ward cl$rns his veteraas'
preference entitlements were denied and his applications were not properly considered in a e
mariner prescribed by law and regulation in the Commission's selection procedures for the
aforementioned positions.
I viewed two documents that Mr.Wad mainkins are the certificates prepared by the
Commission for the positions advertised at announcement number 94-127, a list of Merit
Promotien Candidates, and a list of Non-Status Candidates, his name does not appear on
either. He also submitted a w n g Sheet for his application without a numerical mre that is
required by satute and regulation for the position advertised at mnouncement number 94-
12%He states he filed an d t h l complaint with the agency in 1995 and a search ofthe files
then did not reveal any additiod certificates with his name. Except his name appears OR a
certificate for which he is not qualified,
Mr. Ward indicates these documents unquestionably disclose violations of law and regulation
directly affecting his veterans' preference that is not optional, but requirements, specifically':
(1) the placement of his name on all registers at the top is an entitlement and is
automatiG, 5 U.S.C. $8 3314 and 3313; 5 C.F.R. 48 332.311 and 332.401(b);
(2) 10 additional points were to be added to his earned score, 5 U.S.C. 8 3309; 5 C.F.R.
40 211.102(c) and 337.101; and,
(3) he i s entitled to reinstatement and his name should have been referred to the selecting
official;5 U.S.C. 9 3316; 5 C.F.R.9 335.103(b)(4),
07/13/2005 09:46CIM
FROM FAX NO. : J u l . 13 2005 08: 25AM P7
2
DRAFT FCC
m.W a d says he request& US.Representative Jerry Costello to inquire about this ida1tiCd
matter. An employee of the Commission stated it is custom for the Commission not to
respond to matters that arc pending before it US.Federal court. The response to
Conpessrnan Costello failed to identify a cow? or a docket number. Mr. Ward emphatically
denies that he had any proceeding against the Commission in a US.Federal Court on the
date the Commission stated, and that any reference to a case before a Federal court was
untrue. Mr. Ward states he has an appeal before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board,
Docket number DC-3443-00-0338-1-1. a discrimination m e , shce OFtober 2000, Ody f01’
the position advertised at announcement 94-128.
Furthermore, Mr. Ward believes an outcome of a court case that does not involve the
authenticityof his military service or his veterans’ prcfcrcncc is irrelevant. The Conlmissiqn
had a statutory duty to grant his veterans’ preference entitlements when the Commission fbst
received his applications.The question of moment is: Did Mr, Ward receive the Veterans’
preference tu which he is entitled?
I will greatly appreciate your responding directly to the following questions concerning the
applicationsof Mr, Ward:
1. Did the FCC place the name of Mr. Ward on all, registers prepared for Vacancy
Announcment Numbers 94-127 (05-12) and 94-128 (GS-13) as required by 5
U.S.C. 0 3314 and 5 C.F.R. $5 332.311 and 332.401?
2. Did the FCC add 10-pointsto the earncd score of Mr. W a d for Vacancy
Announcement Numbers 94-127 (OS-12) and 94-128 (GS-13) as required by 5
U.S.C. 8 3309;5 C.F.R. $3 211.102(c) and 337.101?
3. Did the FCC place the name of Mr. Ward on all certificatesprepared for Vacancy
Announcement Niunbers 94-127 (GS-12) and 94-128 (GS-13) in the ordwprescriw
by 5 U.S.C. $3313 and 5 C.F.R, $332.402?
4. Did the FCC refer Mr. Ward to the selecting official on cdificates from appropriate
registers as required by 5 U.S.C. 9 3317; 5 C.F.R. $332.404(a)?
...
The OPM instructs that in the case of a W-point preference eligible If the applicant is
qualified for positions filIed through case examining, the agency will ensure that the applicmt
is &erred on a certificate a$ soon as possibIe. YetGuide, 16.
Bascd on the information provided by Mr, Ward, it does not appear he was granted
preferace in certification for appointment, appointment, or reinstatement authorized by
Section 2 ofThe Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, See 5 U.S.C. 5 1302(b).
If the information provided by h4r. Ward is truthfd, 1 believe 8tl accommodation is due him
in the manner prescribed by the U.S. Ofice of Personnel Management (OPM). The OPM
states in its publication, Delegated &urnitring OperuiiunsHandbook at Section E:
07/13/2005 09:46AM
Y I
FROM 1
I .
FAX NO. 1 J u l . 13 2805 08:26AM P8
DRAFT FCC 3
n e more serious type of erroneous certification is in a case where there is a violation af

law (e.g., Title 5 of the United States Code and the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944.).
This type of erroneous certification is known as Lost Employment ConsideraiQnor I,doss
of Bona Fide Employment Consideration.
The OPM states further, there is only one corrective action when the erroneous certificatioll
involves a 10-point veteran:
Offer employment to any eq~valentjob (same grade, same promotion potential and W e
tenurc) withia the agency for which the eligible is minimally qualified in any geographic
m a that the eligible deems acceptable, (Emphasis OFM's).
I believe 11 years i s fslr too Iong for any disabled veteran to struggle with a powerful agendy
for entitlements granted by the U S . Congress.
I will appreciate your prompt and personal attention to this serious matter.
FROM F A X NO. : J u 1. 13 2085 08: 26AM P9
Neil Anthony Gordon McPhie, Chairman

US.Merit Systems Protection Board
1615 M Street, NW
Dear Chairman McPhie:
A constituent,Michael R.Ward, a preference eligible with a service-comected disability rated at

30% or more (IO-point veteran), claims the US.Merit Systems Protection Board has delayed
ruling on his appeal &om the Washington Regional Office for what appears to be an inordinatct
period of time. He states he filed the appeal, DOCKET NUMBER DC-3443-00-0338-1-1.
October 27,2000,and has inquired about its status btl several ~ w i o n s .
M . W a d states be filed 8 claim of discrimmation against the US.Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) because of his prior military service and xtatus as a disabled veteran under
the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USENU). 38 U.S.C. 0
4301, et. ~ e 4 .
He declares he submitted two applications, one for consideration as a status canc2idate, and one
for consideration as a nonstatus candidate for &e FCC posted Vacancy houncem&t Numb$r
(VAN)94-128, Writer-Editor, GS-1082-1.3.However, Mr. Ward‘s name did not appear on
&fic,ates prepared in tho%categories, but was placed on a noncompetitive certificate for
which he was not qualified He feels the tactic of placing his name on a certificate, other than the
merit promotion certificate from which the appointee was selected, was a deliberate act to
prevent him from ampting with the preordained candidate because of his veterans’ preference
status that would place him in a more favorable position than the person selected who did not
submit an application for the position as the announcement indicates must be submitted for
consideration.
The Initial Decision was unfavorable to Mr. Ward; however, he believes the appeal that was
submitted more than four years ago evidences errors in law and regdatioq f d s to properly
analyze facts and testimony, and does not address the allegations put forth by him as well as
other irregularities.
Mr.Ward believes the Board has the authority to order enforcement of vetmans’ prefaence law
and regulation without a finding of discrimination.
I hope you agree that more than four years for a response i s excessive since the alleged
discriminatory acts o c c w d in 2994.
I will appmcjstk your prompt and personal attention to this serious matter.
SIGNATURE
FRCM : -.... FRX NO. : J u l . 13 2665 68:Z7AM P16
Michael R. Ward
Post Office Box 6454 e East St. Louis, lL 62202 (618) 274-1206 e E-mail: mrobquiIIc@yahoo,cOm
J d y 13,2005
Marta Brit0 Pkrez, Associate Director

Human Capital Leadership
and Merit System Accountability
US.Office of Personnel Management
1900 E Xt, Nw
Washington, DC 20415.
Rl3: Response to American Legion concerning Michael R. Ward
Dear Ms. Marta PQrez:

Thank you for responding to Mr. Joseph C. Sharpe of the American Legion who intervened
on my behalf about my situation with the US.Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), March 14,2005, For reasons that are unexphined, the letter was recently mailed to
WxleJuPe 15.
While the information you provide about VRA and other special authorities is helpful, it i s
nut the core issue of the matter about which I requested the hgion" assistance. Your
reference to proceedings in a Federal Court causes me to believe that the FCC has
misrepresented that court cases are pending. If the FCC implies a case is pending id a U S
Federal Court you are misled and I suggest that you request the name of the court and the
docket number.
So that facts are clear in this matter, 1 a m not 8 party to a proceeding before the
Federal Circuit or any U.S. Federal Court concerning the denial of my veterans'
preference entitlements for positions advertised by the RCC in Vacancy Announcement
Numbers 94-127 or 94-128.I have a USEFUW appeal with the MSPB, a diwrimination
claim, since October 27,2000, only for the position advertised at Vacancy Announcement
Number 94-128, Writer/Editor GS-13. The result of that case, or any case, has no bearing
-
on the issue about which I hoped that you would respond violations o f my veterans'
preference by the FCC. I t is my understandmg the OPM is directly responsible for enforcing
provisions of statute and regulation relating to veterans' preference.
The office shall prescribe and enforce regulations for the administration of the
provisions of thia title, and Executive orders issued in furtherance thereof, that
implement the CongresHioond policy that preference shall be given to preference
..,
eligibles in cert5cation for appointment, and in appointment, reinstatement in the
competitive service in Executive agencks.
07/13/2005 09:46FIM
FROM : . _I.- FAX NO. J u l . 13 2865 68:27AM P11
2
Marta Urito P&rez
5 U.S.C.j 1302(b). “The Office of Personnel Management (OPW administers entitlement to

veterans’ preference in employment tmder title 5, United States Cde,and oversoes other
statutory employment requirements in titles 5 and 38.” VetGuide 2.
1a p 9 person with more than twenty years of military service in the U.S. Army, a VietnaIp
combat veteran with a service-connected disability rated at 70 percent (a lO-point veteran).
I feel betrayed and humiliated because T am made to grovel and brawl for my statutordy
protected veterans’ preference in employment with federal agenciea, For 11years I have
sought my veterans’ preference from various government agencies. 1 am e~peciallytroubled
by my treatment at the hands of the FCC.
Based on what I believe is the responsibility of the OPM in these matters, I am respectfqy
requeeting that the OE’M require the FCC to honor my veterans’ preference that is required
by statute and regulation. The issues are not only legal but also m o r 4 and rahe quastionp
about the honesty and integrity of FCC employees who determine whether or not to obey
law.
Xt appears that you may be farnihar with some of the facts I included within my requests 40
the Legion; however, your response fails to mention the facts of my veternna’ preference
status, competitive Ytatus, reinstatement eligibility, and the failure of the FCC to treat my
applications in the manner required by law and regulation. The issue of my veterans’
preference was, is currently, first and fmemost, squarely before the FCC, afid when it
refuges to sct, enforcement of the preference is with the OPM. Veterans’ preference
entitlements are rights that can be denied only by due process of law. Disqualification of EI
30% preference eligible from a selection prooees can be accomplished only with the approvd
of the OPM; neither occurred in this matter.
The only issue I a m requesting the OPM to decide and correct ia: Whether the
FCC granted me or m y applications the veterans’ preference requirements to
which I m entitled for Vacancy Announcement Numbers 94-127 and 94-1281
I submitted applications for two writer/editor positions (Vacancy Announcement Numbera
94-127 (as-12)and 94-128 (GS-13)) with the FCC in 1994, and have yet to receive my
preference. My statuR as a 30% veteran with federal competitive service status is explained
below.
I am a preference eligible with a se.w.ice-connectedhgability rated at 30 percent ox

more by the Department of Veterans m a . 5 U.S.C. 21Vs(Z)-(3)(C); 5 C.F.R. 9
2 11.102(b).
. I ~ubmittedto the FCC the required Standard Fom 15, ADPlicgtion for 10-ooint
Veterans Preference.
My application shows I worked more than t h e e yeart; continuously in a position

within the competitive service a8 defined by 5 U.S.C.5 2102 and 5 C.F.R. 5 1.2.
These continuous years of aervice mean X am a person with competitive status. 6
C.F.R. 3s 1.3(c) and 315.201.
. Slim I am a preference eligible with competitive status, I have permanent
07/13/2005 09:46RM
* FROM .:
.__..__. FAX NO. : J u l . 13 2885 88:28AM PI;!
Marta Brito P6rez

3
reinstatement elighle status. 5 C,F,R. 315.401-
I worked as a writerleditor and 8s a public affairs speciahat at the GS=12 grade level
for more than 3 year.
1resigned from a previoua public affairs 6pecialia.t position, GS-12, for personal
reasons.
The OPM instructs that in the case af a "10-paint preference eligible ...If the applicaqt
is qualified for positions filled through case examinhg, the agency will ensure that the
applicant is referred on a certificate as soon as possible. VetGuide, 16. My veteran#'
preference status, competitive status, reinstatement eligibility and qualifications are
unquestioned.
Law and Regulation

Reminding the OPM of the statute, regulation, and instructions it enforces is unnocessargy.
However, it is my experience that each fact or provieion of h w must be identfied because
officials may inadvertently overlook them.
When a preference eligible with a service-connected disability rated at 30 % or more

submits an application for employment to a Federal agency, law and regulation - not the
agency or its employees - govern the treatment due the application of the disabled veterap.
Relevant statute and regulation in these matters we:
(3) 6 CFR 332.311- A 10-point preference eligible is entitled to file an application at
any time for an examination €or any position for which OPM maintains a register,
for which a register i s about to be established;
5 USC 3514 - A preference eligible who resigns, on request to the Office of

Personnel Management, i s entitled to have his name placed again on all reg-i.stersfor
which he may have been uualified, in the order named by section 3313 of this title;
(c) 5 USC 3313: 5 CFR 382.401 - disabled veterans who have a compensable service-
connected disability of 10 percent or more, are entered h t on regiWrs OP lists of
eligibles for non-acientific positions;
(d) 5 USC 3309; 5 CFR Zll.lOZ(c) and 837.101 - 10 points added to the earned
scores of disabled veterans;
(e) -
6 USC 3316; 5 CFR 332.402 a preference eligible who has resigned may be ...
certified for, and appointed to, a position for which he is eligible in the competitive
6ervit.e;
(4 5 USC 3317;5 CFR 332.402 and 332.404 - names oh certificates are listed as
they appear on register$ and lkts of eligibles, ie., names that appear at the tap of
regieters and lists of eligible8 are placed on certificate8 in similar order-
07/13/2005 09:46FIM
FAX NO. : Jul. 13 20635 08:28AM P13
4
Marta Brita R r e z
When these provisions are disregarded, law and regulations of the United States are
violated without the veteran being granted the constitutional protection of due process.
The OPM indicaks these me serious violations. 5 C.F.R. 8 250.101.
Underatanding that my word i s not a factual basis for action, I am providing smoking guo
evidence that my veterans' preference entitlements were not granted - documents &om &e
FCCs records. This evidence is alw provided to preempt contrary asgertions that may
proffered by the FCC,
Violations ofLaw and Regulations

1. FCC fails to dace my name on registers and certificate8 required bv statute and
remlation
When the FCC received my spplicatiom it was statutorily required to enter my name on all
s which I am eligible and qualified. 5 U.S.C. $5 3313 and 3314; 5 C.F.R. $3
r e ~ s t e r for
332.311, 332.401(b), and 332.402. Evidence in this matter is that the FCC refused to plaae
my name on any certificate for the position advertised at 94-1-27,and placed my name on a
certificate for which I was not eligible for the position advertised at 94-128.
The provhions O f 5 U.S.C. 3314 and 5 C.F.R. $5 332.311 and 332.401@), are literally
-
interpreted all registers, mean all registers-If the FCC had acted aa required, because cbf
my status as a 30%veteran, my name would therefore be fist on dlcertificatea, B W.S.C.
$5 3313 and 3317; 5 C.F.R. $5 332.402. and 332.404.
The Innternai..butina Slip For Receid of Amlieation for Advertised. Vacancies itt Exhibit A,
indicates:
a) the FCC received my application and rated me eligible for the position
advertised at Vacancy Announcement Number 94-127,GS-12;
b) the FCC acknowledges my eligibiliq in the following categoriea:

Noncompetitive "NonComp
Disabled veteran with a eervice-connected disability rated at 30%or more
"30%+ Dig"
.Reinstatement eligible "Rein"
Nonstatus candidate "NS'
For this position the FCC prepared two certificates. The mt. ..Promot;ionCertificate and ia
Non-Statue Certificate at Exhibit B, neither includes the name Michael Ward.
**Without reviewing any additional documentation, the FCC's files clearly indicate it
violates 5 US-C-5 3314 when it refuaed to place my name on & registers for which it
determined me eligible, which also means my name was not referred to the selecting
official, therefore 1could not be reinstated. (5 U.S.C.5 3316).
The person selected was chosen from the Merit Promotion Certificate. The FCC mamned:
"veteran'sstatus is immaterial because Veterans' preference it3 not a factor under the merit
Section 2 ofthe Veterans' Preference Act of 1944. as mended, provides that veterans have preference in
certifrcnrion for appointment, appointment, and reinstatement. See 5 U.S.C. 13020).
FROM ' FAX NO. J u l . 13 2005 08:29AM P14
5
Marta Brito PQrez
promotion process. & 5 C.F.R. 5 211.102(c)." This statement i s misleading because of its
brevity. While the reference to the regulation is correct, the issue for me is not promotion,
but being listed on all reghters, certification for appointment, appointment and/or
reinstatement. I had already attained the grade of GS-12 and am reinstatement ek$ble.
The issue here is whether my name was placed on all registers as required by 5 U.S.C. 3
3314."Apreference eligible who has reskned, may be certified for. and appointed to, a
position for which he is eligible in the competitive mrvice,"5 U.S.C, 5 3316, The OPM
incorporates this provision for reinstatement eligibles in its regulation, Agency
promotion program; 5 C.F.R. 5 335.103(b)(4). Requirenen,t 4 reads in relevant part:
Selection procedures ,..will also provide for management's right to select from other
appropriate BOurCeB, such a8 ... redtatemelit ... or those Within reach on an
appropriate OPM certificate.
It is axiomatic then, that where a disabled veteran who is r e k t a t e m e n t eligible is not
referred to the gelecting &% and & l,
where his name i s not placed on any of the FCC
certificates ae req&ed by 5 U.S.C. $5 3314,3313,3316, 3317 and 5 CFR 332.311, the
FCC's merit promotion selection procedure is ffawed in this matter. It is fairly ~bviouathat
where my name was not placed on certificates, it could not be referred to the selecting
official as a reinstatement eligible candidate.
2. The FCC did not examine, score.,rate. rank, or add 10 additional points as reuu&ed by 5
U.S.C.4 3309; 5 C.F.R. 66 2Il.lWc1 and 337.101.
The FCC provided a copy of the rating sheet for the person it selected at Exhibit C,but
could not provide one for my application. This means my application was not scored with
the 10 points added aa required by the referenced codes - a violation of law and a denial of
an entitlement. Essenhally, my application disappears from the FCC's consideration of
candidates for the position advertised at Vacancy Announcement Number 34.127.
***The FCC ir, unable to produce any documentation whatsoever indicating that my
application was ever considered for V~lcancyAnnouncement Number 94-127.The FCC
asserts my name waa included on a different certificate that does not exist. It indicates that
files might have been misplaced or destroyed coneietent with regulation. This assertion is
untrue and borders dishonesty.
I filed an i n i t i a l complaint December 15,1995. The FCC's EEO Counselor reviewed the
entire fde in 1996, Documents the FCC cannot locate were never prepared; they did not
exist in 1994,1995, 1996, 2001, or 2005. If records are lost, misplaced, destroyed, or never
prepared, the responsibility for these errors lie with the FCC, and is certainly not an excuqe
for violating ones veterans' preference rights.
Fudhermore, the records provided are abundant evidence of violations of referenced law
and regulation. I submit that the records located that include the name of the person
selected, Kara Casey, and the failure to locate any H e s that purportedly included my name
are ribt happemtance but i s indicative of the fact that files with my name never edeted.
07/13/2005 09;46FIM
FROM ' FAX NO. : J u l . 13 2005 68:30AM P15
6
Marta Brit0 Pkez
The violPtions for the position advertised at announcement number 94-1-23me exactly t b
same except the FCC produced a Rating Sheet for my application with a determination
"Highly Qualified,"Exhibit D. The sheet failed to include a numerical wore that is repuiried
by 5 U.S.C. § 3309;5 C.P.R §§ 2ll.l02(c) and 337.101. The basis for the "HighlyQualified"
determination is not therefore a rating with a score, but a subjective decision based on
nothing.
I believe it may be of concern td the ORM that the Rating,Sheet the FCC prepared for my
application for 94-128 contained in the comments section a handwritten notation "militaqy."
Thie wae a signal to others to avoid placing my name on certificates becautx of the force af
veterans' preference lqw that would endanger thc hiring of its preordained candidate who
did not submit an application for the position.
Remedy
Referring to the certificates at Exhibit B, the person selected for the position advertised at
Vacancy Announcement Number 94- 127 received a score of 90,the lowest Bcore of the six
names referred to the selecting official. If the register, list of eligibles and ce&cates were
regularized with the disabled veteran's name at the top that i s required by statute and
regulation, the person selected would not be within reach because her m r e would not plqce
her among the top three candidates, 5 U.S.C.5 3317. In that event, the FCC would have ~KI
request permission from the OPM to select her and pass over the disabled veteran. 5 U.S.C.
5 3318,
The actiona of the FCC in the se1,ectionprocedures for 94-128 are equally troublesome. My
name wag not included 08 the Merit Promotion certificate and +he person selected from that
certificate did not submit an application for the poeition when the announcement states one
must be submitted.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) atatees in its publication, Delegated
Examining Opercctions H u n d h k at Section E:
Erroneous certification OCCUSBwhen an eligible does not appear in the correct order on
the certificate ti.e*,was misrnnked on a certifkate or did not appear on the certificate at
aU) or when an eligible appeared on the CertScate but did not receive appropriate
consideration. There are two principal types of emmeow mriification, those that:
1. Involve a violation of law (e.g., "rde of thee" or Veterans' Preference Act, and
2. Do not involve a violation of law (e.g., an administrative error).
The more serious type of erroneous certification is in a case where there is a violation df
law (e-g., Title 5 of the United States Code and the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944.),
This type of erroneous certification is known a6 Lost Employment Consideration or h a 6
of Bona Fide Employment Consideration.
The OPM states further, there is only one corrective action when the erroneous certification
involves a IO-point veteran:
07/13/2005 09:46QM
FROM : FAX NO. J u l . 13 2665 B8:30AM P16
Marta Brito P&rez 7
Offer employment to any equivalent job {same grade, same promotion potentid and
same tenure) within the agency for which the eligible is minimally qualified in any
geographic area that the eligible deems acceptable. (Emphasis OPM'a)
I believe documentary evidence; the actions of the FCC, the requirements of law and
regulation, compel the conclusion that my veterans' preference rights were denied by the
FCC in 1994 and continue to this day, My preference status i e permanent and I feel the
OPM should correct these egregious, unquestionable violations.
Finally, the violations stated herein are undeniable. I do not believe the FCC should be
d o w e d to commandeer the mechanics of the selection prwesg of the Federal government,
circumvent and manipulate procedures, disregard law, without these violations being
repaired because an applicant wa5 harmed and hie protected entitlements denied.
Thank you for any conaideration given this matter.
Respectfully,
h
\
Michael R. Ward
Exhibits
(lopy to: The Honorable Barack Obarna

US. Senator
07/13/2005 0!3:46CIM
I ~ I _--__ __ r r
FROM - 1 FAX NO. : J u l . 13 2665 68:31AM P17
EXHIBIT A
FROM' : _c .I
FAX NO. : J u l . 13 2885 08:31AM P18
.-' INTERNAL R O m G SLIP FOR RECEIPf OF

APPLICATXONS FOR ADVERTISED VACANCIES
FROM :
'
FAX NO. J u l . 13 2005 08:31AM P19
. .
FROM : FAX NO. J u l . 13 2005 08:32AM P28
Merit Promotion Can

Announcement Number: 94-127 Bureau OMD
Issuing Office
Indicate with an asterisk r)

Selecting Officiai (S%ature):
,- 'J
Title '\" 7-
Date:
t
FROM' : FAX NO. : Jul. 13 2665 68:32RM p21
Non-Stahts Candidi I .S - Writer-Editor - GS-1082-1;

Announcement Nurnber; 94-127 Bureau : QMD
Aaon L u t Namm firrt Name MI ID# fCC E ~ I J ~ D YEtrgtbily

W V a w n y t Gnoo vir pmf
-3 ApplicittiOnS Referred
- Cbbke
Ptnkelman
801ic
Carol
James
Fatnma
A
T
3014
3094
3237
YES
YES
YES
94-7ZT ;2:
94-127
94-127
I2
11
6Q 96
so
BQ 95
96
'i
Title I Date:
Selecting Official (Signatire):
I
.baas
07/13/2005 09:46AM7
FROM. : FAX NO. J u l . 13 2865 88:33AM P22
EXATBIT C
07/13/2005 09:46FIM
*----I - -.-11-- I _. L 1
FROM : ' FAX NO. J u l . 13 2085 08:33AM P23
-.e
PANEL 3007 Casey
* 3007 C a w WORKSHEET
IMC 3007
- Positions Applied FOE
94-127 Writer-Editor GS-I 082-12
i
n
.-
/
- I
RATING "
Morgan Broman Minimaliy Qualified a Fully Qualified 0 Highly Qualified Qua
NOTES :
r
Martha Contee Minimally Qualified a Fully Quatied Highly Qualified d 8 e s t Qual

NOTES :
46
Audrey Spivak Minimally Quatified E7 Fully Qualified c]Highly Qualified mest Qual
* NOTES: .
qf9
(KA) EXHIBI
p
aJ
!Cb
d
f
\
07/13/2005 0 9 : 46FIM-
FROM. : FAX NO. J u l . 13 2665 68:33AM P24
Exhibit D
FRO11 : -
._ FFlX NO. J. u l . - 13 2@@5@8:34AM P25
Y l --
* .-
3* Ward PAN?%
WQIRBSHEET
3L- a Ward
Positions Appfied FOE
ID# 3064 94-128 Writer-Editor GS-108243
Ward, Michael R
0 8est Qualifief
-- ---U.Iu-c- 1 --*-e-"--.
a
Y I "
Martha Contee
NOTES :
Minimally Qualified Fully Quaiified Highly Qualified 0 Best Qualifief
Audrey Spivak 0 Minimally Qualified Fully Qualified Highly Quafified 0 Best Quaiifiec
NOTES : I
ln 07/13/2005
* *
09:46AM
OmCE OF
MANAQWG DIRECTOR
Ociober 13, 2005

230 S. Dearborn Street
Suite 3900
Dear Senator Obama:
This is in reply to your letter on behalf of Mr. Michael R. Ward of East St. Louis, Illinois,
who is inquiring about denial of veteran preference regarding two Writer-Editor positions for which
he applied in 1994 at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
The FCC posted Vacancy Announcement #94-127 from July 11,1994 to August 12,
1994, seeking applications from "all sources" to fill a GS-12 Writer-Editor position in its Office of
Public Affairs. An 'all sources" posting allows an agency to consider merit promotion, non-
competitive, and non-status candidates for the vacancy. Mr. Ward submitted an application for
the position and was neither interviewed nor selected. Rather, Ms. Kara Casey, determined by
the rating panel to be a 'best qualified" candidate, was chosen to fill the position. Mr. Wards non-
selection (1) was not motivated by any discriminatory animus toward him based upon his prior
military service; (2)was consistent with OPM requirements, 5 C.F.R. § 335.103; and (3) was not
otherwise tainted by any preferentialconsideration given to the selectee-candidate, Ms. Kara
Casey.
Vacancy Announcement ##94-128 was posted during the same time frame as #94-127,
and sought applications from "all sources" to fill a GS-13 Writer-Editor position in the Office of
Public Affairs. On August 12, 1994, Mr. Ward applied and was rated 'highly qualified" by the
rating panel. The selecting official, Karen Watson, acting within her discretion and consistent with
personnel selection procedures under 5 C.F.R. 5 335.103(b), determined that the competitive
merit promotion list was an "appropriate source" from which to select candidates. She
interviewed only candidates referred on that list, and ultimately selected Stacey Reuben Mesa.
Because the competitive merit promotion list consisted only of individuals rated 'best qualified,"
Mr. Ward, rated 'highly qualified," was ineligible for inclusion on that list, and was neither
interviewed nor selected for the position.
The FCC has litigated numerous cases with Mr. Ward before several tribunals. He has
raised numerous allegations regarding his non-selections for the Writer-Editor positions before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit; the US. District Court for the District of Columbia; the Merit Systems Protection
Board; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and the Office of Special Counsel. Each
forum has considered and dismissed Mr. Ward's allegations on jurisdictional grounds or for lack
of merit. With respect to Mr. Ward's allegations regarding his appeal before the Merit Systems
Protection Board, the FCC has no control over that agency's determination of a pending litigation
matter. See,e.g., Ward v. FCC, 58 Fed. Appx. 517 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (unpublished); Ward v.
Powell, 2001 WL 1154507 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Ward v. Kennard, 1999 WL 503905 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
(unpublished); Ward v. Kennard, 200 F. R. D. 137 (D.D.C. 2001); Ward v. Kennard, 133 F. Supp.
2d. 54 (D.D.C. 2001); Ward v. FCC, 92 M.S.P.R. 229 (2002); Ward v. Kennard, EEOC Request
##05A00105 (March 19,2002); Ward v. Kennard, EEOC Appeal #01976398 (October 1,1999);
Ward v. OPM and FCC, 79 M.S. P.R. 530 (1998), aff'd, 199 WL 231990 (Fed. Cir. 1999), reh'g
denied May 4,1999.
The FCC considers paramount its obligation to assist our veterans in the employment
process, and strives to ensure that these individuals receive the appropriate consideration in the
Agency's employment process. The FCC's selection process for the above-referenced
vacancies was conducted in a manner consistent with applicable OPM regulations and
established Agency policies. As several courts and administrative agencies have concluded, the
Agency did not discriminateagainst Mr. Ward based on his prior military service or any other
basis, nor did it afford any preferentialtreatment to the selectees.
&**
We hope this information is helpful to you.
Sincerely-
Andrew S. Fishel
Managing Director
COMMITTEES:
BARACK OBAMA
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Wnited j5tateB Senate $; VETERANS' AFFAIRS
July 19,2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received by my Chicago office from my constituent, Ms.
Nadine Foster. Ms. Foster writes of insufficient service from SBC and Sprint telephone
corporations. Attached you will find her letter which gives a more accurate description and
explanation of her issues.
Upon completion of Ms. Foster's case, please send your findings to Jennifer Mason at the
following address:

230 S. Dearbom Street, Suite 3900
Chicago, IL,60604
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
230 S. Dearbom Street, Suite 3900

Chicago, IL 60604
Jun 20 0 5 ll:20a J A C O B ROTMENSCH 363-0867
FAX TELECOPY
DATE June 20,2005
Senator Barack Obama FAX NUMBER 312-886-3514
FROM Nadine Foster

TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES 2 including cover sheet
SUBJECT: Caught in a Corporate Nightmare
MESSAGE
Dear Senator Obama:

I am hoping that perhaps your office might be able to intercede on behalf of
myself and another constituent of yours, Mr. David Derbes. Our eighteen-year-
old daughters, recent University of Chicago Laboratory School graduates, left for
Paris on 6/16/05. We sent the girls with an international cellular telephone with a
Liechtenstein number, so we could keep in contact. Both girls, liana Rotmensch
and Catherine Derbes, called us on Friday, June 17" announcing their safe
arrival. However, neither Mr. Derbes', nor my international calls from our landline
telephones were able to go through to the girls.
Mr. Derbes and I proceeded to contact our long distance carriers and SBC, our
local carrier, in an attempt to correct this situation. My long distance carrier,
Sprint has done nothing since Friday to fix the situation, other than blame SBC
and issue a "trouble ticket" for my problem. I have addressed this problem with
Sprint's Customer Service representative; I have spoken with their Executive
Analyst, M a Sherry Moody; and, I have written to the President of Consumer
Solutions, Mr. Timothy Kelly, at the Overland Park, Kansas headquarters. All to
no avail, as I still am unable to place an international call from my home
telephone. Incidentally, Mr. Derbes discovered that his long distance carrier,
Working Assets, leases their long d i s h c e lines from Sprint.
We are parents desperate to make sure their children are fine as they travel
alone throughout Europe. We pay fot long distance service, and expect to be
able to place direct dial international telephone calls. Seventy-two hours after we
started this inquiry, we still are caught in this corporate ping-pong game, which is
reminiscent of the old Ma Bell monopoly days. We both continue to get lip
service, stalling, but no resolution. Thank goodness for cellular service. I was
able to get international calling programmed into my Verizon wireless service
within two minutes. Isn't it outrageous that in the 21st century a well-established
L- corporation, such as Sprint, cannot do the same?
Jun 2 0 05 ll:20a JACOB ROTMENSCH 363-0867 p - 2-
~ __
Both Mr. Derbes and I are residents of Hyde Park. Mr. Derbes teaches Physics
at the University of Chicago Laboratory School. My daughter, Ilana, volunteered
for your campaign last summer. Anything you can do to encourage the
resolution of this matter, short of my changing my long distance carrier today, is
greatly appreciated.
Most sincerely appreciative,
Nadine A. Foster
FOR QUESTIONS CALL: 773-363-5732
Confidentiality Notice: This communication is intended only for the use of t h e

individual(s) or entity designated by the sender as the recipient. This
communication may contain information which is confidential, and in certain
instances, privileged, under applicable law. Ifyou are not the intended recipient
as designated by the sender, or such recipient's authorized agent, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication
beyond the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify the sender via phone or email at the above
number. Also, ifyou are not the intended recipient, please delete this
communication without forwarding to other individuals or entities, or retaining a
copy in any form.
..
AUG 1 7 2005
Control No. 050161Ukah

Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Nadine Foster, regarding the
difficulties she was experiencing with SBC and Sprint.
On July 20, 2005, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau directed SBC and
Sprint to satisfy or answer the complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records
and other information. Enclosed are copies of the responses we received. In their response,
SBC states that the problem was with Ms. Foster’s interLata carrier and referred her to Sprint.
Sprint states that their technicians were unable to duplicate the situation and identify the
problem. They did confirm that Ms. Foster’s line was clear and international dialing was
available from her line. As a gesture of goodwill, Sprint has applied a re-rate adjustment of
$498.38 as well as a $100 credit on her account. Based on the information provided, the
Commission does not plan to take any further action with respect to Ms. Foster’s complaint.
If you have any further questions or require additional information please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
3bcdljjJ
Thomas D. Wyatt
Deputy Bureau Chief
Enclosure
Executive Office SBC Midwest
220 N,Meridian Street
Room 861
Indianapolis. IN 46204
Response to Notice of Informal Complaint (NOIC)
Date: July 21,2005
Federal Communications Commission Complainant's Name: Nadine A. Foster

Consumer Information Bureau File No.: IC W5-10181505
Consumer Information Network Division Type: lncmteam
Informal Complaints Team Date of NOIC: July 20,2005
445 lZih Street, SW Room 5A-820
Has Complainant contacted LEC? [XI Yes 0 No Oate(s) 6-17-05

Contacted:
Has LEC contacted CarrierlCompany? ayes No Date(s)
Contacted:
Name of CarrierlCompany: Sprint
Has LEC contacted Complainant? @ Yes a No Date@)

Conbcted:
7-21-05
6-28-05,
D d i l of contack (Indude date of contact, person contacted, and results.)

06-17-05 Ms. Foster contacted SBC to inquire why she was unable to place an Internationalcall. She was
referred to repair. The Repair department placed a test call and determined there was a problem with her
interlata carrier, and referred her to Sprint.
06-28-05 M. Pinner, SBC, contacted Ms. Foster in response to this same complain1filed with the Illinois
Commerce Commission: Ms. Pinner provided the same iriforrnationlisted above and referred her to
Sprint.
07-21-05 Waneta Northern, SBC, sent the attached letlet.
ExecutiveAssistant
800-592-5386, extension 41815
Attachments
cc: Nadine A. Foster
T I 1 T
Executive Office SBC Midwest
220 N. MeridianStreet
Room 861
Indianapolis. IN 46204
July 21,2005
Ms. Nadine A. Foster

5732 South Kenwood
Chicago, IL 60637
Re: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Complaint

SBC Illinois ("SSC")Account 773-363-5732
Dear Ms. Foster:
SBC is in receipt.of your complaint filed with the FCC regarding your inability to place
an International call.' On behalf of SBC, please accept my apology for any inconvenience
this issue caused you.
SBC's records indicate on June 17,2005, you reported you were unable to dial
01 142366307 1234. Based upon that report, SBC attempted to place a test call, using
your line and the call was blocked once it reached Sprint's network. SBC referred you to
Sprint. When a customer places a call, outside of their local calling area, SBC forwards
the call to the designated carrier'snetwork.
Based upon our information, SRC would not issue an adjustments associated with your
inabiIity to place an InternationaI call.
Thank you for allowing SBC the opportunity to assist you.
Sincerely,
Waneta Northern
Executive Assistant
1-800-592-5386, extension 41815
cc: FCC
1 T
t
August 5,2005
Ms. Martha Contee

Consumer Information Bureau
Consumer Information Network Division
Informal Complaints Team
Room TW-385
Street, S.W.
445 1 2 ' ~
Re: IC # 05-10181505
Complaint of Nadine Foster
Notice of Informal Complaint dated July 20, 2005
Dear Ms. Contee:
Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) is in receipt of the above-referenced complaint of

Nadine Foster. Sprint received this complaint on July 20, 2005.
According to the information provided, Ms. Foster states that she was unable to place
international calls from her home telephone line for several days.
Sprint's records show that on June 17,2005, we opened a trouble ticket to determine why Ms.
Foster was unable to make international calls; unfortunately, our technicians were unable to
duplicate the situation and identify the problem. The technicians did confirm that Ms. Foster's line
was clear and international dialing was available from her line. As a gesture of goodwill, Sprint
has applied a re-rate adjustment of $498.38 as well as a $100 credit her account. These credits
should be reflected on Ms. Foster's August 27, 2005 invoice.
Sprint regrets any inconvenience caused by this matter, and apologizes to Ms. Foster for the
delay in resolving her dispute. If you require additional information, please contact me.
Yqurs very truly,
/hue k&m.
Norina T.Moy 1
Director, Federal Regulatory
Policy and Coordination
NTM/sxj: 1276610
C: Ms. Nadine Foster

5732 S. Kenwood Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637
7 1 1 T
05/24/05 09:15 FAX 312-
8 5 6 3514 -~- -- BARACK OBAMA
SENATOR @ 002
COMMITTEE3
BARACK OEAMA
ILLIN015 ENVIRONMENT AND
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Wnited senate VEERANS' AFFAIRS
August 24,2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 Twelfth Street, Sw, Room 8-c453
Washington, District of Co1umbi.a20554
Dear Ms. Atkinson: I

The enclosed correspondence was received by my Chicago office from my tituent: Julia
Carroll, the City Manager of thhe City of Evanston. Attached you will find :tter which gives
a more accurate description and explanation of her issues.
I would appreciate your looking into this matter at your earliest convenienc lease advise
Jennifer Mason, who assists me in these matters, of your findings.
If you require any further assistance or have additional questions, please do hc hesitate to
contact Jennifer at 3 12-886-35016.
Sincercly,
Senator Barack Obama

RECEIVED TIME AUG. 24. 1 0 : 5 4 A M P R I N T TIME AUG. 24 10:55AM

^.I __"
- I
08/24/05 09:16 FAX 312 886
-.
3514 - SENATOR
--..- BARACK
- OBAMA @I0 0 3
2022285417 P.02/03
/'
k It !lo0Rldge Avenue
Lvanston, IlllrroDs 60201-2796
-eCity oE
' 847.066.2!336
: 047.448.8003
Evanston- vww.cityofevoriston.orr:
June 28,2005

723 Hart Senate m c e Building
Wasbington, DC 20510
RE: Radio Frequency Request for the Evanston Fire Deptment
Dear Senator Obama,
The Evanston Fbe Department uses a single radio frequency to mergemy calls
and commUnicate to/hJZl our 911 Center to the fpre stations vehicles on the
street The single frequency has es not provide
consisfent and =liable radlio communications. Thare are many n a membar of
the Fire Department nemcds to co 1 assistance or
@fomation.~d:~,they are unable to broadcast tbc message e current radio
sysrem,i?not able to transmit the signal. Over the years, not o safety a5ncetn,
but 'it has also become a poiat of fnrsgation., .
> . ' 4
.
The,C i g of 8Evanston'911I~Boardqr~vided
.funding last a consultant to
determinqhcnw -toconed this problem. Tbe proposed solution mde OUT wmnt
40 system, f m ii d g l e w i W 21will require a
second~fiequenoy.The cost of the $25O,OOO. The
funding for this upgrade was available and
In order far this upgrade to be completed, the Fiire obtain a second
r@o frequency from the FCC. A repeater system :ncy ,to transmit
and,-&et to receive ,&e informatian. In June of ication with the
Association- of -Public Safety Comm&cationS, m a secondary
fkequency from the FCC:,.'?his and a s d in Septembex
were, appamntly rnisplacrd: A chiid: I of 2004. This
axlplim~ : b~ , , b e r t nP~C=S+X!. ,and!O I, the,frequency
,
c. ~. ~ q t ~ ,CTLU' ! fare. o ~ .. , :. .' .,I.. ,. .. ,i *, :*a, :.-:.';:!..

" , ;.; .-, :--.,....
,;:* ; ,,,',.:., ....... , , . < ..........
'..-, . . . . . . . . . ,.
, ; : :a :
,, (<,,',(,
,
...r.
, ,
. . . '.:;.
,t ..- I"--
I ._,. .
1
,::..: :y' ,: '". ..,,

~ ;,
8!,, :I.;;'' ,,'. ".'*
, .,,,, '.:. ,, :: :,'
. . , . . , . ;<.. . ,
I ,
" '
I .as,
' " . . . . . . .......
I .
. . . .
! .: ..
.... , .. ,:. . . :b!;
, . . .' . I . : .....
' ' W \
.. ... ; ,', ' . . . . .. . . 1.. . . . ., . , . . . . ,.. .. . .. ..
.......... . ) .. . . . . . . . . .. . ....
. . . . . .' . .
. .. . . ,
.
I
. . . . .
4 R E C E I V E D T I M E AUG. 24, 1 0 : 5 4 A M P R I N T TIME AUG. 24 10 :5 5 A M

"I- ... ._.. .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... , . 4
08/24/05 -__.-
09:i6 FAX 3 1 2 at36 3514 SENATOR .BARACK OBAMA ~
@I004
- wG-17-20B5 16:17 Senator Barack mama i 20222.85417 P . ~ ~ / ~
Initially, w e were g i v a &e impression that obtainiag a s

problem; however, i t wm8determind that none were available.
Department that some might be available if waivess could
Departments who may be using them. Several fhquencies
mu
again tlne Department was; advied that the s u g p t e d
me Fire Deparhmmt thrvn requested two new freqLlmcie~in

which would bring UEinto compliance with a new Federal initiative
to narrow-baud r&o by the y&r 2012. W e ware told that no nd hqumcim
were available to us due tolour proximity to Chicago,
We have now hit a dead-endwitb the W A P C O and are unabl plete the radio
upgrade fur the Evanston Fire Department, Even the radio con hohasbeenin
cammunications with Mr. Carter, is out of suggestions. merefore are rqwsting
your assistance in o b W o g a second frc3quency fmm the FCC.
The best case scenario would be e0 have the FclC assign the Firc D mat two new
narrow-band fkequeacies ISO we can mainrain the carrent bquen lg the upgrade
and comply with the new mandate. The other option is to assign ? Department a
second wideband kquency. Either of these solutions w iequare. Any
assistance that you can p v i c k in this matter will be by the City of
Evansron and especially ,theEvanscon Fin Department. lvance for your
assistance.
Sincesely,
A, Carroll, City Manager
TOTAL P.03
RECEIVED TIME AUG. 24. 1 0 : 5 4 A M PRINT TIME AUG. 24, 1 0 : 5 5 A M

a 001
U N TED STATES SENATOR BARACK OBAMA

CHICAGO OFFICE
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL S H E E T
URGENT FOR REWEW PLEASE COMMENT 1 P L E X X RECYCLE

I I
NO'tE.S/CQMMEKTS.
. . ... ... __ . .
230
--D
soum
-
PHONE 312 8 8 6 . 5 5 0 6 FAX 3 1 2 8 8 6 - 3 5 1 4
RECEIVED T I M E AUG, 24. 1 0 : 5 4 A M P R I N T T I M E AUG. 24, 1 0 : 5 5 A M

~ __. - -_-_ I 1
SEP-09-2005 14:51 FSC PSPIjJD 202 41s 2643 P.06

Washington, D.C, 20554
September 8,2005
In Reply Refer To:

0501694fl-E

230 South Dearborn
Suite 3900
Attention: Jennifer Mason
Dear Senator Obarna;
Thank you for your letter of August 24,2005 on behalf of your constituent, Julia A. Carroll, City
Manager, City of Evanston,lllinois (Evanston). On June 28,2005, Ms. Carroll requested your assistance
in obtaining a second dispatch frequency for the Evanston Fire Department,
Evanston seeks a wideband frequency or, in the alternative, two narrowband frequencies in
anricipation of a narrow bandwidth limit that becomes effective iii 201 3. Evanston states that its
frequency coordinator, the Association of Public Safety Communications Oficials (APCO), has been
unable to identify any available frequencies. Because of Evanston’s proximity to Chicago, Evanston is
affected by a shortage of land mobile radio spectrum that is not unusual in major metropolitan areas.
Presumably, APCO searched for frequencies only in the Public Safety Pool, because those are the
only frequencies for which Evanston ordinarily would be eligible. We note, however, that Evanston may
request a waiver to allow it to use frequencies outside the Public Safety Pool, if need be. Specifically,
Section 337(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides that the Commission shall
grant a public safety entity’s waiver request and application for unassigned frequencies not allocated for
public safety use ifthe applicant meets five criteria: (1) public safety spectrum is not immediately
available; (2) the proposed use will not cause harmful interfereme to protected spectrum users; (3) public
safety use of the unassigned frequencies is consistent with public safety spectrum allocations in the
geographic area; (4) the unassigned frequencies have been allocated for non-public safety use for more
than two years; and ( 5 ) grant of the application isconsistent with the public interest.
We have granted such waiven to several public safety entities in other parts of the country. We
would be happy to provide information regarding previous Section 33 7(c) waiver grants upon request.
We encourage Evanston to work with its radio consultant and/or APCO to identifj. non-public safety
frequencies that may be suitable for Evanston’s needs.
I trust this is responsive to your inquiry.
Sincerely,
- -
Scot Stone, Deputy Chief
Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
TOTQL P. 06
,302 416 264.3 37;: P. a6
COMMITTEES:
BARACK OBAMA
e PUBLIC WORKS
2 FOREIGN RELATIONS
Wnited Statu @enate DL

LrJ
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 5?
N
July 20,2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Dear Ms. Atkinson:
A correspondence was received by my Chicago office from my constituent, Dr. Roger Nall. Dr.
Nall writes regarding an uncontrollable number of telemarketing calls to his cellular phone. He
states that he has registered with a national list that removes your name from telemarketing lists,
however, this has not halted the calls. Dr. Nall may be contacted at the following address:
Dr. Roger Nall

54 East Cedar Street
Chicago, IL 60611
Upon completion of Mr. Nall's case, please send your findings to Jennifer Mason at the following
address:

Chicago, IL 60604
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
Chicago, E 60604
OCT 5 2005

Chicago, I1 60604
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Dr. Roger Nall, regarding the
problems he is experiencing with unsolicited telemarketers calling his cell phones.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was adopted in 1991 to restrict the use
of the telephone network for unsolicited advertising via telephone and facsimile. Pursuant to the
TCPA, the FCC adopted rules in 2003 to establish a national do-not-call registry for consumers
who wish to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls. Under the do-not-call rules, telemarketers are
prohibited, subject to certain exemptions, from contacting consumers who have placed their
telephone numbers on the national registry. They are also required to place consumers on
company-specific do-not-calls lists if a consumer requests not to receive future solicitations.
However, calls that do not fall within the definition of “telephone solicitation” as defined in the
TCPA will not be precluded by the national do-not-call list or company-specific do-not-calls
rules. These may include surveys, market research, and political or religious speech calls.
Dr. Nall may confirm that his residential telephone numbers, including wireless numbers,
are registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry by calling 1-888-382-1222. He must call
from that number in order to verify it is registered. His number remains on the list for five
years, subject to renewal at the end of the five year period, unless he decides to remove his name
from the list at any time.
We understand Dr. Nall’s concerns. However, we are unable to process Dr. Nall’s
concerns as a complaint, based on the information provided. We require more specific
information regarding the unsolicited telephone calls Dr. Nall is receiving. Specifically, we
require the name and telephone number of the organization placing the calls. If Dr. Nall
wishes to file a complaint with the Commission, he will need to provide the necessary
information. Additionally, enclosed is a fact sheet on “Unwanted Telephone Marketing Calls”
that Dr. Nall may find helpful.
1 1 1 T
Complaints received by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau regarding

alleged TCPA violations are forwarded to the Enforcement Bureau, which may take
enforcement action against alleged violators. Although the FCC does not resolve individual
complaints, and cannot award monetary or other damages directly to consumers, we do closely
monitor such complaints to determine whether independent enforcement action is warranted.
In such cases where the alleged violations involve non-common carrier entities, the
Communications Act requires the issuance of a warning citation that informs the sender that it
is in violation of the Communications Act, and describes the monetary forfeitures that can
result if the unlawful activity continues. As provided by the Communications Act, if unlawful
activity continues after this warning, the Enforcement Bureau can then initiate a forfeiture
proceeding against the company. The Commission has issued numerous citations against
violators of the TCPA and the Commission’s unsolicited facsimile advertising rules. These
enforcement actions can eventually result in monetary penalties of up to $1 1,000 per violation.
We are also enclosing a copy of the TCPA and the Commission’s rules, along with
information that explains the Commission’s efforts to protect consumers from receiving
marketing communications to which they object. Dr. Nall may also wish to note that under the
TCPA, consumers may bring a private lawsuit in state court to recover damages, if otherwise
permitted by the state’s laws or rules of court.
We invite Dr . Nall to visit the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau’s Internet
web site at http://www.fcc.aov/cab. Information is also available by calling toll free at 1-888-
225-5322. TTY users may call 1-888-835-5322. The Commission has available an e-mail
service designed to apprise consumers about developments at the Commission, to disseminate
consumer information materials prepared by the Commission to a wide audience and to invite
comments from other parties on Commission regulatory proposals. This free service enables
consumers to subscribe and receive FCC fact sheets, consumer brochures and alerts, and
public notices, among other consumer information. To subscribe, Dr. Nall should visit the
FCC Consumer Information Registry at http://www .fcc.aov/cgb/contacts/.
We appreciate your inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further
questions.
Sincerely,
Jay Keithley
Deputy Bureau Chief
Enclosures
1 1 1 T
COMMITTEES:
BARACK OBAMA
PUBLIC WORKS
Q
FOREIGN RELATIONS
United Senatga VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 Q
N
July 8,2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Dear Ms. Atkinson:

c
The enclosed correspondence was received by my Chicago office from my constituent, Dr. Mary
Rivers. Dr. Rivers writes from Milikin University with regards to a local broadcasting station.
Attached you will find her letter which gives a more accurate description and explanation of her
issues.
Upon completion of Dr. Rivers's case, please contact Jennifer Mason at the following address:
Jennifer Mason
.. -, ,
Chicago, IL.60604
Sincerely,
Barack Obama

.Chicago, IL 60604
April 22, 2005

713 Hart
Senate Office Building
Dear Senator Obama,
-i am Chair of Commur,cation at hifiliikin University. Our department includes a 1000 watt educational
FM station used as a classroom and training facility for students desiring careers in broadcasting.
WJMU-FM has been broadcasting on 89.5 MHz for the past 30 years. We began as a small station
operating at the minimums established by the FCC but lengthened our broadcast day to 14 hours and
more in the past 6 years. As of early this month, we are broadcasting 24 hours a day, seven days a
week and will continue to do so when classes are in session, as the FCC requires.
As required by law, we filed our application to renew our license in June of 2004, and revised and
resubmitted it (to correct an administrative error) on November 10, 2004. We were advised on
November 30, 2004, that our renewal had been granted. Since that time we learned through unofficial
channels that someone had filed an application for a share-time agreement and our renewal was
apparently rescinded.
We received RB Schools’ official notification of their application, dated March 11, 2005, in mid-March.
In this letter, they indicate their belief that WJMU usually operates fewer than 12 hours a day. In
reality, WJMU’s logs show that, during the periods when we must be on the air (when school is in
session), we typically operate for more than 12 hours a day. In addition, in early April, WJMU
installed the necessary equipment to operate our transmitter from a remote site and is now
broadcasting 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This has been a goal of ours for several years and
a generous donation from a benefactor enabled us to achieve this long-term goal. We have declined
RB schoois’ requasi irj iiaytotiata a skarc timo agrocrxnt.
Most recently, we’ve been notified that the FCC has requested additional information from RB
Schools. The FCC asks that RB Schools provide the Commission with documentation of either (1) a
share-time agreement executed not later than the date of its application, November 1, 2004, or (2)
information as to the efforts it made prior to November 1, 2004, to secure a share-time agreement
with the University. No such agreement has been negotiated, and neither RB Schools nor its
attorney, Donald Martin, Esquire, opened any such negotiations prior to November 1, 2004. Our first
official notice of RB Schools desire for such an agreement was the March 11, 2005 letter.
A share-time agreement with RB Schools would be extremely undesirable for Millikin for several
reasons. First, for the past 6 years we have broadcast more than the 12 hours per day that is the
DECATUR,
ILLINOIS62522-2084
217-424-6211
FAX:217-424-3993
threshold for a share-time agreement, and we are currently broadcasting around the clock. Sharing
time would severely restrict our ability to deliver the educational opportunities that we have promised
to our students. Second, for the past 30 years, WJMU has provided a unique service for the local
Community; we are the sole regular provider of sporting event broadcasts and our music
programming is not duplicated by any other local station. Any share-time agreement would severely
limit our ability to continue to serve our audience. Third, we believe that RB Schools committed a
serious breach of faith in filing its petition with the FCC without notifying us of their intent. Finally, any
organization that shares our frequency will be perceived by the listening public as endorsed by the
University regardless of efforts to divorce RB School’s programming from Millikin’s. RB Schools intent
is to broadcast “educational programming that will include topics such as literature, history, social
sciences, natural sciences, health, hygiene, nutrition, child development, inter-personal relationships
and civics.” Such programming could easily be seen as endorsed by, perhaps provided by, Millikin
University, although we would have no control over its content or quality. Given Millikin’s deep
commitment to diversity, to balanced viewpoints, and to providing a forum for thoughtful debate and
toierance for dissention, sharing time with an organization that may undermine that commitment
would be troubling. _ -
_-- __L--
- , -
We are asking that your ofice intercede on our behalf and encourage the FCC to reject RB School’s
application and to release and reauthorize our application for renewal.
Respectfully,
kGayF-++
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Communication
, Ralp(Czerwidki, PhD
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
. .I . .. ._.... . . . .. . .
Dr. Maw Rivers
1184 WEST MAIN STREET

DECATUR, ILLINOIS 6252
"ll,
'
>
,c.P
*,
iw
h enator Barack Obama
713 Hart
' henate Office Building
@
k,, Washington, DC 20510
October 3,2005

Member, United States Senate
Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60604
Attn: Jennifer Mason
Re: Application of RB Schools to Share Time With

Station WJMU(FM), Decatur, Illinois; Application
of Millikin University for Renewal of License of
Station WJMU(FM), Decatur, Illinois (BNPED-
20041 101AHW, BRED-20040602AAT)
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter, dated July 8,2005, concerning the above-referenced
matter. Your correspondence, which was not served on the parties to these proceedings,
was forwarded to the Office of General Counsel for reply in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules (47 C.F.R. $0 1.1200-16), which are intended to ensure both
fairness and the appearance of fairness in Commission proceedings. The above-
referenced matters are restricted proceedings, and they will remain restricted until they
are no longer subject to administrative or judicial review. The ex parte rules require that
written communications to Commission decision-making personnel relating to the merits
of restricted proceedings be served on all the parties to the proceeding. Presentations
required to be served include communications that simply forward to the Commission the
views expressed by others on the merits of the restricted proceeding.
In accordance with the ex parte rules, copies of this letter and your incoming
correspondence have been sent to the parties to these proceedings. Additionally, copies
of the letters have been placed in a public file associated with, but not made part of, the
record in these proceedings, and therefore cannot be considered.
You may be assured that the Commission will give full consideration to all views
presented in accordance with the ex parte rules. If you wish the merits of Dr. Rivers’ and
Dr. Czerwinski’s letter to be considered, the letter or a cover letter must indicate that it
was served on the parties listed below.
,

Page 2
For your information, the applications of Millikin University and RB Schools are
now pending before the Commission's Media Bureau.
Sincerely yours$,
Jokl Kaufman ';

Deputy Associate General Counsel
Administrative Law Division
Office of General Counsel
cc:
Donald E. Martin, Esq.

Donald E. Martin, P.C.
P.O. Box 8433
Falls Church, VA 22041
Mr. Christopher Bullock

Prof. Mary Rivers
Millikin University
1184 West Main Street
Decatur. IL 62522-2084
Attachment
ILL IN0IS ENVIRONMENT AND
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Wnited $5tateB Senate VETERANS’ AFFAIRS
October 21 ,2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 Twelfth Street, Sw, Room 8-c453
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received by my Chicago office from my constituent, Louise
Townsend. Attached you will find her letter which gives a more accurate description and
I would appreciate your looking into this matter at your earliest convenience. Please advise
contact Jennifer at the address listed below.
Sincerely,

230 S. Dearborn St.
Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60604
MS.LoUi~cTownsend
1014 Jctliro Avc
%ion, 11 60099-1520
4
October 20,2005
U,S, Sellator Bwack Obama

John C. Klticzynski Ihlernl
230 South I)oarborn Strcct
Suile WOO (39'" lo or)
Chicago, 1L 60604
My numc is T,ouise Towilselid and I an sending this letter hoping that you will bo able to
hclp mc. I purchuscd n cell phone from T-Mobile on July 2,2004. Lost tho phono atid
ciitcrcd iiito a ncw contract whcn I purchascd another phonc.
In tho period of limo I've l i ~ dservice with T-Mobile l've rweived compcast\tianfor poor
to soiiictiinc no servioc in the form of fm service for couplc months and in somc cascs
bonus tiinc. There were several times I did not hwe m y scivicc, cell photic did riot
rcccivc nor could calls bc iiiadc atid oftcn calls would drop. When trsiiig tho cell phanc h i
tho middlo of B convorsation thc call cndcd. It had gotten so bad that I've called the
cotnpany on an avcrfigo of one to two times a month complaining. Yct, I'm to nbido by
tlic coiilmc;t or pry $200 for early tcrniincltion fee. What pctialty is tlicrc for poor 10 110
scrvicc from tlic carricr?
When the phonc disappeared on September It!'*' service was suspcndcd. I inquircd about
paying the reaiaining two months of contract, but was told that I could not, That the
Iciigth ofcontrmt would bo cxtcndcd bnscd oil thc nuiizbcr ofdays the scrvico is
suspended.
I havo cxplttiiiod to sovord ctnploycos of 7'-Mobile that if T-Mobile was having ns inntiy
difficulties with me ns a consuiiier ns I have had, than I would cit'hert w o the contrncl
tcrmintrtctf Und/or bo in court. Surcly, tlicrc must bo sonic klnd oErccoii,rscfor coiisuiiicrs
who pay their bill rcgularly when ccll phonc carriers do not nbidc to the tcrm of thc
coiltract,
I want io pay the two months remaining an thc contract, if I must and export my number.
Ctrstoiiiers of ccll phoncs cnrricr thnt pny thcir bill and nro not dolinqwcnt will hnvc
recourse whcn the carrier is not honoring tlic contract.
Louise Townsend
c c : filc
10 'd EP8S9PLlP81 'ON XWA Lid &P:80 a3M 9002-61-130


Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Louise Townsend, regarding
the difficulties she is experiencing with the service and billing provided by T-Mobile.
your inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Ms. Townsend to T-Mobile
and directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed the
company to send Ms. Townsend a copy of the response that the company submits to the
Commission. Ms. Townsend can obtain information about the status of her complaint by writing
to the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Inquiries & Complaints
Division, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free 1-888-225-5322.
TTY users may call 1-888-835-5322. Ms. Townsend should include the complainant tracking
number 05-BO206202 and the Congressional tracking number indicated at the top of this letter to
facilitate a prompt response to her inquiry.
questions.
Sincerely,
Erica H. McMahon
Acting Chief, Consumer Policy Division
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bwmu
I 1
COMMITTEES
BARACK OBAMA
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
'Wnited @tateB @enate VETERANS' AFFAIRS
October 2 1, 2005
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 Twelfth Street, SW
Room 8-C453
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received in my Chicago office from my constituent, Ms. Janice
Joiner. Attached you will find her letter which gives a more accurate description and explanation
of her issues.
contact Jennifer Mason at 3 12-886-3506.
Sincerely,

* L ;yp
~ - “ - - - e -*----*..__--
National Do Not Call Registry :A 0

Attn: DNC Program Manager J L ~ Lg3 2 d3S
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. ~ A E Z D ~
Janice Joiner, 417 Prospect, Unit I,Alton IL 62002
E-mail jioinl7766xharter.net
Home phone: 618-463-0518
Enclosed please find a copy of my two previous e-mail registered complaints.
On September 21, 2005, I received another call at 7:38P.M. Phone rang 3

times; I answered and was disconnected/hung up on.
I did *69 and the number 888-611-9968 was blocked from call backs.
These calls are disturbing for the reasons previously cited, plus the facts that I
am a colorectal cancer person, suffer from depression and anxiety as side
effects, am going through a contested divorce (spouse did not like living with a
cancer person), am living in a state of uncertainty due to health and finances.
I expect the Federal Trade Commission to prosecute to the fullest extent of the
law, to receive whatever remunerationfines levied, and for these calls to stop.
Please advise via mail, phone, or e-mail what your time-frame is for handling
these issues.
attention to these matters.
Cc: Representative John Shimkus, 503 W. Main, Collinsville, IL 62232
Representative Jerry Costello, 1363 Niedringhaus, Granite City, IL 62040
Senator Durbin, 525 South 8thSt., Box 790, Springfield, IL 62703
Senator Barack Obama, 607 E. Adams St. Springfield, IL 62701

You can file a complaint by e-mail (donotcall@fcc.aov), telephone 1-888-CALL-FCC
(1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY, or mail. Your
complaint should include:
0 name, address, and telephone number where you can be reached during the
business day;
0 the telephone number involved with the complaint; and
0 as much specific information as possible, including the identity of the
telemarketer or company contacting you, the date on which you placed your
number on the national Do-Not-Call registry or made a company-specific do-
not-call request, and the date(s) of any subsequent telemarketing call(s) from
that telemarketer or company.
Copy of sent e-mail on Wednesday, August 24, 2005

From: Janice Joiner, 417 Prospect, Unit I,Alton, IL 62002: phone 618-
463-0518 (as a disabled teacher, I do not have a work number).
I placed this number on the National Do Not Call Registry on 4/9/2005.

Per my printed copy the registration is effective until 4/10/2010.
The phone numbers involved with complaints:
1. 877-724-5242
Details: 8110105 received .

evening: I did not record the time
rang twice, hung up before I answered
I did "69 to get number
did automatic "dial back": blocked
called directly: "their" phone rang 12 times with no answer,
no pick up on their end
On 8/15/05: same number at 7:21 P.M. repeated: rang 3 times,

hung up before I answered, "69, blocked from call back
On 8/16/05: same number 6:04 P.M. repeated: rang 3 times, hung

up before I answered, blocked from call back
2. I called SBC for tracing instructions: On 8/22/05 number calling

was 913-888-7648 at 758 P.M. Rang 2 times. Hung up before I
answered.
e ,
A.
I activated the trace and reported to Alton Police: This number was
traced to "Character Aid" in Murray, Utah; the Murray Police drove by to
check out the address, knew nothing about the organization; the
attorney for this organization called the Alton Police (Detective Wayne)
to assure him that this was a "legitimate organization" but did not reveal
the nature of their business nor reason for unsolicited calls. (This, in
itself, is highly suspicious in my opinion.)
In addition to the National Registry I also pay for an unlisted phone

number through SBC.
Please advise as soon as possible. Living alone and disabled, having

an 86 year old mother in an adjoining town, a 26 year old single
daughter, etc. I find these calls disturbing and frightening.
Thank you.
.Janice Joiner
Page 1 of 2
JaniceJ
From: "JaniceJ" <jjoinl776@charter.net>

To: <donotcall@fcc.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24,2005 lo:# AM
Subject: Filing Two Complaints
rom: Janice Joiner, 417 Prospect, Unit I, Alton, IL 62002: phone 618-463-0518 (as a
isabled teacher, I do not have a work number).
placed this number on the National 00 Not Call Registry on 4/9/2005. Per my printed copy
l e registration is effective until 4110/2010.
'he phone numbers involved with complaints:
. 877-724-5242
Details: 8/10/05 received
evening: I did not record the time
rang twice, hung up before I answered
I did *69 to get number
did automatic "dial back": blocked
called directly: "their" phone rang 12 times with no answer, no pick up on their end
On 8/15/05: same number at 7:21 P.M. repeated: rang 3 times, hung up before I
nswered, *69, blocked from call back
On 8/16/05: same number 6:04 P.M. repeated: rang 3 times, hung up before I answered,
locked from call back
2. I called SBC for tracing instructions: On 8/22/05 number calling was 913-888-7648 at
:58 P.M. Rang 2 times. Hung up before I answered.
I activated the trace and reported to Alton Police: This number was traced to "Character
,id" in Murray, Utah; the Murray Police drove by to check out the address, knew nothing
bout the organization; the attorney for this organization called the Alton Police (Detective
Vayne) to assure him that this was a "legitimate organization" but did not reveal the nature of
ieir business nor reason for unsolicited calls. (This, in itself, is highly suspicious in my
pinion.)
I addition to the National Registry I also pay for an unlisted phone number through SBC.
'lease advise as soon as possible. Living alone and disabled, having an 86 year old mother
1 an adjoining town, a 26 year old single daughter, etc. I find these calls disturbing and
'ightening.
'hank you.
9/25/2005
Page 1 of 1
Natipnal Do Not Call Registry
REGISTRY HOME
REGISTRATION COMPLETE
REGISTER A PHONE NUMBER I You have registered the following telephone number in the National
Do Not Call Registry: N l l I 011 A 1
VERIFY A REGISTRATION
I (618)463-0518
DO NOT CALL
REGISTRY
MOREN
IFORMATO
IN
This registration will be effective until 4/10/2010.
EN E S P A ~ ~ O L Please print a copy of this page for your records.
FILE A COMPLAINT I
1 bT6gQ%3d051 8-2005040... 4/9/2005

ttps://www.donotcall.gov/Register/RegVer.aspx?EobA5~0~~03d-n5czQ

Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Janice Joiner, regarding
her concerns over unsolicited telemarketing calls that she is receiving. Ms. Joiner is
concerned with the continued receipt of such communications and asks for the Commission’s
assistance in this matter. Our records show that we received Ms. Joiner’s correspondence, 05-
10195551, and responded on September 26, 2005. We are sensitive to the concerns that Ms.
Joiner has raised and as noted below, we have referred her complaints to the Commission’s
Enforcement Bureau.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was adopted in 1991 to restrict the use
of the telephone network for unsolicited advertising via telephone and facsimile. Pursuant to the
TCPA, the FCC adopted rules in 2003 to establish a national do-not-call registry for consumers
who wish to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls. Under the do-not-call rules, telemarketers are
prohibited, subject to certain exemptions, from contacting consumers who have placed their
telephone numbers on the national registry. They are also required to place consumers on
company-specific do-not-call lists if a consumer requests not to receive future solicitations.
However, calls that do not fall within the definition of “telephone solicitation,” as defined in the
TCPA will not be precluded by the national do-not-call list or company-specific do-not-call
rules. These may include surveys, market research, and political or religious speech calls.
Complaints received by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau regarding

alleged TCPA violations, including those filed by Ms. Joiner, are forwarded to the
Enforcement Bureau, which may take enforcement action against alleged violators. Although
the FCC does not resolve individual complaints, and cannot award monetary or other damages
directly to consumers, we do closely monitor such complaints to determine whether
independent enforcement action is warranted. Where the alleged violations involve non-
common carrier entities, the Communications Act requires the issuance of a warning citation
that informs the sender that it is in violation of the Communications Act, and describes the
monetary forfeitures that can result if the unlawful activity continues. As provided by the
Communications Act, if unlawful activity continues after this warning, the Enforcement
1
Bureau can then initiate a forfeiture proceeding against the company. The Commission has
issued numerous citations against violators of the TCPA and the Commission’s unsolicited
facsimile advertising rules. (See the Enforcement Bureau’s web site at
http://www .fcc. aove/eb/tcbworking.html). These enforcement actions can eventually result in
monetary penalties of up to $1 1,000 per violation.
We are enclosing a copy of the TCPA and the Commission’s rules, along with
marketing communications to which they object. Ms. Joiner may also wish to note that, under
the TCPA, consumers may bring a private lawsuit in state court to recover damages, if
otherwise permitted by the state’s laws or rules of court.
We invite Ms. Joiner to visit the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau’s Internet
web site at http://www.fcc. aov/cgb for additional information. The Commission has available
an e-mail service designed to apprise consumers about developments at the Commission, to
disseminate consumer information materials prepared by the Commission to a wide audience
and to invite comments from other parties on Commission regulatory proposals. This free
service enables consumers to subscribe and receive FCC fact sheets, consumer brochures and
alerts, and public notices, among other consumer information. To subscribe,
Ms. Joiner should visit the FCC Consumer Information Registry at
http://www .fcc.aov/cab/contacts/.
questions.
Sincerely,
Erica H. McMahon
Enclosures
I 1
__ _ ,
FAX 312 .-_,.
0 9 : 5 7 .-~, 5 8 6 3 5. 1 4 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA. ,,,,
@I001
UNITED STATES SENATOR B A R A C K OBAMA

CHICAGO OFFICE
TO: FROM:
COMPANY: DATE:
FAX NUMBER: TO'I'AL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVP.T1:
PMONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REPERENCF. NUMBER-
0 UKGGNT 0 FOK KEVIEW PLEASE COMMEN'I' 0 PLEASE R5PT.Y PLEASF RECYCL6
Tc.
NOTES/COMU(MKNl'S:
230 S O U T H D E A R R O R N S U l T E 3900 C H I C A G O . 11. 60604

P H O N E 3 1 2 Ua6.3506 F A X 3 1 2 8 8 6 - 3 5 1 4
COMMIlTEEb:
&RACK OBAMA
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Wnitd @utasenate VETERANS' AFFAIRS
February 3,2006
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Congressional Liason Specialist
445 Twelfth Street, SW,
Room 8-C453
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received in my Chicago office fiom my constituent, Jean L.
Tribo. Attached you will find her letter which gives a more accurate description and explanation
of her issues.
If you require any fiuthcr assistance or have additional questions, please do not hesitate to
Sincerely,

W-OTON OFWC cn1~409Om= SCMNORELP W l C E MAWON o.nw?

713 HART SWATd OFFICF BUILDING S. DEARBORN
230 607 EAST ADME 701 NORTIl C W R T STREET
WnswINCTON, DC Z05lO SUITE 3300 SUITE 1620 MARION,IL 62959
OFFICE (202) 224-2860 CHICAGO. IL eOeW SPRINGFIELP. IL 62701 OFFICE (61a 997-2402
Fnrc (2021 2 2 W 2 6 0 OFFIC~1312) B86JS06 OFVICE1217) 6826850 F ~ cera)
X 997-2850
F u 1312) 226-3614 FAX (217) 492-5088
EECEIVED TIME F E E . 3, 1 0 : 3 3 A M FRINT TIME F E E . 3. 1 0 : 3 4 A M

111 ~
--I
- - I*-- L . -- - --
09:58FAX 312 886 3514
02/03/06
-
. - - -..- -."SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @lo03
October 12,2005
D e a s Sir,
Now that seniors d e up the largeat section of our population, we're
counting on you to on one of our concerns.
Pad
We live in a 144 unit senior b u i l d i n g where the owner is getting a
Pin. of $840 per u n i t per month whiah comes t o almont a m i l l i o n and a
half a ycm0 The b u i l l i n g is about 25 year4 old, It has also been
soldseveral tines in the past few years
We need your help! We have t f i e d for years t o get adme kind of affordable
oablc TV, We only get the loeal Chiaago stuff whioh is overloadd with
sports,, our tenante a r e 9% womcno
For yeaze the reasage ii:Wwe~reworking on itqr,we're annaliidng it1*,
"the owner is out of the eountryfr (or town). Same atory for YF,ARS, I
rade another ea11 10-10-05p saae storys
Ahauk a wnnw a d n t h c v s a v c t . O _ ~ s m a r t r . l m t - - ~ - Q w u ~ t --
~- . t n .-_ -
have oable for $40 a renth sign yaur name and t m it in t o the o f f i o e ,
- I went
- t o $he lm-al CFcart-Ce&le o6rise. - -- - - w o u b~ e
The$ said $2O_aprox. - - - .
o m eost,'Of corn86 the 40 made most eeniors shange their e n d . I do
have copies and o m prove this,
I have contacted another Garden Houee in Calumeg C i t y , Same sorpany,
They have WOW cable. I called WOW, they do NOT e e n i c e Park Forest,
ID my opinion the bottom l i n e seems to be eoreones bonus OY greased
pa,lm. What else ?
B u t for now, before the holiday sea~on,,.PLEhSE PLEASE PLEASE have
your o f f l o e aall: Kevin Maroney
Metroplex, Inoo
200 En Randolph S t ,
S u i t e 2100
Chicago, 11, 60601-6432
312-726-5600
cell 31 2-345-32 19
Please use the e e l 1 number because he i s n ' t in the o f f i o c muoh and they
give you the cell number,
If you feel we need other fact8 t o reinforee our request, we have a list
of other items that oouU or ahould b e addreeseal.
H se Of Park Forest
v&%5, !% 0
P&k Forest, 11 60466

70s 4ei-4042
k E C E I V E D T I M E FEE. 3. 1 0 : 3 3 A M PRINT TIME F E E . 3. 1 0 : 3 4 A M

- - ~ - ~ ~ - ~
February 27,2006
IN REPLY FWER TO:

CN-0600220

230 South Dearborn
Suite 3900
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Jean L. Tribo of Park Forest,
Illinois. Ms. Tribo contacted your office concerning the cable television service that is available
to the residents of her building. Specifically, Ms. Tribo indicates that the residents do not have a
choice among video programming providers. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
As you might know, the owner of a multiple dwelling unit (“MDU”) building (e.g.,an
apartment building) generally has the discretion to determine the entity that will provide video
programming services to the residents. Some states, however, have enacted “mandatory access”
laws which generally provide franchised cable operators with a legal right to provide service to
MDU residents, even if the building owner does not consent. Based on information available to
the Commission in 2003, Illinois has granted a mandatory right of access to franchised cable
television operators.
Pursuant to the Communications Act, cable television operators that are not subject to
effective competition must establish a rate structure that is uniform throughout the geographic
area the cable system serves. This requirement, however, does not apply to bulk or volume
discounts to MDUs. Thus, the owner or management of a MDU, such as senior citizen housing,
may negotiate a bulk rate service contract with a cable television operator that may permit the
residents to obtain cable service at a rate that is less than the rate an individual subscriber would
pay for the same service. Even if a bulk rate contract is not in force, the Communications Act
generally permits cable television system operators to offer reasonable rate discounts to senior
citizens or economically disadvantaged groups. However, the decision to offer special
subscription rates to seniors or other groups rests solely with the cable operator.
Ms. Tribo also should be advised that alternative providers to the local cable operator are
available in many communities. For example, direct-to-home satellite services are available to
most consumers. Direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) service is the fastest growing competitor to
cable television service. In many cases, now that DBS companies are authorized to retransmit
local television broadcast signals, they provide a wide range of programming options that are
comparable to those provided by cable television operators.
Pursuant to the Communications Act, the Commission has adopted requirements that
permit consumers to install over-the-air reception devices (“OTARD”) as an alternative to cable
television service. Among other things, the Commission’s OTARD rule prohibits restrictions
that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming.
These antennas include DBS services dishes that are less than one meter (39”) in diameter (larger
in Alaska), conventional TV antennas, and antennas used to receive broadband radio service,
The Commission’s rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or
building regulations, private covenants, homeowners’ association rules or similar restrictions on
property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership
or leasehold interest in the property. The rule generally prohibits restrictions that:
(1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; or (2) preclude reception of
an acceptable quality signal. Under this rule, in most cases, consumers will be able to install, use
and maintain an antenna on their property if they own and have exclusive use of the property on
which the antenna will be located or if they lease property that has an exclusive use area, such as
a patio or balcony.
It also is important to note that the Commission’s rule does not preempt local restrictions
in every case. For example, the rule permits: (1) local restrictions that do not “impair” antenna
installation and signal reception (a requirement that antennas be placed in a rear yard rather then
a fiont yard whenever possible can be enforced); (2) local enforcement of safety rules even if
such rules impair reception (prohibitions on the placement of antennas on fire escapes, for
example, can be enforced); and (3) local enforcement of rules in certain historical districts
(restrictions necessary to maintain a unique historical environment can be enforced). The rule
also does not prohibit restrictions on devices installed outside of a tenant’s exclusive use area
such as beyond the balcony or patio of an apartment unit where the installation is in, on, or over
a common area or an area controlled by the landlord. Finally, a restriction necessary to prevent
damage to leased property may be reasonable. For example, tenants could be prohibited from
drilling holes through exterior walls or through the roof
For your review and to provide Ms. Tribo additional information, I have enclosed an
Information Sheet which discusses the Commission’s over-the-air reception devices regulations
in more detail.
I hope that this information is helphl, and please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be
of further assistance with this or any other matter.
incerely,

Media Bureau
Enclosure
11:55 FAX 312 886 la 0 0 2
-
02/22/06
~ --- 3514
-. -
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
COMMlllEEfi.
ILLINOIS
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN REUTlONS
2lilnlted g&€ml!i
$hlate VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WASMNGTON, OC 20510
February 6,2006
Ms. Diane A t k h o n
Room 8-C453
Dear Ms.Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received in my Chicago office from my constituent, Cheryl
Adams. Attached you will find her letter which gives a more accurate description and
Sincerely,
Senator Barack Obamsl

CwxQooaPPKe -0- Mu*ocroRlcE

230 s. DllAnEORN BmE*STADAMs 701 NORI)( C W R T STUE€T
SUITE 9Dw SUnE 1620 MAIVW, IL 62968
CHICAGO. IL 60604 SRIM~FELD.IL 62701 OFFICE (618) 997-2402
OFFICE(3121WC3506 OFFICE (217) 4924890 FaY (618)9974BM
FAX 1312) 22W514 FAU 1217) 4826089
RECEIVED TIME FEE. 22. 12:31PM FRINT T I M E F E E . 22. 1 2 : 3 2 P M

02/22/06 11:55 FAX 312 886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @I003
November 7,2005
Senator Barxk Obma

713 Hart
Scnate Office Buildmg
Washington DC, 20510
Dear SEn'dtor Ob-
Bndosed is II copy of a Icttcr that vas written to Nextel Corporate Headqwirtcrs. I fecl nry smngiy &at my
daughtcr and I were taken advantage of and licd to by tlus Cnrporneion. I realize that taking on a h u e
powerful company like Spxiat/Nextel is next to impossiblc, but I caunot let the size of the company scare me
into paping money tn them that I feel that they ace not due.
1 live in Highland, IL.acid work WwAdsville IL I W O C 10-11~ h o w a day wodsing two jobs at just k
. -. .. , minimrn-wgC;Xb~~w kdth b.enefitx.md.amhace,lxmMgurds mcet. I _ d g ~ . o t . . p ~ a s e- - . -~ ~ ~ ~_ . ~._.
. __
./'
/ . is Gvolouu and ;101 B responsible and law abiding citizen. I am responsible for putting my daughter through
college, m d my son is a JL in Hi& school rbout to go himself. I wns also th;nlrinP of bettering my position in
this world by gokg back to school also, but am fri@tened to do 50 because of not bcing able to provide
enough income for the support of my children. Now this comes along md they wmc me just to lay down and
die? I do not think sa
I need help. This is my last recome and I am haid that I will be just that small consucner that w a s squashed
by the big corporation.
Plcase take the t h e out of your busy schedule and read my lener that I penned to them. 1 would appreciate
my help rhnr you or your office could give me in rrping to settle d i u conflict with N e d as I do not believe
that all hopc is lost and that there is stiU mom io this world for people who believe in right and wrong.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Mums
.. . _. - e^-. . --. . - . ~ -. -. . . d... _..., . .-. ..
1 3 0 1 I MAIN S T R E E T
H I G H L A N D , IL 6 2 2 4 9
( 6 1 B ) 623-3459
02/22/06 11:56 FAX 312 886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @lo04
Thursday November 7,2005
Nextel Corpomte Headquarters

2001 Edmund HSey Dr
Rcston, VA 20191
1.0 Whom It May Conce,w
This is concerning Recount #128172621. The responsiblc party for chis bill is Cheryl Adams, however, my
daughter Melissa Fhhn has been very responsible in mking C B ~ Eof this bill since che t k t day of setvice. She
has recently graduated High School and is now attending college in Ohio. Before she left for her h t day at
collcgq August 9, shc went to o w local Nextel dealeq Cellular Plus, 12251 State Route 143, Highland, IL
62249 Phone Number (618)654-4444 and spoke to Rich. She eqIaiaed to him that she would be going to
school in Ohio and needed phone capabilities to make long distancc calls and two way &om Ohio so that she
m u l d be Nauon Wide and not get charged long distance charges since her phonc is based in Illinois. she
.-DIDaU* h t h % k p h ~ ~ ~ -Ac dd lT~TOway -He told h e t t h a it mdd-cost-her an extta sl0.00-pcr -- - ... -. . -_
month and hc made a note on a notepad. She m e home md told me &at to get hcE plm updated so that
h e could make phonc calls ftom Ohio would Cost $10.00more per month and T thought that vas reasonable
She said that Rich told her that it would takc about five deys €or the conversion to take place. H e did not
offer hcr a receipt or anything in writing so she nahrrally took his word for it not knowin6 that a receipt was
even avdnble for t i i s type of Scratchpad transaction. We live in a small town, the pcople here we
trustworthy, and small tosn d u e s have tau+ hcr that people for the most part can be credible.
Melissa left for college on August 19 under the assumption that s k wa?)on a Nationwide plan lrnd that she
could make calls without being charged long distance ratcs. To us and everyone else hme spkcn with,
Naionrcidc means that calls can be made anywhere in the contincnial US without few of long distance or
roaming chwges. I have since learned rhat this is diffbrcnt for only N d .
On Sptember 14 we received a bi that tuok my bre& away. The bill totaled $579.53. The agcnt at Cellular
l'luu had only chmged h a two vny to Nationwide and had not done mythkg with her long distance plan.
Your records will show &.is as so. 1immedircely, that same day, went to Cellular Plus and spok with Rich,
,and he did remember her bcingin rhe store vagcly, but wvhen he went to look foor rrcords, he did not ham: my
record of Melissa at all. He got Ymngely defensive with me and told me that he did not make any mistakes
and chmgcd hcr Two wny &e she had requested I nslced him bow he knew chat if he b d y membered
that my Qughter v a s in there in the first place. He told me rfiat if I h m R problem that he has nothing lo
do with it aud that I have to deal directly with Nextel. He v a s very Nde, and WIU obviously uneasy about the
situation, BS I believe k knew that he had not done his job propee.
..- -.._-._
1 vent home, got on the telephone to Nextel customer serviCc, and explained the situation to Janet I was _._.
.- -_._,.__ .--- . ..- .
GlZhGGliig~' G6 i h a i & o m o G y ' i & s c z t - m i a t ih'e%~-~&&%dlly applied m
Tm-wq commuaicsaons. 3 argwd with her that this is not what the agent had represented that Melisea
would be getting !3r the money. That he h d lead her to Meve bar he would take care of her and that
she would be abk to two way and also make calls from Ohio without auy long distance charges. 'f'his is what
we truly believed based on the information that %Rich gave hed She suggcstcd that we take it up with the local
agent. Already trying to do that, 1knew that he was afraid that he had mde B mistakc aad would be of no
help at all. He had made it very dear that hc would not help us nnd that my only option was to take it up with
Ncstcl. Your customer service peason was doing her job, but so fur, no one was 8ttempting to M y
understand what I was trying to tell them. I asked to speak to someone else and was told that there vas no
one else. I infomed her that the overage charges wese our rcspoosibiliy und that I would psry that I did
send a check in for that mount ($257.00leuviag a balaace o f 8322.40). I put the balance in dispute and Janet
took both my home telephone *andmy cell telephone to have someone call me with the results of the dispute.
I received no telephone call.
1 infonned my daughter that she should not USE the telephone M ~ O I E . She also made R telephone call ta
1 3 0 1 B M A I N STKKET
H I G H L A N D , IL 6 2 2 4 7
(618) 623-2459
RECEIVED TIME FEB. 22. 1 2 : 3 1 P M PRINT TIME FEB. 2 2 . 1 2 : 3 2 P M

02/22/0,6
_. 11: 56-.FAX 312.-686 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @I005
-2- November 7,2005
Nc-1 customer service to discontinue the telephone service and the lady dut helped her said that she could
take care of dl these charges if she should just stay with Nextel. TAKE CARE OF W E CWARGES?
Docs that mean that if we yield and keep tbe service that thc c h w would hum bccn fotgiVen? She nlso
informed her that she u?w- actuaIly being overcharged for the Nationwide Two Way. I r should have been
$5.00 extra per month. This to me is not ethical and seems like a strong ann technique.. The pmess oE
gettingher Delephone shut off would take a week. She way given c o n h t i o n number of ~6928905.When I
recently had my ald ATT phone shut off it took 5 minutes. Why did this take over n week?
When 1 heard nothing from Nextel, Our last bill arrived on October 17 and to my surprise again, there was an
evtra $127.00 in long distance charges. Upon d a t i o n of this bill, I detcrmiqed that between the end of
tha last billing period and the week that it took to receive this bill, there was a week of charges that she still
WBS unmaxc that she wm not undcr a Nationwide long distance setoice I was never told dudng the first
phonc call that these charp~were still mounting for mother week! I again got on the telephone and spokc to
customer service again. This time, I was told the resulb of the dispute were chat we wefc responsible for the
chuges and when she told me what wau written ia the last dieputc notes, I w a struck by all of the
inaccuracies o f the seport, Shc also stated thnt here no telephone numbem noted to return the results
- -to.-- A ~ + q p o - e x p l e i e i t - - a U ng&,-rhe-lort. heGtempcr 5omLUrhpt and-cold. me that-l just do.not ..
/’
//---- undcrutand. The dealer did what he WBS supposed to do and I told her he did not He was supposed to
h g e her plan to indude long distancc firom Ohio so thnt this would not have happened. She told me that
He did chmge her Nationwide.. but only on he two way,not the long distance liLe she had requested. She
gavc me a number of a Dealer Complaint Line (1-888-7639835) lad told me drat wus my ody recourse. I
put ia a second dispute and added the c h q c s that were tacked on b the second and last b 4 mud asked to
speak to someone that would be miewing this dispute. Shc told me that vu nor possible. Note I still have
not gotten p u t customer service to my ~upenrisors. I made s u n that they had my phone numbers to inform
me o f the results and guess what.. .nophone c d again
I received in rhe mail a Collection Agcncy Alert It states that I owe $480.56 to keep this horn going to
collccdons.
I called Ncxtel again to find out the rc~ultso f the second dispute md w a s put on hold. When Greg got back
on the telephoae, be ashd me if this was about I n t e n d o a d Direct Connect I raid no. International?
Does the xi& hand not know what the l e a h d is dohg over there? I get so many different storks and facts
from everyom &at T speak to. Greg also told me h a t again, them wma no meum to contact me wi& the
results and that there was a pending adjustment I am so frustrated at this point that I break dawn in tears and
tell him that I am having to dean out my daughters savings account for collcgc to pay for chis. I w o k 19-11
hours days hr just above miniinwn wage to support her in her plaw for her future and all because of a
careless egcnt, we are having to tum over all of our saviup. $SOO.OO to you may seem liLe a drop in the
bucket, but to us it is money that we have worlrcd hard for and I am unwillingto tuxn hcr savings over to you
because of Echs carelessness. Greg had the nerve to tell me that & d y , he did not believe that I was ever in
_-____ .__- that---store. Obvio.u.sly.,she sqoJse-to Cellular Plus, Nel*tlJasfhe seco-& that show when he caUe&ip @at . ,, -
__.___.-_ , _ _ , __
change on her phone He called me B LIAR I cannot believe you condom this type of conversations &om
your customer scmice people H e also told me .that I should have beea told during the first phone call to
Customer Service that I should have looked et my contract, and ceceirred B receipt from the dealer who we
ralked to YO that I could send it k. Hc was wmgmt And insulting
I have received many CAS h m your hnance deparment, I have told them the short s t o r y of this, and there
was only one person that I have run into SO far that vas helpful. She told me to talk to Escalations. I c d e d
Finance and asked to talL to Escalations, but was heady questioned by Joseph. He said he was gathering
information to pass on to them so they would know what this WBJ about M e r being placed on hold, he got
back on the line and informed me that he would not put xne through d &at I should bst psy the bill. You
h m to be kidding.
From ~ O & C Kphone call fromyour f i a n c e depattmm, I heve found out dut I am due to be turned over to
collections on Now 16. I hope that p u can put a stop to this while this is bcing investigated.
1301 B Main Street

Hi@aud,IL 62249
(618) 625-2459
RECEIVED TIME FEE, 22, 1 2 : 3 1 P M P R I N T T I M E FEB. 22. 1 2 : 3 2 P M

__ __I__ ~ - _ _ I I I -I - I I I- - I _
II-
.. -._ 02/22/06 11:56 FAX 3 1 2 886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @I006
-3- November 7,2005
I got this &ss fkom him as well as the FCC 1 intend to hle a complaint vi* the Bcttcr Business Bureau,
tlnd n copy of t h i s letter will be endoscd with P l e k to each of our mate Senators in Wmhington DC This is
being sent to them as welL
I feel dwt N d has not taken responsibility Tot what the people in the field e m telling heir customers. You
may say that they are independent s t o n s , but they still are representing your company and sell your product
and sentice. This store has put my family in a haticid crisis, I am stdl not sure whnt Melissa an? I have done
wrong. I wish someonc could just tell me what we could have done to avoid the misinformation and the lies
that we have been haoded thioughout this whole process We have taken responsibility for our overages and
p i d it to you- You should take responsibility for your agents' actions
In a nut shell,
P My daughter went to get her service changed so that she could makc long distance calls horn Ohio.
b The Salesmsln told her she would be able to do SO in frve d i p
9 She went to college,and made calls thinking she was safe to do so.
)s I took rcsponsibity for our pm of the bill
/
b Nexteldid not
5 I-&--&aXa-& 'I'+ai a second &us c i 6 -3 -dea-a liq ihot able 6 - d -to 'iuprrvisocs,-d
//,/
h w r e d by phone for payment
F 1 was told just to pay.
What 1 am tcpl;ing is that yuu ns a corporation takc some responsibility in this spec& case. You can expect
that the people who are representing y o u company present &emselves in a professional manner and gi.c:
accurate information to cad, and every pcrjon no matter what their KXC or age. My d a e t c r may be only 18
years of agc, but she has paid her bill from day onc in a timely manna EvEqthbg &at I have tied to teach
her about mat and faith came crashgin around her when she found out about how she was taken ndvantage
of and l i d to by a company that she &ou&.t she would stay with for qdtc awhile loagez kamed,
an im-so n fmm commn~
If as you an reabng rhis, you had sarcastically thought of an answer, and it was 8 negative thought,, rhen
perhaps p u should look inside nnd 6nd out why.
I am asking that you please look into this case Inform m c in waiting *s to whot you will do to work this out
and s m my daughters account &at she has worked so hard to save aftcr paying her bills. I am begging pou to
do the right h a
Sincerely,
Cheryl Adsms
cc: FCC
445 12th st sw
Washington, DC, 20554
Senator Richard D a m
332 Dirksen
h t c Office Building
Washington DC,20510
Smamr B a r d Obama
713 Hart
h n d k Office Budding
Washington DC 20510
1301 B Main Sneer
I-G$dand,IL 62249
(618) 623-2459
RECEIVED T I M E FEB. 22s 1 2 : 3 1 PM P R I N T T I M E FEB. 22. 1 2 : 3 2 P M

~
22/06
~
11:55 FAX 312
_ ___.. -
.
886- .-3514 -. SENAT-OR BARACK OBAMA a001

CHICAGO OFFICE
230 SOUTH DEARBORN SUITE 1900 C H I C A G O , It 6 0 6 0 4

PHONE 3 1 2 886-3506 F A X 3 1 2 8 8 6 - 3 5 1 4
MAR 2 0 2006

230 S. Dearborn, Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Cheryl Adams, regarding
the difficulties she is experiencing with the charges billed by Sprint Nextel Communications,
Inc .
Ms. Adams' complaint was received at the Commission on November 17, 2005. The
Consumer & Governmental Affairs directed Sprint Nextel Communications, Inc. to respond to
the Commission in writing concerning Ms. Adams' complaint. Generally, a company is
afforded 30 days to respond to a complaint. On March 14, 2006, we again contacted Sprint
Nextel Communications, Inc. on Ms. Adams' behalf and expect to receive their response soon.
We will follow up with your office when we receive their response.
Although we appreciate the concerns raised by Ms. Adams, in the existing market,
consumers have a choice of cellular phone service providers and can switch providers if they
are dissatisfied with availability, price, or features offered by any particular provider.
Disputes between customers and cellular companies, paging companies, or PCS companies are
generally resolved pursuant to the contractual agreement entered into by the parties. The
service contract usually dictates the rights and obligations of both parties. Consumers may
also seek assistance from their state, county and city government consumer protection offices
and their local Better Business Bureau. A complainant may choose to continue to work
directly with the company to resolve a complaint or, as in a contractual dispute, take civil
action.
At the same time, however, consumer protection remains a priority for the
Commission, and we recognize that we have a duty to ensure that the consumer protection
goals in the Communications Act are met. The FCC's informal complaint process makes it
easier for consumers to file complaints regarding telecommunications services and for the
service providers to act promptly to satisfy complaints. The informal complaint process also
helps to ensure that the actions of the companies are not violating any applicable Commission
rules and lets the telecommunications companies know how customers feel about practices and
policies that may be detrimental to the consumer.
I
The Honorable Barak Obama Page 2
We appreciate your inquiry and hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate
to contact us if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
f L + d .H C d L
Erica H. McMahon
Chief, Consumer Policy Division
I
IUlNOlS ENVIRONMENT A N D
PUBLIC WORKS
a
3 FOREIGN RELATIONS
United State5 Senate k? VETERANS' AFFAIRS
February 8,2006
Mr. Dennis Dorsey

Manager, Contracts and Purchasing Center
445 12th Street Sw
Dear Mr. Dorsey:
The enclosed correspondence was received in my Chicago office from my constituent, Linda
Harpke. Attached you will find her letter which gives a more accurate description and
Sincerely,

WASHINGTON OFFICE CHICAGOOFFICE SPRINGFIELDOFFICE MARION OFFICE

713 HARTSENATEOFFICEBUILDING 230 S. DEARBORN 607 EASTADAMS 701 NORTHCOURTSTREET
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 SUITE3900 SUITE1520 MARION,IL 62959
OFFICE (202) 224-2854 CHICAGO,IL 60604 SPRINGFIELD, IL 62701 OFFICE(618) 997-2402
FAX(202) 228.4260 OiFlCE (312) 886-3506 OFFICE(217) 492-5890 FAX (618) 997-2850
FAX (312) 2263514 FAX (217) 492-5099
J a n 27 06 02:25p M i l l b u r n Dirt 24MillSch 847 356 9722 P -1
UNITED STATES SENATOR BARACK

OBAMA
CHICAGO OFFICE
YlUVACY ACT RELEASE FORM
The provisions of Public Law 93-579 (Privagy A d of 1974) prohibit the disclosure of
information of a personal nature ftoirLthe files of an i n d i ~ d u awithout
l their consent.
Accordingly, 1 authorize the staff of Senator Barack Obama to access any and all of my
records that re1 te to the problem stated below.
Signature:- - Date:
MAR 1 3 2006

Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Linda Harpke, regarding
the difficulties she is experiencing with her request to port her phone number from Vonage to
AT&T/SBC (AT&T).
Ms. Harpke’s complaint was received at the Commission on January 24, 2006. On
February 8, 2006, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs directed Vonage and AT&T to
respond to the Commission in writing concerning Ms. Harpke’s complaint. Enclosed are copies
of the companies’ responses. AT&T confirms Ms. Harpke’s service was activated with AT&T
on February 6, 2006. Vonage apologizes for any inconvenience Ms. Harpke experienced
during the porting process. Based on the information provided, the Commission does not plan
to take any further action with respect to Ms. Harpke’s complaint.
questions.
Sincerely,
Erica H. McMahon
Enclosures
Executive Office SBC Midwwest
220 N. Meridian Street
Room 861
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Response to Noticeof Informal Complaint (NOIC)
Date: Februa~y9,2006
Federal Communications Commission Complainant’sName: Linda Harpke

Consumer l n f m a t m Bureau Fib No.: IC # Oci-W11398521
Cansumer Information Network Division Type: lncmteam
Informal Complaints Team Date of NOIC: February 8,2006
445 1p Street, SW Room 5A-820
Washington. DC 20554
Has Complainant contacted LEC? CI Yes @No Date@)

contacted:
Has LEC contacted CanierlCompany? UYeS @ No Oate(s)
Contacted:
Name of CanierlCompany: N/A
Has LEG contacted Complainant? 1xI Yes a No DaW) 2-9-06

Contacted:
Detail of contact: (Include date of contact, person contacied, and results.)
02-09-08 Waneta Northern, AT&T, contacted Ms.Harpke to acknmdedge the receipt of the complaint,
aDoloaized for anv inconvenience. and to confirm the service was activa-W with AT&T on 2-6-06:
Addltioy$ Comments: ,
--,
- Waneta Northern
Executive Appeals Specialist
Executive offices
AT&T Midwest Region
800-592-5386, extension 41815
. . c -
March 1,2006
United States Government

Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
445 12th Street, SW, CY-B523
RE: Mrs. Linda Harpke

January 24,2006
IC Number : 06-W11398521
I am writing in response to complaint number 06-W 11398521 received on behalf of Mrs.

Linda Harpke, Vonage account 1003604601. The complaint is in regards to difficulty she
is having transferring her number to a new provider.
I have reviewed the complaint and the notes on the account. Mrs. Harpke must have her
new provider place a request for the number. When the request is placed it is forward to
the third party carrier that handles the transfer of numbers into and out of the Vonage
network. We do not directly handle the transfer ourselves. In addition, all the
information submitted must match exactly to the customer service record held at our third
party carrier. If this information is not correct, delays can occur.
I apologize for the inconvenience that Mrs. Harpke has experiencing and we would not
intentionally block, impede, or deny the transfer of any customers phone number to
another provider. Mrs. Harpke must also contact our Customer Care department to have
her account terminated once the transfer has completed. I hope this information has been
helpful and I believe that this matter can be considered closed at this time.
Sincerely,
I .
Chris Latona
Executive Response Team
7
CDMMrnES:
BARACK OBAMA
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAN0
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
VETERANS AFFAIRS
February 13,2006
<
Dear Ms.Atkinson:
Thank you for your time and effort in addressing the concerns of my constituent, Michael R.
Ward. Mr. Ward, however, requests further cl inent questions
not answered in Mr. Fishel's correspondence. I have attached
which provides a more accurate description of his concerns.
I would appreciate your looking into this matter at your earliest convenience. Please advise Scott
Hooks, who assists me in these matters, of your findings.
contact Scott Hooks at (312) 886-3506.
Sincerely,

BO/sh
Michael R. Ward .
The FCC beginsbts response by clearly stating m y concern in paragraph 1: ‘‘denial of

umbly request you to take that that is the sole reference
tter about the issue of veterans’ nce.
ed ita actions it to m w e r tbe central question:
ce as required by law and regulation?
Again, it evades the issue. pt to explain its refusal to follow

the law but apparently feels an explanation s is s&cient. Veterans’
preference is not an afterthought but an integral part of civil service law and regulation.
The reason it does not address the issue is fairly obvioue -- it did not honor my veterans’
preference enti
I would not pursue this matter or st your intervention without a 100 percent
degree of certainty that I am co fly and f a c t u e . Government agencies
protective of other agencies when violations of law are not exposed to the light of day.
Raph ~ n ~ ~ e ~ . n m o r r t A n n 1 - r ~ - JC ------A---3 :---a- *
l__.-_lllllll
O
~
C I
_--- _-
O
1
~ ~
1 -_ --.--
~ - _ _ _ l _ l _ _ l - _I
My position in this matter is straightforward (a) there is no disagreement about my
experience and qualifications - I earned a master's degree; (b) there is no disagreement
about my veterans' preference status, that is a compensably-disabled preference eligible
with a service-connected disability rated at 30%or more; (c) m y civil service status is
known - I have competitive status and resigned from a previous position with the
Federal government at the GS-12 grade level for personal reasons; and, (d) I timely
applied for two positions with the FCC.
Next, law and regulation require the FCC to act affirmatively once it receives m y
application. Indeed, the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944, os amended, is specific at 5
U.S.C. Q 3314 R
Re
le pay level$ under other pay-
-
5 C.F. R. 8 332.402 OPM or a Delegated ExaminingUnit (DEW will refer
candidates for consideration by simultaneously listing a candidate on all
certificates for which the candidate is interested, eligible, and within reach.
5 C.F.R. 332.404 - An appointing officer, with sole regard to merit and fitness,
shall select an eligible for: (a) The first vacancy from the highest three eligibles on
the certificate who are available for appointment; and
The OPM instructs agencies in its Delegated Examining Unit Handbook

www.orJm.erov/deu Chapter 1, Section C titled "Agency responsibilitiee":
You must apply the veterans' preference provisions of title 5, United States
Code, including:
0 (competitive service; examinations; when held);

0 (preference eligibles; examinations; additional points for);
0 (preference eligibles; examinations; guards; elevator
operators; messengers and custodians);
5 U.S.C. 4 33 11 (preference eIigibles; examinations; crediting experience);
0 5 U.S.C. 8 3312 (preferenc
0 5 U.S.C. 6 3313
0 5 U.S.C. 6 3314
0 5 U.S.C. 6 3315 (registers; preference eligiiles furloughed or sepvted);
5 U.S.C. 8 33 16 (preference eligiiles; reinstatement);
0 5 U.S.C.6 3317 (competitive service; certification from registers); and
0 5 U.S.C. 8 33 18 (competitive service; selection &om certificates).
This means the FCC was required, ordered, to refer my name to the selecting official.
Requirement 4 (5 C.F.R. 5 335.103&)(4)) does not present the Agency
ude my name.
touts ~ E Iits authority for its actions are revealed to be
ed as the hoax that it is. The
F.R. 5 336.103@)(4), the
wiU resort to half-

tions and violations of
I provided evidence in my initial letter of July 13,2005that the FCC did not follow the
law and place my name on lists and certificates, as the law requires. I have restated it
here. The result is that my entitlements were denied without due process, and I was not
afforded the opportunity to be reinstated (5 U.S.C. fj 3316).
The violations of law are indisputable. Nevertheless, the FCC refuses to honor the law
and it appears that no government entity is capable of encouraging it to conform. I hope
the senator can discern the futility of my position. I am a victim of the fabled run-
around. The failure of action is evident from the responses of the OPM.
I sincerely hope that you are as displeased as I about the unchecked abuse of Iaw and
regulation by this agency. It arrogates unto itself the decision as to whether to adhere to
statutes passed by the Congress.
The U.S. QEce of Personnel Management (OPM) is responsible Eenforcing veterans'

preference law and regulation 5 U.S.C. 1302(b).I presented my situation to Associate
Director for Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability, Marta Brito
PQrez.Her initial response was that she would not comment because the matter waa
pending before a US. Federal Court. When I informed her that no such case existed, her
subsequent excuse is that her office could not audit the FCCs actions because the FCC
cannot reconstruct its records because of the passage of time. Be mindful that the only
issue is whether the FCC granted me veterans' preference; it is not whether the FCC
maintained proper records. Remember, I provided the OPM and your office copies of the
Certificates the FCC prepared for the positions; my name was conspicuously absent
fiom each.
***The absence of my name from the documents prepared by the FCC is suflicient
evidence it did not honor the law. The evidence is clear and convincing. The FCC does
not have a leg on which to stand. The matter is resolved; either the FCC granted my
veterans' preference or it did not. There is not a scintilla of evidence that it did.
Now comes a set of facts that casts doubt about the sincerity of the OPM's explanation
for its inaction: the information contained within the FCC's response to your
office is exactly that which Ms.Brito P6rez indicates the FCC cannot provide
(reconstruction). Based on these facts, it is evident that both of these agencies are
simply avoiding holding the FCC culpable for its violations. She did not indicate
whether the FCC informed her that it could not reconstruct the records or Sit was her
determinationdone. However, there are thousands of pages of records concerning these
issues. An independent investigator selected by the FCC prepared an extensive report of
these matters. The Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) convened a hearing in the
matter concerning announcement number 94-128.There are hundreds, if not thousands,
of pages of record and testimony concerning these mattere.
For instance, the FCC fails to explain the methodology or rationale utilized for
discarding my timely application submitted for the vacancy advertised as Vacancy
Announcement Number 94-127.While it concedes that I applied for the position there
are no Agency records of my application being examined as required by law, or
4
f
considered, or granted any provisions conferred by the Veterans’ Preference Act. My

application falls into a black hole never to be seen again.
Similarly, for the position advertised at Vacancy Announcement Number 94-128 the
Agency cannot explain away the facts that it did not examine or assign a score to my
application as law and regulation require, nor did it produce an application for the
person selected until after her selection was formalized. She did not submit an
application for the position as the vacancy announcements required, yet, she was
Relected. T h e ~ efact:tsare a matter of remvd
Based upon the information provided to you by the FCC, the information I provided to
the OPM,the Report of Investigation of 1997 into these matters, it (OPM) has sufficient
information to reconstruct and determine whether the FCC granted my statutory and
regulatory veterans’ preference.
-- _I-
I will greatly appreciate your inquiring of the OPM whether the FCC acted properly in
denying my veterans’ preference. The enclosed draft letter with attachment w i l l cause
the OPM to investigate the matter that it heretofore has declined.
While this matter is not a “hot button” issue it is immensely important to me. Because
of my service-connected disability I cannot work in positions that are physically
demanding. The faiIure of the FCC to appropriately consider my applications affects
retirement, insurance, as well as medical benefits that are not provided by the
Department of Veterans Administration. I a m right in this matter. I desperately need
your assistance.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
P. 0. Box 6454
East St. Louis,Illinois 62202
J,
Encl: Draft of Letter w/Attachment

.d'Y
.uQ 2 f
I FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

OFFICE OF
MANAGING DIRECTOR October 13, 2005

230 S. Dearbom Street
Suite 3900
Dear Senator Obama:
Casey.
Vacancy Announcement #94-128 was posted during the same time frame as #94-127,
and sought applications from "all sources' to fill a GS-13 Writer-Editor position in the office of
Public Affairs. On August 12, 1994, Mk Ward applied and was rated 'highly qualifEd' by the
rating panel. The selecting official, Karen Watson, acting within her discretion and consistent with
personnel selection procedures under 5 C.F.R. 5 335.103(b), determined that the competitive
merit promotion list was an "appropriate source' from which to select candidates. She
interviewed only candidates referred on that list, and ultimately selected Stacey Reuben Mesa.
Because the competitive merit promotion !istconsisted only of individuals rated "best qualified,'
Mr. Ward, rated "highly qualified.' was ineligible for inclusion on that fist. and was neither
intervlewed nor selected for the position.
The FCC has litigated numerous cases with Mr. Ward before several tribunals. He has
raised numerous allegations regarding his non-selections for the Writer-Editor positions before
the U.S.Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
ct Court for the District of Columbia; the Merit Systems Protection
nt Opportunity Commission; and the Office of Special Counsel. Each
ismissed Mi. Ward's allegations on jurisdictional grounds or for lack
r. Ward's allegations regardinghis appeal before the Merit Systems
no control over that agency's determination of a pending litigation
,58 Fed. Appx. 517 (Fed. Cir. 2003)(unpublished); Ward v.
WL 1154507 (D.C. Cir. 20011; Ward ard, f999'WL 503905 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
(unpublished); Ward v. Kennard; 200 F. R. D. 137 rd v, Kennard. 133 F. Supp.
2d. 54 (D.D.C.2001); Ward v. FCC, 92 M.S.P.R. 229 (2002); W Kennard, EEOC Request
#05A00105 (March 19,2002); Ward v. Kennard, EEOC Appeal #01976398 (October 1,1999);
Ward v. OPM and FCC, 79 M.S. P.R. 530 (1998), aff'd, 199 WL 231990 (Fed. Cir. 1999), reh'g
denied May 4, 1999.
The FCC considers paramount its obligation to assist our veterans in the employment
process, and strives to ensure that these individuals receive the appropriate consideration in the
Agency's employment process. The FCC's selection process for the above-referenced
vacancies was conducted in a manner consistent with applicable OPM regulations and
established Agency policies. As several courts and administrativeagencies have concluded, the
Agency did not discriminate against Mr. Ward based on his prior military service or any other
basis, nor did it afford any preferentialtreatment to the selectees.
We hope this information is helpful to you.
Sincerely
Andrew S. Fishel
Managing Director
Office of Legislative Affairs
Washington, D .C.205 54

Suite 3900
Dear Senator Obama:
This replies to your February 13, 2006 letter on behalf of your constituent,
Michael R. Ward, who applied and was not selected for two Writer-Editor positions with
the Federal Communications Commission in 1994. As set forth in former FCC Managing
Director Andrew Fishel’s October 13, 2005 letter to you concerning this matter,
numerous federal courts and administrative agencies have concluded that Mr. Ward was
not treated unfairly in the selection process for these positions. Indeed, over five
tribunals have issued more than twenty decisions dismissing Mr. Ward’s myriad lawsuits
against the FCC and other federal agencies.
Simply put, Mr. Ward’s interpretation of the statutes and regulations cited in his
letters to you is incorrect. The thrust of Mr. Ward’s contentions has been that the FCC
was required to fill the positions for which he applied through competitive examination,
under which he would have received a veterans’ preference in the selection process.
Applicable federal government personnel regulations, however, contain no such
requirement - the FCC has the discretion to fill its vacancies through any authorized
method. See, e.g., 5 C.F.R. 5 330.101; Ward v. Ofice of Personnel Management, 79
M.S.P.R. 530,534 (1998) (“the regulations indicate that the FCC has discretion as to
which sources it will use to fill its positions and that it may select or not select from the
applicants who responded to the vacancy announcement.”). Both of the FCC positions
for which Mr. Ward applied were properly filled through merit promotion procedures,
one such authorized method, to which veterans’ preference does not apply. As the Merit
Systems Protection Board concluded in one of Mr. Ward’s lawsuits, “the provisions the
appellant cited and the preference he claimed are not applicable to hiring by merit
promotion, which was the method chosen to fill the position at issue here.” See
September 22, 2000 Initial Decision in Ward v. FCC, Docket No. DC-3443-00-0338-1-2
(Final Order issued July 22,2003).
The contentions that Mr. Ward raises in his correspondence to you are the same
ones that the federal courts and administrative agencies have considered and dismissed.
For example, Mr. Ward asserts throughout his February 6, 2006 letter to you that the
FCC’ s “examination and certification procedures” concerning his applications were

improper. This assertion mirrors Mr. Ward’s contention in one of his lawsuits before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that, among other things, the FCC did not
properly “examine, rate, rank, and certify his application.” See Ward v. Federal
Communications Commission,58 Fed. Appx. 5 17,520 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (unpublished).
As that court concluded, “Ward’s argument is misplaced.. ..The FCC’s actions on

Ward’s application flowed as a natural consequence of adopting a hiring method for
which he was not eligible.. . .here Ward asks us to accept as nonfrivolous his conclusory
allegation that his status as a veteran was at least a motivating or substantial factor in the
FCC’s discretionary selection of the merit promotion method in filling the position
sought. He identifies no basis that would allow us to so rule. We decline to do so.” Id.
Mr. Ward’s disagreement with these tribunals’ decisions does not change their
final and binding effect. Attached hereto for your convenience are several decisions
finding in favor of the FCC, which fully explain the nd the legal bases
for the decisions. We hope that you find this
--
Offic of Legislative Affairs

$
I 79 M.S.P.R. 530 Page 31

79 M.S.P.R. 530
(Cite as: 79 M.S.P.R. 530)
H
Merit Systems Protection Board. against the validity of agency's implementation of the
Michael R. WARD, Petitioner, regulation were weak. 5 U.S.C.A. 0 1204(f)(4)(B); 5
V. C.F.R. 5 335.103.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT and *531 Michael R. Ward, Oxon Hill, MD, pro se.
Federal Communications Commission,
Respondents. Kathy M. Sachen-Gute, Esquire, Washington, DC,
CB-1205-98-0007-U-l . for Office of Personnel Management.
Oct. I , 1998. Ava Holly Berland, Esquire, Washington, DC, for

Federal Communications Commission.
Unsuccessful applicant for a position with the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Before ERDREICH, Chairman, SLAVET, Vice
requested review of the FCC's implementation of an Chair, and MARSHALL, Member.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulation
pertaining to agency promotion programs and merit OPINION AND ORDER
promotion procedures. The Merit Systems Protection Petitioner, an applicant for a position with the
Board held that it would decline to exercise its FederaI Communications Commission (FCC), has
discretionary authority to review the regulation, requested the Board to exercise its discretion under 5
considering that applicant had an equivalent remedy U.S.C. !j 1204(f)(l)(B) to review the FCC's
in appeal of his nonselection to the Equal implemeptation of the Office of Personnel
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and Management regulation, 5 C.F.R. 4 335.103,
that his arguments against the validity of agency's pertaining to agency promotion programs and merit
implementation of the regulation were weak. promotion procedures. Petitioner contends that the
FCC applied merit promotion procedures that are
Request denied. inconsistent with 5 C.F.R. 9 353.103 and that the
improper implementation has resulted in a violation
West Headnotes of 5 U.S.C. $9 2302@)(6) and (1 1). For the reasons
set forth below, the Board declines to exercise its
[l] Merit Systems Protection -550 discretionary authority to review FCC's action.
450k550
In determining whether to exercise its discretionary BA CKGROUND
authority to review the implementation of an Ofice The FCC issued a vacancy announcement for the
of Personnel Management (OPM) rule or regulation position of writer-editor GS-12. Regulation Review
to determine whether implementation has required the File (RRF), Tab 1, Subtab 1. The announcement
commission of a prohibited personnel practice, the listed the area of consideration as "all sources" and
Board considers the following factors: the likelihood had a closing date of August 12, 1994. The
that the issue will be timely reached through ordinary announcement also informed status candidates that
channels o f appeal; the availability of other they should submit two applications if they wished to
equivalent remedies; the extent of the regulation's be considered as status and nonstatus candidates.
application; and the strength of the arguments against [FNI] On August 12, 1994, petitioner submitted two
the regulation's implementation. applications to the FCC for the vacant position. Id. at
Subtab 4. The application showed that he was
[2] Merit Systems Protection -550
previously employed as a GS-12 Public Affairs
Specialist with the Department of the Navy.
450k550
Board would not exercise its discretionary authority
FNl.Status refers to competitive status and
to review the implementation of Office of Personnel means the basic eligibility to be
Management (OPM) regulation setting out the noncornpetitively selected to fill a vacancy
requirements for an agency's merit promotion in a competitive position. 5 C.F.R.(3 1.3(c).
program; unsuccessful applicant for position who It is not disputed that the petitioner had
challenged regulation had an equivalent remedy in competitive status.
appeal of his nonselection to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and his arguments On October 21, 1994, the FCC's Office o f Human
Q 2006 ThomodWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

i 9 M.S.P.R. 530 Page 32
(Cite as: 79 M.S.P.R. 530, *531)
Resources Management issued a merit promotion from the merit promotion list because petitioner, as a
certificate of applicants deemed best qualified to the former GS-12 with competitive status, was ineligible
selecting official, Karen Watson. Id Subtab 3. to compete for the advertised GS-12 writer-editor
Petitioner's name was not on the merit promotion position under merit promotion procedures. Rather,
certificate. While the agency prepared an applicant he was eligible for consideration on a noncompetitive
list of nonstatus candidates, the petitioner's name was and a nonstatus basis. In contrast, the selectee for
not on this list either, and the evidence is inconclusive the position was a GS-11 and therefore was eligible
as to whether the agency prepared a list of for consideration under merit promotion procedures.
noncompetitive *532 candidates and referred the In the view of the FCC and OPM,petitioner's request
petitioner's name on it. [FN2] See Id. Subtabs 6, 7. for regulation review is in reality a chaIlenge to his
The FCC selected an individual from the merit nonselection, a matter not within the Board's
promotion certificate, Ms. Kara Casey, a GS-11 jurisdiction.
employee of the FCC. Id. Subtabs 3.
Petitioner filed a response to the agencies' argument,
FN2. The agency asserts that it prepared an asserting for the first time that his disqualification
applicant list of noncompetitive candidates from consideration in the merit promotion category
but explains that it has been unable to locate improperly negated his competitive status and was
such a list. RRF, Tab 3 at 6. contrary to the statement in the vacancy
announcement that he could *533 apply as either a
Following petitioner's nonselection, he contacted the status or a nonstatus candidate. Petitioner also
FCC's Office of Workplace Diversity to complain reasserted his position that the agency manipulated
about the agency's selection procedure and alleged the system to improve the unauthorized preference of
discrimination based on age and sex. RRF, Tab 1 at the selectee and injure his own candidate. Petitioner
2. On August 13, 1997, the agency issued a finding of also reasserted his position that the agency
no discrimination. On August 23, 1997, petitioner manipulated the system to improve the unauthorized
appealed the agency's decision to the Equal preference of the selectee and injure his own
Employment Opportunity Commission and asserted prospects in violation of 5 U.S.C. 8 2302(b)(6). He
that the FCC's selection process violated merit system also clarified the basis for his claim of improper
principles by affording preferential consideration to action in violation of 5 U.S.C. 9 2302(b)(11).
the selected candidate, Ms.Casey.
ANALYSIS
On January 8, 1998, petitioner filed the instant [l] Section 1204(f)(l)(B) provides that the Board
request for regulation review, alleging that the FCC has "sole discretion" regarding the decision to review
deliberately withheld his name from consideration by the implementation of an OPM rule or regulation to
not placing his name on the merit promotion determine whether inrplementation has required the
certificate and that the withholding was not required commission of a prohibited personnel practice. In
by the regulation setting out the OPM requirements of determining whether to exercise its discretionary
agency promotion programs. Petitioner argues authority, the Board considers the following factors:
further that the withholding was done with the intent the likelihood that the issue will be timely reached
to grant a preference to the selectee, who was less through ordinary channels of appeal; the availability
qualified than petitioner for the GS-12 position, and of other equivalent remedies; the extent of the
thus the FCC's action violated 5 U.S.C.Q 2302(b)(6). regulation's application; and the strength of the
The violation of section 2302(b)(6), according to arguments against the regulation's implementation.
petitioner, necessarily establishes a violation of 5 McDiannid v. United States Fish and Wildlqe
U.S.C. 0 2302(b)(11). Service, Department of the Interior, 19 M.S.P.R. 347,
349 (1984).
The FCC and OPM have responded, opposing the
request for regulation review. RRJ, Tabs 3 and 4. (21 We recognize that a complaint of nonselection
Both agencies argue that petitioner has failed to show for a position does not come within the Board's
any impropriety in the selection process, much less appellate jurisdiction and therefore will not be
that the implementation of the regulations concerning reached in the ordinary channels of appeal. Scipio v.
merit promotion programs resulted in the commission Department of the Navy, 24 M.S.P.R.337 (1984).
of prohibited personnel practices. According to both Additionally, the regulation has wide application.
agencies, it was proper to exclude petitioner's name Nevertheless, petitioner has an equivalent remedy.
Q 2006 ThornsodWest. No Claim to Orig. U S . Govt. Works.

t
.
I ;9 M.S.P.R. 530 Page 33
(Cite as: 79 MS.P.R 530, *533)
As indicated above, petitioner has filed an appeal of transfer to a higher graded position appears
his nonselection with the EEOC and that appeal is to be the pertinent provision, rather than the
pending. If petitioner prevails in his appeal before provision cited by the FCC, which pertains
the EEOC, he will be entitled to placement in the to reinstatements.
GS-12 writer-editor position, or an equivalent
Further, the regulations indicate that the FCC has
position, unless the agency can show by clear and
convincing evidence that he would not have been discretion as to which sources it will use to fill its
positions and that it may select or not select from the
selected absent the discrimination. 29 C.F.R. $
1614.501(b). He would be entitled to no greater applicants who responded to the vacancy
relief if the Board were to find that the FCC's announcement. 5 C.F.R. Q 335.103(b)(4). The FCC
implementation of the merit promotion program asserted, and the petitioner has not disputed, that the
regulations was improper. 5 U.S.C. 0 1204(f)(4)(B). agency decided to fill the position with those
applicants referred on the competitive merit
Moreover, petitioner's arguments against the validity promotion list and extended interviews only to those
of the FCC's implementation of the regulation are candidates. RFF, Tab 3 at 10-11. The FCC did not
weak. The regulation at issue, 5 C.F.R. Q 335.103, extend interviews to any applicants, like petitioner,
sets out the requirements for an agency's merit who were designated nonstatus and noncompetitive.
promotion program, as well as other types of [FN4] Given the discretion granted the agency by 5
C.F.R. 0 335.103, petitioner has failed to show a
placement. The regulations differentiate between
those actions subject to competitive procedures and violation of the regulation in limiting its consideration
those not requiring such procedures. 5 C.F.R. 0 to applicants on the merit promotion list. [FNS]
335.103(c). Competitive procedures are required for
FN4. Because the FCC made its selection
personnel actions that result in a transfer to a position
&om an applicant pool that properly
at a higher grade than a position previously *534 excluded petitioner, his claim that the FCC
held, on a permanent basis, in the competitive service. failed to maintain proper records to show
5 C.F.R. $ 335.103(c)(l)(v). The selectee, a GS-11 how he was rated and ranked need not be
applicant for the GS-12 position, was therefore considered.
subject to these procedures. [FN3] In contrast, a
reinstatement to a position having promotion FN5. Petitioner's belated and unsupported
potential no greater than the potential of a position an argument that the FCC's action of not
employee currently holds, or previously held, on a including him on the merit promotion list
permanent basis, in the competitive service, may be denied him competitive status appears
excepted from competitive procedures by the agency. contrary to the facts. Competitive status
Thus, the regulations provide for differentiation refers to a persons's eligibility for non-
between categories of applicants for a position. competitive assignment to a competitive
position. 5 C.F.R. $ 212.301. The record
Consistent with that differentiation, the agency drew shows that the FCC considered petitioner
up an applicant list consisting of individuals deemed eligible for noncompetitive assignment to
eligible and best qualified for promotion the advertised GS- 12 position. RRF, Tab I ,
consideration. See RFF, Tab 1, Subtab 3. Because Subtab 6. Thus, the agency treated him as an
the petitioner's last and highest paid grade as a applicant with competitive status.
government employee was as a GS-12, the agency
properly did not include him on this list of applicants *535 Absent a violation of 5 C.F.R. 0 335.103,
eligible for promotion. Rather, the agency viewed petitioner cannot establish that the prohibited
him as eIigible for the noncompetitive personnel personnel practice described in 5 U.S.C. $ 2302(b)(6)
action of reinstatement. RRF, Tab 3 at 10. Thus, occurred. Section 2302(b)(6) prohibits giving a
the agency did not violate 5 C.F.R. 0 335.103 when it preference not authorized by law, rule or regulation,
failed to put the petitioner's name on the competitive to any employee or applicant for employment, for the
promotion list. purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any
particular person for employment. The preference
FN3. The FCC cited 5 C.F.R. 5 that petitioner complains of, that the selectee was
335.103(c)(I)(vi) as applicable to the
selectee's consideration while OPM cited 5 considered under a procedure that excluded him, was
C.F.R.8 335.103(c)( I)(v). Because the a preference authorized by 5 C.F.R. $ 335.103, which
selectee was a current FCC employee, permits the agency to select applicants from different
section 335.103(c)( I)(v) pertaining to sources. Petitioner was properly excluded from
0 2006 ThomodWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

, '
4 i 9 M.S.P.R. 530 Page 34
(Cite as: 79 M.S.P.R. 530, *535)
consideration in the merit promotion pool of ORDER

applicants for the GS- 12 writer-editor position This is the final order of the Merit Systems
because his appointment to the position, if it Protection Board in this appeal. 5 C.F.R. 0
occurred, would not be a promotion but a 1203.12(b).
reinstatement, petitioner's last grade as a government
employee being a GS-12. Accordingly, petitioner has NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
failed to show that implementation of section 335.103 FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS
constituted an unlawful preference as described in 5 You have the right to request the United States Court
U.S.C. Q 2302(b)(6). of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review the
Board's final decision in your appeal if the court has
Similarly, petitioner has failed to show that jurisdiction. See 5 U.S.C.3 7703(a)( 1). You must
implementation of section 335. I03 constituted the submit your request to the court at the following
prohibited personnel practice described in 5 U.S.C. 0 address:
2302(b)( 11). To establish a claim that the agency's
failure to consider him in the pool of merit promotion *536 United States Court of Appeals
eligible applicants violated 5 U.S.C. $ 2302(b)( 1 l), for the Federal Circuit
petitioner must show: (1) that the FCC violated 5 717 Madison Place, N.W.
C.F.R. 0 335.103; and (2) that the violated provision Washington, DC 20439
is one which "implements" or "directly concerns" the The court must receive your request for review no
merit system principles. For the reasons already later than 30 calendar days after receipt of this order
stated, the FCC's failure to place petitioner's name on by your representative, if you have one, or receipt by
the merit promotion applicant list and consider him in you personally, whichever receipt occurs first. See 5
this applicant pool did not violate section 335.103. U.S.C. 5 7703(b)(1).
Accordingly, petitioner cannot establish the first
element of a section 2302@)(11) violation. Given
For the Board:
the lack of support for petitioner's claims of
prohibited personnel practices and the availability of
an equivalent remedy for the FCC's allegedly ROBERT E. TAYLOR,
improper activities, the Board declines to exercise its
discretionary authority to review the FCC's WASHINGTON, D.C.
implementation of 5 C.F.R. $335.103.
END OF DOCUMENT
Q 2006 ThomodWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S.Govt. Works.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
MICHAEL R. WARD, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, DC-3443-00-0338-1-2
V.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS DATE: SEp 22

COMMISSION,
-. Agency.
Michael R. War& Oxon Hill, Maryland, pro se.

Susan J,aunez, Esquire, and Michael Krasnow,Esquire, Washington,
D.C., for the agency.
BEFORE
Sarah P. Clement
Administrative Judge
INITIAL DECISION
The appellant
-- filed an appeal of his nonselection for the position of
Writer-Editor, GS-1082-13,on the basis of alleged discrimination due to
his .prior military service in violation of the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. 0 4301 et
seg. (USERRA). The hearing he requested was held on August 17, 2000.
For the reasons stated below, I find the appellant failed to prove his claim
of discrimination under USERRA. Therefore, his request for relief is
DENIED.
2
BACKGROUND
The appellant has previously challenged his nonselection for the
position of Writer-Editor, GS-1082-13,and another position in other
proceedings on different grounds. See AF-1 (1-1 appeal file), Tab 7,
Subtabs 1 (agency narrative), 4a-4e; Tab 21, Ag. Ex. 1-6. These previous
challenges have been unsuccessful. In this appeal, he aIleged that his
nonselection was the result of discrimination against him based on his prior
military service, in violation of USERRA. The appellant brought this
complaint first to the Department of Labor, which found no evidence of
discrimination-in violation of USERRA. AF-1, Tab 7, Subtab 4b. H e then
filed this appeal.
During the course of these proceedings, the appellant attempted to
amend his appeal to allege a claim of disability discrimination. I ruled that
the amendment could not be permitted, since the Board’s jurisdiction in
this appeal is based solely and exclusively on USERRA. See Bodus v.
Department of the Air Force, 82 M.S.P.R. 508, 514-16 (1999);AF-2, Tabs
11, 19; see also AF-1, Tab 7 , Subtab 4d (initial decision of the Board in
Ward V. FCC, MSPB Docket No. DC-3443-98-0237-1-1, issued March 19,
1998) (Board has no jurisdiction over claims of discrimination or
prohibited personnel practices in same appellant’s appeal of same
nonselection for same position at issue here).
The parties do not dispute that in July 1994 the agency posted
Vacancy Announcement No. 94- 128 seeking applications from “all
sources” to fill a GS-1082-13 Writer-Editor position in its Office of Public
Affairs. See AF-1, Tab 6, p.1; Tab 7, Subtabs 1, 4p; Tab 21 at 10 (list of
agreed upon facts); Tab 25 (summary of prehearing conference); AF-2 (1-2
appeaI file), Tab 19 (summary of second prehearing conference), The
appellant submitted duplicate applications for the position to insure he was
given consideration both as a status and.a nonstatus candidate, but he was
not interviewed or selected. Rather, bother candidate, Stacey Reuben
(known at the time as Stacey Reuben Mesa), was selected. The appellant
alleged that Reuben had not even submitted an application for the position.
The appellant argued that as a 30% disabled veteran, he was entitled to
selection over a nonveteran like Reuben. He alleged that the agency’s
failure to select him violated OPM regulations establishing veteran’s
preference in recruitment and hiring and was discriminatory.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

__
Under USERRA, the Board has jurisdiction to hear claims alleging
that a person was denied initial employment or a benefit of employment
because of prior military service. See 38 U.S.C. $4 4311(a),
4303(4)(A)(ii), 4324(b); Jasper v. U S . Postal Sewice, 73 M.S.P.R.367,
369 (1997); Petersen v. Department of the Interior, 71 M.S.P.R. 227, 231-
40 (1996). The statute further provides that “an employer shall be
considered to have engaged in actions prohibited [by USERRA] if the
person’s . . . service . . . in the uniformed services is a motivating factor in
the employer’s action, unless the employer can prove that the action would
have been taken in the absence of such . . . service . . . .” 38 U.S.C.
tj 4311(c); see Yates v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 145 F.3d 1480,
1483 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Fahrenbachsr v. Department of the Navy, 85
M.S.P.R.500, 509 (2000).
Vacancy Announcement No. 94-128 solicited applications from “all
sources.” See AF-1, Tab 7, Subtab 4p. The agency explained that its
decision to recruit for Vacancy Announcement No. 94-128 from “all
sources” meant that it could, under the regulations, cqnsider merit
promotion, noncompetitive, and both status and nonstatus ’candidates for
the position. See, e.g., AF-1, Tab 7, Subtab 1. The appellant contended
e
4
that the agency should have hired only through competitive examination,
under which he would have received a 10-point preference as a disabled
veteran. However, the appellant pointed to nothing in the applicable
statutes and regulations that compelied the agency to fill Vacancy
Announcement No. 94-128 by competitive examination. On the contrary,
the regulations provide that “an appointing officer may fill a position in the
competitive service by any of the methods authorized in this chapter.” 5
C.F.R. 0 330.101. The chapter referenced includes regulations pertaining
to hiring by--examination, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, veterans
readjustment appointments, reemployment priority lists, career transition
assistance plans, interagency career transition assistance plans, and other
methods. Nothing in the statute or regulations prevented the agency from
choosing to hire through a method other than competitive examination.
Michele Sutton served as chief of the personnel resourccs division of
the agency at the time period at issue in this appeal. She testified at the
hearing that in that position, she oversaw the agency’s recruitment, merit
promotion, pay, benefits, employee assistance, and classification matters.
AF-2, Vol. 111, Hearing Tape 3A. She stated that the term “all for
recruitment purposes in the Federal civil service means that applications
are being solicited from individuals currently in the Federal civil service
and those not currently in Federal service or with no prior Federal service.
Sutton also explained the differences between the kinds of certificates (lists
of eligible applicants) that were prepared and provided to the selecting
official for the position described in that vacancy announcement. The
merit promotion list of candidates, she testified, consists of candidates who
have gone through a rating and ranking process by a rating panel and have
been determined to be “best qualified” for the position in question. See 5
C.F.R. 6 335.103(b)(4). She testified that veterans’ preference rules play
no role in selections made from a merit promotion list. See 5 C.F.R.
21 1.102(c). The nonstatus list consists of candidates who are not
currently in Federal service and do not have prior Federal service. The
noncompetitive list consists of candidates who have previously served at
the grade level of the advertised position, which in this case was grade 13.
Sarah Van Valzah worked in the office of human resources at the
time in question. One of her supervisors was Michele Sutton. Van Valzah
testified that she was assigned the staffing functions for Vacancy
Announcement No. 94-128, meaning that she was responsible for recruiting .
for the vacancy, posting the announcement, convening a rating panel, and
preparing thecertificates of eligibles, AF-2, Vol. 111, Hearing Tape 1B.
Van Valzah stated that she prepared Vacancy Announcement No. 94-128.
AF-2, Vol. 111, Hearing Tape 2 8 (testimony on cross-examination). She
stated that as SF-171s came in in response to the vacancy announcement, a
clerk would forward them to her with a separate cover sheet for each
application. She noted that a sample of a cover sheet appeared in the
record at AF-2, Tab 22, App. EX. H-6. She logged in each SF-171 she
received on a computerized composite list. See, e.g., AF-1, Tab 7,Subtab
4f; Tab 2 f , Ag.Ex. 10. She then determined what eligibilities each
applicant had and made notations on the front of each cover sheet
indicating her determinations.
On the cover sheet for the appellant for the position at issue here, she
made notations indicating that he had noncompetitive eligibility, as well as
merit promotion and nonstatus eligibility. She also noted that he was a
30% disabled veteran. AF-2, Tab 22, App. Ex. H-6. She stated that she
prepared three certificates of eligibles for Vacancy Announcement No. 94-
128 “because that’s what the regulations provided for.” She stated that her
notation regarding the appellant’s status as a 30% disabled veteran meant
that his name should go to the top of the list of nonstatus candidates. She
testified that she made an error when she prepared the certificates for the
..
6
vacancy announcement at issue here, because she neglected to put the

appellant’s name at the top of or even on the nonstatus list. See AF-2, Tab
22, App. Ex.H-9, and AF-1, Tab 7, Subtab 4k. She testified that she made
another mistake when she placed the appellant’s name on the
noncompetitive list, because the highest grade he had previously held in
Federal service was GS-12, not the GS-13 level of the position advertised.
AF-2, Tab 22, App. Ex. H-8, and AF-1, Tab 7, Subtab 41. The
noncompetitive list was for applicants who had previously occupied a
position at or-above the grade level of the position being advertised.
After determining what eligibilities each applicant for a position had,
Van Valzah stated that she put together a rating panel, if there were more
than five applicants for a position. A rating panel consisted of three people
who looked at the applications on the merit promotion and nonstatus lists
and rated them against a set of benchmarks to determine whether the
* applicant was minimally qualified, fully qualified, highly qualified, or best
qualified. AF-2, Vol. 111, Hearing Tape 1B (testimony .on direct
examination). The candidates with noncompetitive eligibility did not have
to be rated and ranked. Id. Van Valzah also stated, like Sutton, that
veteran’s preference rules play no part in the formulation of the
noncompetitive list, since that list consists solely of applicants who had
previously served at or above the grade level of the position being filled.
- Id. Van Valzah testified that after the rating panel made its findings, all of
the applications were returned to her, and she logged the rating panel’s
determinations on each application into the same database (the “composite
list”) she had compiled originally as each application was received. &e
AF-1,Tab 7, Subtab 4f; Tab 21, Ag. Ex. 10.
After the applications had been ranked, Van .Valzah issued the
applicable certificates and gave them to the selecting official. In addition
to the nonstatus and noncompetitive certificates, Van Valzah prepared a
,
merit promotion certificate for Vacancy Announcement No. 94- 128. This
certificate consisted of the applicants who were eligible for merit
promotion because they had government status, and who had been rated
“best qualified” by the rating panel. AF-2, Vol. 111, Rearing Tape 2B
(testimony on cross-examination); see AF-2, Tab 22, App. Ex. H-10,and
AF- 1,Tab 7, Subtab 4j. Stacey Reuben Mesa’s name appeared on the merit
promotion list, because she had been rated “best qualified,” but the
appellant’s name did not, because he had been rated only “highly
qualified.” See AF-1, Tab 7, Subtabs 4j, 4q; AF-2, Tab 22, App. Ex. H-7,
H-10;AF-2, Vol. 111, Hearing Tape 2B. As with the noncompetjtive list of
candidates, veteran’s preference rules play no part in the formulation of the
merit promotion list. AF-2, Vol. 111, Hearing Tapes 2B (testimony of Van
Valzah on cross-examination and redirect), 3A (testimony of Sutton); 5
C.F.R. 6 21 1.102(c). Van Valzah then forwarded the three certificates to
the selecting official. Both Van Valzah and Sutton testified that the
selecting official has the discretion to choose which certificate to use in
hiring for a particular position. AF-2, Vol. 111, Hearing Tapes 1B (Van
Valzah), 3A (Sutton).
The selecting official for Vacancy Announcement No. 94-128 was
Karen Watson. She testified that of the three certificates of eligible
candidates for the position at issue here that she received from the
personnel office, she felt that the candidates on the merit promotion list
had the best qualifications for the position she was filling, so she decided
to make her selection Erom among the candidates on that list. AF-2,Vol.
111, Hearing Tape 2A. In accordance with the regulations, she interviewed
all the candidates on the merit promotion list. The appellant’s name did
not appear on the merit promotion list because he was rated highly, not best
qualified. Watson stated that she considered Stacey Reuben Mesa the best
qualified, most impressive applicant of those on the merit promotion list.
e e
8
Watson stated that Reuben had a lot of experience in her current job that
was similar to the duties of the advertised position, including disseminating
information on complicated consumer issues in a manner easiry understood
by the public. She also stated that Reuben brought with her to the
interview an impressive portfolio of materials demonstrating her writing
skills.
Reuben also testified at the hearing. AF-2, Vol. 111, Hearing Tape
1A. She stated that she learned about the writer-editor position by calling
an OPM job hotline
-- sometime in the early spring of 1994. She requested a
copy of the vacancy announcement for the writer-editor position and
submitted her SF-171 and attachments before the closing date. Someone
from the agency called her to schedule an interview, and she met with
Watson in September or October of 1994. She recalled discussing her
application and qualifications at the interview, and showing Watson her
portfolio. She recalled that Watson was particularly interested in the
writing she had done for CNN. She recalled Watson flipping through a
document while questioning Reuben about her qualifications and stated that
she believed the document Watson was looking at was her SF-171. She
testified that she had never met or spoken with Watson before this
interview, and that she did not know anyone else at the agency before she
was hired for the writer-editor position.
Missing Files and Records
The appellant believes that Reuben never submitted an SF-171 for
the writer-editor position and that she was un1aw;fully preselected for the
position. The agency acknowledged that the complete merit staffing file
for Vacancy Announcement No. 94-128 is no longer a part of its records,
either because it has been lost or misplaced, or destroyed in accordance
with regular records retention practices. AF-1; Tab 21 at 2 and Ag. EX. 7
e e 9
(Sutton’s affidavit); AF-2, Tab 15 (Sutton’s second affidavit). One of the

missing documents is Reuben’s original SF-171. There was no dispute that
the SF-171 signed by Reuben that appears in the record at AF-2,Tab 22,
App. Ex. H-1, was a duplicate application signed after Reuben had been
hired. AF-2,Vol. 111, Hearing Tapes 1A and 1B (testimony of Reuben).
No one remembered how or why the duplicate SF-171 was created,
but various speculations that I have not considered were offered at the
hearing. What I have considered is Reuben’s testimony at the hearing that
she in fact submitted an original SF-171 in response to the vacancy
announcement,- because that is the procedure she always followed in a
search for a new job, and because otherwise she could not have been called
for an interview and questioned by Watson about her qualifications for the
position. Watson also testified that she reviewed Reuben’s SF-171,
because that is the only way she would have been able to have her secretary
call Reuben to set up an interview. In addition, Van Valzah testified that
she received an SF-171 from Reuben, because the master composite list
that she created for Vacancy Announcement 94-128 was compiled solely
based on SF-171s received in response to that announcement, and Reuben’s
name appears on the composite list. AF-1, Tab 7, Subtab 4f, and Tab 21,
Ag. Ex. 10. Therefore, Van Vaizah testified, she had to have had an SF-
171 from Reuben in order to log any information onto the composite list.
The date Van Valzah logged in information about a particular SF-171 was
generated automatically by the computer. AF-2, Vol. 111, Hearing Tape 2B
(testimony of Van Valzah on cross-examination). The composite list shows
that information fiom Reuben’s application was logged in to the computer
on August 29, 1994.’ Van Valzah testified that if an SF-171 was received
.. .
1 This was not the date that a particular SF-171 was received but rather the
date Van Valzah logged it into the database comprising the composite list. AF-2,
Val. 111, Hearing Tape 2B (cross-examination of Van Valzah).
m
10
late, she would note that on the composite list, and that she made no such
annotation for Reuben’s application. Id.
I find the evidence supports the agency’s contention that Reuben
timely submitted an SF-171 in response to the vacancy announcement, and
that that was the reason she was interviewed by Watson. The appellant
provided no evidence in support of his bare allegations to the contrary.
Watson, Sutton, and Van Valzah all denied knowing Reuben before she
was hired, preselecting Reuben in any way for the writer-editor position, or
putting her name forward when she had not even submitted an SF-171 for
the position. Reuben also denied knowing .these employees or anyone else
at the agency before she applied there, and testified that she submitted an
SF-171 for the writer-editor position in accordance with her usual, typical
job application procedures. The appellant pointed to the duplicate SF-171
in the record as evidence of illegality in the selection process, and
discrimination against him, but I find that the agency credibly explained
why the original SF-171 could not be found and why Reuben had to have
submitted one, given that her name was logged onto the composite list, and
she was interviewed for the position. Van Valzah would not have had any
information to put on the composite list without having received Reuben’s
SF-171, and Watson would not have had any knowledge of Reuben or her
qualifications to request an interview with her without having seen her SF-
17 1. I find the testimony of these credible witnesses more persuasive than
the unsupported allegations of the appellant.
The appellant also believes that the missing files and records
perraining to the agency’s selection process for the writer-editor position,
as well as the agency’s inability to locate in its records some other
materials that the appellant requested in discovery, on their face evidence
discrimination against him based on his prior military service. As I noted
above, the agency credibly explained why it could not produce the
a 11
complete merit staffing file for the position at issue here. See, e.g.. AF-1,
Tab 21, Ag. Ex. 7. In response to the appellant’s motion to compel
discovery of another document, the agency’s Disabled Veterans
Affirmative Action Plan for 1994, the agency stated that it could not locate
a copy of the plan in effect for 1994 in its records. AF-2, Tab 15. I do not
infer that the missing files and records show discrimination, on any basis,
Agencies, companies, and individuals commonly lose track of records and
papers. Such an occurrence by itself does not suggest a sinister motive.
Further, some agency records, 8s the agency explained in this case, are
routinely desiroyed after a certain amount of time. The appellant offered
no support or explanation for his bare assertion that the missing records
showed he was discriminated against. Instead, Watson, Sutton and Van
Valzah each specifically denied discriminating against the appellant
because he had previously served in the military. AF-2, Vol. 111, Hearing
Tapes ZA, 2B, 3A. In addition, both Watson and Sutton testified tha: they
came from military families and in fact had a positive view of military
service and military veterans.
Decision To Hire from the Merit Promotion Cfefiificate
The appellant also believes that Watson’s decision to hire from the
merit promotion list was itself evidence of discrimination against him
based on his prior military service. However, nothing in the record
supports his bare allegation. First, as explained above, the agency was free
to choose among several methods of filling the writer-editor position,
including merit promotion. See 5 C.F.R. 5 330.101. Nothing required the
agency to hire through competitive examination, which the appellant
believes would have resulted in his being selected because of his IO-point
veteran’s preference. In addition, nothing compelled the selecting official,
Watson, to fill the position from a particular certificate of eligibles.
12
Instead, the regulations permitted her to select or not select from all of the
eligible applicants who responded to the vacancy announcement. See, e.g.,
Ward Y, Office of Personnel Management, 79 M.S.P.R. 530, 534 (1998)
(“the regulations indicate that the FCC has discretion as to which sources it
will use to fill its positions and that it may select or not select from the
applicants who responded to the vacancy announcement,” citing 5 C.F.R.
tj 335.103(b)(4)). Watson testified that she felt the candidates with the best
qualifications for the writer-editor position she was filling appeared on the
merit promotion list. Since she had the discretion to fill the position from
any of the thme certificates of eligibles presented to her, she chose to use
the merit promotion certificate. The appellant did not show, and I do not
find, any evidence of discrimination in Watson’s exercise of that
discretion.
Mistake
I further find that the mistakes Van Valzah made in her
determination of the appellant’s eligibilities had no effect on his
nonselection for the position and were not based on a discriminatory
motjve. Van Valzah testified, and Sutton confirmed, that the appellant’s
name mistakenly did not appear on the nonstatus list of candidates for the
po*sitionat issue here. However, since the selecting official did not use this
certificate to fill the position, Van Valzah’s error had no effect on the
appellant. Van Valzah also testified that she mistakenly placed the
appellant’s name on the noncompetitive list of candidates. This mistake
gave the appellant a benefit to which he was not entitled, since he had not
previously served in a grade 13 position in Federal service. However,
since the selecting official did not use this certificate in filling the position,
Van VaIzah’s mistake had no effect on the appellant. Further, as discussed
...
13
above, there was no evidence suggesting that Van Valzah’s mistakes were
discriminatory in motive, intent or effect.
Mistakes in the Ratinn Process
The appellant also stated that he believes that his SF-171 for the
writer-editor position was not properly rated, which he alleges is further
evidence of discrimination. First, the appellant provided no support for his
allegation that his application was improperly rated. The record shows that
the rating panel found him “highly qualified” for the position, the second
highest rating possible. AF-I, Tab 7, Subtab 4q. There are no notes or
_-
attachments to the panel worksheet explaining the appellant’s rating or
Reuben’s higher rating. However, the duplicate SF-171 showing Reuben’s
qualifications and experience lists substantially more journalism and
writing experience than the appellant’s SF-171. Compare AF-1, Tab 7,
Subtab 4i with Subtab 40. This alone provides justification for Reuben’s
higher rating by the panel. The agency was unable to produce the complete
merit staffing file for the position, so the supporting documents for the
panel’s worksheets are unavailable. As explained above, I do not infer a
sinister, discriminatory motive from this fact. The appellant produced no
other evidence that the rating panel discriminated against him. He did not
call the members of the panel as witnesses, and he did not allege any facts
that could lead a reasonable person to believe that any kind of
discriminatory animus motivated anyone on the rating panel.
7
The appellant claimed the agency violated his rights by not giving
him the veteran’s preference to which he claimed he was entitled under
numerous statutory and regulatory provisions. See, e.g., AF-I, Tab 6.
First, as previously discussed, the provisions the appellant cited and the
preference he claimed are not applicable to hiring by merit promotion,
e e 14
which was the method chosen to fill the position at issue here. See 5
C.F.R. 0 21 1.102(c). Second, also as explained above, the agency was
under no obligation to fill the vacancy at issue in this appeal by
competitive examination, under which the appellant would have been
entitled to a 10-point preference, and as a result may or may not have been
the applicant with the highest score. The results of a hypothetical
competitive examination for a position that did not occur are sheer
.speculation and carry no weight as supposed evidence of discrimination.
Instead, the selecting official decided to fill the vacancy at issue here by
merit promotion. The regulations are clear that veteran’s preference does
not apply to inservice placement actions such as promotions. 5 C.F.R.
9 211.102(c). In addition, the Board has made clear that a claim in a
USERRA case that an employer has failed to grant a veteran’s preference
to an individual is not evidence of discrimination. In Fahrenbacher, supra,
85 M.S.P.R.at 510, the Board stated that “[tlo establish discrimination
.
[under USERRAJ, the appellants must show that they were treated more
harshly than non-veterans. The fact that they were not treated better than
non-veterans does not show discrimination.” . Finally, I note that the
Federal Circuit has held that claims that one has not been given a
preference in employment decisions, such as veteran’s preference, is not a
“benefit of employment” as defined in the USERRA statute. Wilborn v.
Department of Justice, 2000 WL 194114 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The appellant’s
claims that he did not receive veteran’s preference in hiring and selection
are thus not within the Board’s jurisdiction under USERRA.
Finally, I note that any of the appellant’s claims as to a denial of a
veteran’s preference that could be construed to fall under the Veterans
Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA) are also not within the
Board’s jurisdiction, since the appellant did not first file a complaint under
this Act with the Department of Labor, as required by the statute. See 5
e 0
15
U.S.C. $ 3330a. Moreover, the event at issue here, the appellant’s

nonselection for a position in 1994, occurred long before the October 31,
1998, effective date of the VEOA. I therefore find that the VEOA has no
applicability to the appellant’s claims in this case.
DECISION
For all these reasons, the appellant’s claim for relief pursuant to
USERRA is DENIED.
FOR THE BOARD: rLAfGd-

Sarah P. Clement
Administrative Judge
NOTICE TO APPELLANT
This initial decision will become final on OCT 27 2OOO , unless
a petition for review is filed by that date or the Board reopens the case on
its own motion. This is an important date because it is usually the last day
on which you can file a petition for review with the Board. However, if
this injtial decision is received by you more than 5 days after the date of
issuance, you may file a petition for review within 30 days after the date
you actually receive the initial decision. The date on which the initial
decision becomes fipal also controls when you can file a petition for review
with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The paragraphs that
follow tell you how and when to file with the Board or the federal court.
These instructions are important because if you wish to file a petition, you
must file it within the proper time period.
.. .
e 16
BOARD REVIEW
You may request Board review of this initial decision by filing a
petition for review. Your petition, with supporting evidence and argument,
must be filed with:
The Clerk of the Board
Merit Systems Protection Board
1615 M Street, NW.,
If you file a petition for review, the Board will obtain the record in your
case from the administrative judge and you should not submit anything to
the Board that is already part of the record. Your petition'must be
postmarked, faxed, or hand-delivered no later than the date this initial
decision becomes final, or if this initial decision is received by you more
than 5 days after the date of issuance, 30 days after the date you actually
receive the initial decision. If you fail to provide a statement with your
petition that you have either mailed, faxed, or hand-delivered a copy of
your petition to the agency, your petition will be rejected and returned to
you.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
If you are dissatisfied with the Board's final decision, you may file a
petition with:
The United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
, 71 7 Madison Place, NW.
you may not file your petition with the court before this decision becomes
final. To be timely, your petition must be received by the court no later
.
17
NOTICE TO AGENCYIINTERVENOR
The agency or intervenor may &le a petition for review of this initial
decj ion in accordance with the Board's regulations.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the attached document was sent by regular mail this day
to each of the foilowing:
Michael R. Ward
P.O.Box 657
Oxon Hill, MD 20745
keencv's ReDresentative
-
Susan Lamer, Esq.
Michael Krasnow, Esq.
Office of General CounseVLitigation Div
445 12th St. SW
Other
Kenneth L. Bates
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Employee ReIations Division
1900 E Street, NW, Room 7412
Washington, DC 2041 5
SEP 2 2 m
(Date)
tL Paralegal Specialist
58 Fed.Appx. 5 17 Page 1
58 Fed.Appx. 5 17
(Cite as: 58 Fed.Appx. 517)
W
Briefs and Other Related Documents Protection Board (MSPB); claims of unlawful
conduct in the selection process ordinarily must be
This case was not selected for publication in d e brought in other fora.
Federal Reporter.
131 Officers and Public Employees -72.23
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed.Cir.R. 47.6, this order is not 283k72.23
citable as precedent. It is public record. Federal employee's protected disclosure could not
have been contributing factor in employment decision
Please use FIND to look at the applicable circuit over five years before those disclosures were made,
court rule before citing this opinion. Federal Circuit and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) thus did
Rule 47.6. (FIND CTAF Rule 47.6.) not have jurisdiction over employee's individual right
of action appeal pursuant to Whistleblower Protection
United States Court of Appeals, Act (WPA) fiom nonselection for vacant position. 5
Federal Circuit. U.S.C.A. $9 1221(a), 2302(b)(8).
Michael R. WARD, Petitioner,
V. [43 Officers and Public Employees -72.23
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION, 283k72.23
Respondent. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) lacked
NO. 02-3402. jurisdiction over employee's Uniformed Services Act
appeal, where employee provided no evidence to
March 6,2003. support conclusory allegations that his status as
veteran was motivating factor in agency's
Federal employee sought review of final Merit discretionary selection of merit promotion method to
Systems Protection Board (MSPB) decisions, 92 fdl position he sought. 38 U.S.C.A. Ej 43 1 1; 5 C.F.R.
M.S.P.R. 229, dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his $8 335.101,335.103.
appeals of nonselection for GS-12 position. The *518 Before MICHEL, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN,
Court of Appeals held that: (I) with regard to Senior Circuit Judge, and LI", Circuit Judge.
individual right of action appeal under Whistleblower
Protection Act, employee's alleged protected PER CURLAM.
disclosures could not have been a contributing factor
in employment decision taken over five years before Michael R. Ward seeks review of fmal decisions of
they were made, and (2) wid regard to Uniformed the Merit Systems Protection Board ("Board")
Services Act appeal, employee provided no evidence dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his appeals of his
to support conclusory allegations that his status as nonselection for the position of WriterEditor. See
veteran was motivating factor in agency's Ward v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, No.
discretionary selection of merit promotion method to DC-1221-01-0729-W-1 (M.S.PB. Oct.1, 2001) (
fill position he sought. "Ward I" ) (dismissing individual right of action
appeal pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Act
Affirmed. ("Whistleblower Act")); Ward w. Fed.
Communications CommIn, No. DC-3443-01-0603-1- 1
West Headnotes (M.S.P.B. Nov.1, 2001) ("Ward IZ" ) (dismissing
appeal under the Uniformed Services Employment
[ 1J Officers and Public Employees -72.5 1 and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("Uniformed
283k72.5 1 Services Act")). Because the Board's decisions were
Scope of Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
jurisdiction is question of law that Court of Appeals otherwise not in accordance with law, obtained
reviews de novo. without procedures required by law, rule or regulation
having been followed, or unsupported by substantial
[2] Officers and Public Employees 0 7 2 . 2 2 evidence, we aflrrn the Board's dismissals.
283k72.22
Agency's failure to select applicant for vacant BACKGROUND
position is generally not appealable to Merit Systems In 1994, Ward submitted an application for a GS-12
Q 2006 ThomodWest. No Claim to Orig. US.Govt. Works.

58 Fed.Appx. 517 Page 2
(Cite as: 58 Fed.Appx. 517, "518)
Writer/Editor position with the Federal A. Standard of Review

Communications C o d s i o n ("FCC") in response to [l] Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4 7703(c), this court must
a vacancy announcement; Ward claimed a 10-point affirm the Board's decision unless it is: (1) arbitrary,
preference as a veteran. The announcement stated capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
that applications would be considered from "all accordance with law; (2) obtained without
sources,'' but the FCC subsequently chose to fill the procedures required by law, rule or regulation having
position through competitive merit promotion been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial
procedures pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 335.103@)(4). evidence. Chase-Baker v. Dep't of Justice, 198 F.3d
Ward was not eligible for consideration in the merit 843, 845 (Fed.Cir.1999). The petitioner bears the
promotion pool because his last grade as a burden of establishing reversible enor in reviewing a
government *519 employee was GS-12, and thus his decision of an administrative agency such as the
appointment to the position would not be a Board. Harris v. Dep'i of Veterans Afairs, 142 F.3d
promotion. Ward v. @ce of Personnel Mgmt., 79 1463, 1467 (Fed.Cir.1998). The scope of the Board's
M.S.P.R. 530, 535 (1998), a f d , 194 F.3d 1333 jurisdiction, however, is a question of law that we
(Fed.Cir.1999) (unpublished decision). Accordingly, review de novo. Starkey v. Dep't of the Navy, 198
Wards name did not appear on the competitive merit F.3d 85 I , 853 (Fed.Cir.2000).
promotion list, and he was not selected for the
position. B. Analysis
[2] The Board has only that jurisdiction conferred on
Ward challenged his nonselection for the GS-12 it by Congress. Crw v. Dep't of the Naw, 934 F.2d
position in a series of complaints filed in various fora. 1240, 1243 (Fed.Cir.1991). An agency's failure to
In Febmary of 2000, he submitted a complaint to the select an applicant for a vacant position is generally
Office of Special Counsel; Ward alleged that the not appealable to the Board. See, e.g., ElIison v.
agency committed numerous Violations of statute and Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 7 F.3d 1031, 1034
regulation, and stated that "complainant believes (Fed.Cir.1993). Claims of unlawful conduct in the
disclosure of information herein evidences violations selection process ordinarily must be brought in other
of laws, rules, regulations, and an abuse of authority." fora. See, e.g., 5 C.F.R. 300.104(b) (2002)
The sole protected disclosure that Ward alleged he (authorizing candidate to appeal to the Office of
made was the filing of this complaint. The Office Personnel Management or the employing agency
failed to reach a final decision in the matter, and from rejection of employment application). Congress
Ward appealed to the Board after the passage of 120 has, however, granted the Board jurisdiction to
days from the filing of his complaint, as was his right. consider such appeals under the Whistleblower Act
See 5 U.S.C. 5 1214(a)(3)(B) (2000). where the nonselected applicant "makes 'non-
frivolous allegations' that (1) he engaged "520 in
In his two appeals, Ward alleged that the FCC's whistleblowing activity by making a protected
actions constituted a violation of the Whistleblower disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 5 2302(b)(8), and (2) the
Act, as well as discrimination against him on account disclosure was a contributing factor in the agency's
of his prior military service in violation of the decision to take or fail to take a personnel action as
Uniformed Services Act. The Board held that Ward defined by 5 U.S.C. 0 2302(a)." Yunus v. Dep't of
had not established jurisdiction over his Veterans Afairs, 242 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2001)
Whistleblower Act appeal because Ward's aIleged (quoting Schmittling v. Dep'tofAnny, 219 F.3d 1332,
protected disclosures in his Office of Special Counsel 1336 (Fed.Cir.2000)).
complaint in February of 2000 could not have been
contributing factors in the FCC's failure to select him 1
for a position in 1994. Ward L slip op. at 5-6. The [3] The Board quite reasonably concluded that
Board also held that it lacked jurisdiction over Ward's Ward's disclosures could not have been a
appeal under the Uniformed Services Act based on its "contributing factor" in an employment decision
finding that he had proffered "no evidence to support taken over five years before those disclosures were
his conclusory allegations that his military service made, and held that Ward had not established Board
was a motivating factor in the agency's actions." jurisdiction. On appeal, Ward argues that "the
Ward ZZ, slip op. at 9. We have jurisdiction pursuant content of [his] disclosure is the reason the agency
to 28 U.S.C.4 I295(a)(9). refuses, to this day, to appoint or reinstate" him We
do not agree. The agency rehsed to hue Ward in
DISCUSSION 1994. As a matter of law and as the indisputable
Q 2006 ThomsonlWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

5 8 Fed.Appx. 517 Page 3
(Cite as: 58 Fed.Appx. 517, *520)
conclusion dictated by the chronology of events, any 330.101 appears includes merit promotion as a
disclosure Ward may have made in 2000 cannot have permissible method of hiring. 5 C.F.R. 5 335.103
been a "contributing factor" in the agencyk refusal to (2002). The FCCs actions on Ward's application
hire him in 1994. flowed as a natural consequence of adopting a hiring
method for which he was not eligible. Although it is
2 true that "the Board has adopted a liberal approach in
[4] Under the Uniformed Services Act, "[a] person determining whether jurisdiction exists under [the
who is a member of ... a uniformed service shall not Uniformed Services Act]," Yutes Y. Meriz Sys. Prot.
be denied initial employment ... on the basis of that Bd., 145 F.3d 1480, 1484 (Fed.Cu.1998), here Ward
membership." 38 U.S.C. 8 4311(a) (2000). A asks us to accept as nonfrvolous his conclusory
prospective employer engages in a prohibited allegation that his status as a veteran was "at least a
nonselection "if the person's membership ... in the motivating or substantial factor" in the FCCs
uniformed services is a motivating factor in the discretionary selection of the merit promotion method
employer's action." Id. Q 4311(c). Thus, to establish in filling the position Ward sought. He identifies no
Board jurisdiction, Ward had the burden to make basis that would allow us to so rule. We decline to do
nonfrivolous allegations that "military status was at so.
least a motivating or substantial factor" in the FCC's
actions. Sheehun v. Dep't of the Navy, 240 F.3d CONCLUSION
1009, 1014 (Fed.Cir.2001). The Board found that he Because Ward did not make nonfrivolous allegations
failed to meet that burden. sufficient to confer jurisdiction over Ward's
Whistleblower Act and Uniformed Services Act
On appeal, Ward argues that the Board may "infer claims, the Board did not err as a matter of law in
discrimination" from "the failure of the agency to
concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his
examine, rate, rank, and certify his application as it
did for the candidate selected.'' He also argues that petitions.
the agency was required to fill the position in an open
competitive manner rather than employing merit 58 Fed.Appx. 517
promotion. W a d s argument is misplaced. The FCC
had discretion to select a method to fill the position Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top)
Ward sought. "An appointing officer may fill a
position in the competitive service by any of the .02-3402 (Docket) (Sep. 27,2002)
methods authorized in this chapter." 5 C.F.R. 8
330.101 (2002). The chapter in which section END OF DOCUMENT
Q 2006 ThornsodWest. No Claim to Orig.US.Govt. Works.

133 F.Supp.2d 54 Page 15
133 F.Supp.2d 54
(Cite as: 133 F.Supp.2d 54)
W
Motions, Pleadings and Filings

[3] Civil Rights I209
United States District Court, 78k1209
District of Columbia. (Formerly 78k171)
Michael R. WARD, Plaintiff, Federal agency's failure to select 53-year old
V. applicant on ground that he was not best qualified
William E. KENNARD, Chairman, Federal applicant for position was not pretext for sex or age
Communications Commission, Defendant. discrimination, despite applicant's claim that agency
NO. CIV.A.00-0419(RMU). failed to l l l y recognize his veteran status, absent
evidence calling into question agency's ratings. Age
Dec. 12,2000. Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Q 14(a),
Order Denying Reconsideration 29 U.S.C.A. 0 633(a); Civil Rights Act of 1964, Q
Jan. 24,2001. 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. 0 2000e et seq.
Federal employee brought action against agency [4] Civil Rights @=' 1455
chairman challenging decision to deny his application 78k14SS
for position. On cross-motions for summary (Formerly 78k266)
judgment, the District Court, Urbina, J., held that: (1) Job applicant seeking injunctive relief for federal
Title VI1 was employee's exclusive remedy for his agency's violation of his c o n ~ t i t ~ t i rights
o ~ l as result
claim of sex discrimination; (2) agency's failure to of its failure to select him for position was required to
select employee on ground that he was not best specify form of injunctive or specific relief sought.
qualified applicant was not pretext for sex or age U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14; Fed.Rules
discrimination; and (3) employee failed to exhaust Civ.Proc.Rule 8(a), 28 U.S.C.A.
administrative remedies with regard to his claims
against agency under Civil Service Reform Act. [5] Officers and Public Employees -72.41(2)
283k72.41(2)
Chairman's motion granted. Federal employee was required to raise before Merit
Systems Protection Board (MSPB) his claims against
Motion for reconsideration denied. agency under Civil Service Reform Act for failing to
fully recognize his veteran status in failing to hire him
West Headnotes for position, and thus could not raise them for first
time in district court. 5 U.S.C.A. $0 2301-2302.
[ 11 Civil Rights W 1502
78kl502 [6] Oficers and Public Employees -72.4 l( 1)
(Formerly 78k332) 283k72.41(1)
Title VI1 was exclusive remedy for federal Federal Circuit, which possesses unique expertise in
employee's claims of sex discrimination in Civil Service Reform Act (CSIU) claims and Merit
employment. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Q 701 et seq., Systems Protection Board (MSPB) appeals, is court
42 U.S.C.A. Q 2000e et seq. of fmal appeal regarding MSPB decisions.
[2J Civil Rights -1502 [7] Judgment -540

78k1502 228k540
(Formerly 78k332) Claim is barred by res judicata when there has already
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was been frnal judgment on merits in prior suit involving
exclusive remedy for federal employee's claims of age same parties and same cause of action.
discrimination in employment. Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, fi 14(a), 29 U.S.C.A. 8 [SJ Civil Rights -1502
633(a). 78k1502
(Formerly 78kl94)
[3] Civil Rights 1179 Rehabilitation Act was exclusive remedy for federal
78k1179 employee's claims of disability discrimination in
(Formerly 78kl59) employment. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 9 501, 29
Q 2006 ThomodWest. No Claim to Orig. U S . Govt. Works.

(Cite as: 133 F.Supp.2d 54)
U.S.C.A. § 791. ascertain several details. For example,

although the plaintiff says that he worked
[9J Federal Civil Procedure -928 for several years at the GS-I2 level, he does
not say where he worked. Exhibit 2 of the
170-28 plaintiffs motion for partial summary
Motion for reconsideration may be used to challenge judgment is a "Notification of Personnel
alleged legal errors only when district court based its Action," which seems to indicate (although
legal reasoning OR case law that it had failed to the print is rather faint) that the plaintiff
realize had recently been overturned. Fed.Rules resigned from his OS-12 level job as a
Civ.Proc.Rule 60(b), 28 U.S.C.A. Public Affairs Specialist for the Department
*55 Michael R.Ward, Oxon Hill, MD, pro se. of the Navy in J 991 for "personal" reasons.
Scott Harris, Assist. U.S.Atty., Washington, DC, for From July 11, 1994 through August 12, 1994, the
defendant. FCC posted Vacancy Announcement Number
("VAN") 94-128, which sought applications from "all
MEMORANDUM OPINION sources" to fill the position of writer-editor, grade
GS-13, in its Office of Public Affairs ("OPA"). See
URBINA, District Judge. Mot. for Summ.J. at 3. Mr. Ward applied for the job,
but the FCC did not select him for the position. See
Granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Compl. at 2.
Judgment; Denying the Plaintiffs
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Mr. Ward alleges that the FCC's rejection of his
I. INTRODUCTION application violated his constitutional right to due
Arriving at the courthouse steps on the parties' cross- process and amounted to employment discrimination
motions for summary judgment, *56 this dispute on the basis of his sex, age, and disability. In
involves the plaintiffs allegations that the defendant addition, he claims that, by denying his application,
violated his due process and equal rights, the FCC violated the mnt-system principles
discriminated against him on the basis of his age, sex, embodied in 5 U.S.C. 8 2301, and committed
and disability, violated merit-system principles, and personnel practices prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 0 2302.
committed prohibited personnel practices. See generally Conrpl. Mr. Ward brings his claims
Specifically, the plaintiff, Michael R. Ward ("the under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
plaintiff or "Mr. Ward"), brings this 48- count action Constitution, 5 U.S.C. $8 1302, 2108, 2301, 2302,
against the defendant William E. Kennard ("the 3309,331 3,33 14,33 17, and 1318, the Rehabilitation
defendant") in his official capacity as Chairman of the Act of 1973 (8 501, 29 U.S.C. Q 791), the Age
Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
challenging the defendant's decision to deny the ("ADEA") (29 U.S.C. Q 633(a)), 38 U.S.C. Q 4214,
plaintiffs application for a writer-editor position. 42 U.S.C. 0 2000(e) et seq. ("Title VII"), and 42
For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the U.S.C. 9 1981(a). See Compl. at 2-15.
defendant's motion for summary judgment and will
deny the plaintiffs motion for partial summary Mr. Ward charges that because he had competitive
judgment. civil service status, was preference eligible, and had a
disability rated at more than 30 percent, the FCC's
11. BACKGROUND selection of another person for the writer-editor
Pro se plaintiff Michael R. Ward "had worked as a position violated both merit-system principles and
writer-editor and at the GS-12 level for several government personnel practices. Specifically, the
years." Compl. at 2. [FNl] In his complaint, Mr. plaintiff alleges that the FCC failed to follow proper
Ward asserts that he had "competitive civil service selection procedures in assessing applicants,
status" and that he was "a preference eligible intentionally excluded his application from
candidate, a IO-point compensably [sic] disabled consideration, and manipulated the selection process
veteran with a service-connected disability rated at 30 to appoint the applicant of its choice. See generally
percent or more by the Department of Veterans Compl. Moreover, Mr. Ward asserts that the
Affairs." id. defendant committed all these acts with the intent to
discriminate against him on the basis of his age, sex,
FNI. Since the complaint provides only a and disability. See id.
brief statement of facts, the court cannot

(Cite as: 133 F.Supp.2d 54, *S6)
Both the plaintiff and the defendant have filed dismiss many of the complaint's 48 counts because
motions for summary judgment, followed by the plaintiff is essentially asserting Title VI1 and
corresponding oppositions and replies. For the ADEA discrimination claims under alternative and
reasons that follow, the court will grant the impermissible statutes, or as constitutional claims.
defendant's motion for summary judgment and will See Mot. for Summ. J. at 10-11. Specifically, the
deny the plaintiffs motion for partial summary defendant asserts that because the Supreme Court bas
judgment. ruled that Title VI1 is the exclusive remedy for claims
of sex and race discrimination in federal employment,
*57 111. DISCUSSION the plaintiff may not allege sex discrimination by the
A. Legal Standard defendant under any alternative statute. See Brown
Summary judgment is appropriate when a court v. General Serv. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 835,96 S.Ct.
concludes that "there is no genuine issue as to any 1961, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976). The Court's holding
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a in Brown is clear and well-settled, and the D.C.
judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). Circuit has applied it on numerous occasions. See,
The substantive law on which a claim rests e.g., Ramey v. Bowsher, 915 F.2d 731, 734
determines which facts are "material." See Anderson (D.C.Cir. 1990); Ethnic Employees of the Library of
v. L i b e v Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. Congress v. Boorstin, 751 F.2d 1405, 1414-15
2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). If a fact bears on an (D.C.Cir.1985) ("Allowing federal employees to
essential eIement of the legal claim, then it is recast their Title VI1 claims as constitutional claims
material; otherwise, it is not. See id.; Celotex COT. would clearly threaten" the policies underpinning the
v. Cotre#, 477 US. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 rigorous administrative exhaustion requirements and
L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Only disputes over facts that can time limitations of Title VII.). The same principle
establish an element of the claim, and thus that might applies to claims of discrimination based on age or
affect its ultimate resolution, can create a "genuine disability-the ADEA and the Rehabilitation Act,
issue" sufficient to preclude summary judgment. See respectively, are the exclusive remedies for such
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Celofex, claims. See Chennareddy v. Bowsher, 935 F.2d 3 15,
477 U.S.at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. 318 (D.C.Cir.1991); Rattner v. Bennett, 701 F.Supp.
7 , 9 (D.D.C.1988).
To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the
moving party bears the burden of establishing that Moreover, after considering the defendant's
there are no genuine issues of material fact and that argument, the plaintiff himself concedes these points
the non-moving party has failed to offer sufficient while arguing that his orher counts should survive the
evidence to support a valid legal claim. See defendant's motion for summary judgment: "As it
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Celotex, relates to this complaint, Title VII i s the exclusive
477 US. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. In ruling on the remedy for employment discrimination cases based
motion, the court must accept the evidence of the on sex (Complaint counts 17, 19-27); the ADEA is
non-moving party as true and must draw all justifiable the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination
inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See cases based on age (Complaint counts *58 28-38)
Anderson, 477 U.S.at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. It is not neither precludes plaintifs other actions." Pl.'s
sufficient, however, for the non-moving party to Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J. ("P1.k Opp'n") at 3
establish "the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence (emphasis added).
in support of the [non-moving party's] position ...;
there must be evidence on which the jury could Indeed, a substantial number of the counts in the
reasonably fmd for the [non-moving party]." See id. plaintiffs complaint are discrimination claims
at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. If the evidence in favor of asserted under statutes other than Title VI1 or the
the non-moving party "is merely colorable, or is not ADEA. Count 18 is a claim of sex discrimination
significantly probative, summary judgment may be asserted under 42 U.S.C. 0 1981(a). See Compl. at
granted." See id. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (internal 8 . Counts 19 through 24 are claims of sex
citations omitted). discrimination asserted under 5 U.S.C. $4 1302, 3309
,3313,3314,3317 and 3318. See id. at 8-9. Count
B. Analysis 25 is a claim of sex discrimination asserted under 38
1. The Plaintiffs Non-Title VI1 and Non-ADEA U.S.C.9 4214. See id. at 9. Counts 26 and 27 are
Claims of Discrimination claims of sex discrimination, but lack any statutory
[1][2] The defendant argues that the court should reference. See id. Accordingly, because the plaintiff

9 133 F.Supp.2d 54 Page 18
(Cite as: 133 F.Supp.2d 54, *58)
fails to assert these sex-discrimination claims under plaintiff, because the FCC had rated him only "highly
Title VII, the court will dismiss counts 18-27. qualified." See id.
The same reasoning applies to the age-discrimination [3] Once an employer has met its burden of
claims asserted under statutes other than the ADEA. advancing a nondiscriminatory reason for its actions,
Count 29 is an age-discfimination claim asserted the focus ofproceedings at summary judgment;
under 42 U.S.C. 9 1981(a). See Compl. at 10. will be on whether the jury could infer
Counts 30 through 35 are age-discrimination claims discrimination from the combination of (1) the
asserted under 5 U.S.C. Q$ 1302, 3309, 3313, 3314, plaintiffs prima facie case; (2) any evidence the
3317 and 3318. See id. at 10-11. Count 36 is an plaintiff presents to attack the employer's
age-discrimination claim asserted under 38 U.S.C.0 proffered explanation for its actions; and (3) any
4214. See id. at 11- 12. Counts 37 and 38 are age- M e r evidence of discrimination that may be
discrimination claims that lack any statutory available to the plaintiff (such as independent
reference. See id. at 12. Accordingly, because the evidence of discriminatory statements or attitudes
plaintiff fails to assert these age-discrimination claims on the part of *59 the employer) or any contrary
under the ADEA, the court will dismiss counts 29-38. evidence that may be available to the employer
(such as evidence of a strong track record in
2. The Plaintifl's Title VII and ADEA Counts equal opportunity erqployment).
me plaintiffs complaint does assert one count of sex See Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284,
discrimination under Title VI1 (count 17) and one 1289 (D.C.Cir.1998). The plaintiff fails to satisfy
count of age discrimination under the ADEA (count this burden. By reiterating his bare assertions of
28). See Compl. at 7, 10. In assessing claims of discrimination and alleging that the FCC did not filly
employment discrimination, a court must follow the recognize his veteran status, the plaintiff presents no
burden-shifting scheme laid out by the Supreme Court evidence that the defendant's legitimate, non-
in McDonnell Douglas COT. v. Green. 41 1 US.792, discriminatory reasons were pretextual. The
93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Under the plaintiffs veteran-preference argument is not relevant
McDonnell Douglas ftamework, the initial burden to his employment-discrimination rebuttal that he
lies with the plaintiff to establish a prima-facie case must make under the McDonnell Douglas fiamework,
of discrimination. Once the plaintiff has established but rather may be relevant to his veteran-preference
the prima-facie case, the burden shifts to the argument involving his Civil Service Reform Act
employer to articulate a legitimate, non- claims (which the court will address below in Section
discriminatory reason for its action. Once the 4). See Mot. for Summ. J. at 18-19. Moreover, as
employer articulates its non-discriminatory reason, the defendant notes, "Plaintiff provides no evidence
the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff, who must whatsoever calling into question the decision to rate
show that the employer's alleged non-discriminatory him only 'highly qualified' 'I rather than "best
reason is merely a pretext for unlawful qualified." See Def.'s Reply at 2. The court agrees,
discrimination. See id. at 802-804,93 S.Ct. 1817. and concludes that the plaintiff has presented no
evidence that would allow a jury to infer
In this case, the plaintiff established prima-facie discrimination. Accordingly, the Title VI1 and
I cases of sex and age discrimination: 1) he applied for ADEA claims (counts 17 and 28) cannot survive
a position, 2) he was qualified, 3) he was in the summary judgment.
protected classes (male, 53 years of age), 4) he was
not selected for the position, and 5) an applicant not 3. The Plaintiffs Constitutional Claims
in the protected classes (a female under age 40) was The plaintiff seeks only money damages, not
selected for the position. The defendant then injunctive relief, for his constitutional claims. See
satisfied its burden of articulating a legitimate, non- Mot. for Sumrn. J. at 12. The defendant argues that
discriminatory reason for not selecting the plaintiff by the court should dismiss these claims in light of the
asserting that it chose to utilize the Merit Promotion holding in Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89
Candidates list rather than the Non-status Candidates (D.C.Cir.1984). In that case, the D.C. Circuit
list or the Non-competitive Candidates List, as recognized the well-established rule that sovereign
allowed under 5 C.F.R. $ 335.103(b)(4). See Mot. immunity bars suits for money damages against
for Summ,J. at 18. The Merit Promotion Candidates officials in their official capacity, absent a specific
list contained only applicants whom the FCC had waiver by the government. See id. at 103; Mot for
rated ''best quaIified," and did not include the S u m . J. at 12. The Clurk court also recognized the
Ca 2006 ThornsodWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

(Cite as: 133 F.Supp.2d 54, *59)
exception to the rule, namely that the doctrine of in United States v. Fausto, Justice Stevens stated that
sovereign immunity does not bar claims for because the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction is restricted
nonmonetary relief against government agencies and to a narrowly defined range of subject matter, it
officials when the plaintiff alleges unconstitutional "brings to the cases before it an unusual expertise that
action by the defendant agency or official. See should not lightly be disregarded .... [Tlhe Federal
Clark, 750 F.2d at 102. Circuit is the only Court of Appeals with jurisdiction
to review an appeal from the Merit Systems
[4]In this case, the plaintiff cannot take refuge in the Protection Board ....I' See United States v. Fausto,
rule's exception. The plaintiff seeks money damages 484 U.S. 439, 464, 108 S.Ct. 668, 98 L.Ed.2d 830
for his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. See (1 988)(Stevens, J., dissenting 0.g.).
Con$. at 16. In the section of the complaint that
relates to damages sought for alleged constitutional In this case, the plaintiff went to the MSPB with his
violations, the plaintiff states that he "seeks CSRA-related claims, and the MSPB rejected the
declaratory, injunctive, and make-whole relief; plaintiffs claims. See Mot. for Sumn J. at 7. The
compensatory damages assessed at $300,000 and plaintiff then appealed the MSPB decision to the
punitive damages to be determined by a jury." See id. Court of Appeals, which afiinned the dismissal. See
Despite the presence of the word "injunctive" in that id. at 7 .
section of the complaint, the court holds that the
complaint insufficiently pleads a request for [5][6][7] Although the plahtif€'s argument on these
injunctive relief, since it does not speclfy the form of points is unclear, his claims would not succeed under
injunctive or specific relief sought. Thus, the any interpretation. For example, if the plaintiff
complaint fails to satisfy the specificity requirements means to assert CSRA cIaims here that were not
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which raised before the MSPB, then the court would dismiss
requires the complaint to contain, inter alia, "a the plaintiffs instant CSRA claims for failure to
demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks." exhaust administrative remedies. Alternatively, if the
See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). [FNZ] Accordingly, the plaintiff is asking this court to review the CSRA
court will dismiss the portion of the complaint- claims that the MSPB dismissed and that the Court of
counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16--that alleges Appeals affirmed, then the court would dismiss the
violations of the plaintiffs Fifth and Fourteenth instant CSRA claims since the Federal Circuit, which
Amendment rights. possesses unique expertise in CSRA claims and
MSPB appeals, is the court of final appeal regarding
FN2. Moreover, the plaintiff has not MSPB decisions. Finally, if the plaintiff is not
proffered any evidence of the FCCs alleged seeking review of the Court of Appeals' decision, but
constitutional violations that would survive rather is attempting to re-litigate his CSRA claims in
summary judgment. this court, then the doctrine of res judicata would
preclude his efforts. A claim is barred by res
4.The Plaintiffs Claims Under the Civil Service judicata when there has already been a fmal judgment
Reform Act on the merits in a prior suit involving the same parties
A significant portion of the plaintiffs claims fall and the same cause of action. See I.A.M. Nat'l
under 5 U.S.C. $4 2301-2302 and various other Pension Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co..723 F.2d 944,
sections of Title 5 of the United States Code, known 94647 @.C.Cir. 1983). The doctrine applies to all
as the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 ("CSRA"). of the parties' rights regarding matters that could have
In these counts (1, 3, 5 , 7, 9, 1 1 and 39-48), the been litigated as well as those maffers that were
plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated merit- actually litigated. See id. at 947. For all of these
system principles and committed prohibited personnel reasons, the court will dismiss the plaintiff's CSRA
practices. The defendant argues that these claims claims (counts 1,3,5,7,9,11 and 39-48).
should *60 be dismissed because the court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction to hear them. See Mot. 5. Counts 13 and 15
for Summ. J. at 14. The CSRA provides that a party [8] Lastly, the plaintiff appears to assert claims of
who asserts a CSRA claim must first pursue it with disability discrimination in counts 13 and 15 of the
the Office of Special Counsel, then with the Merit complaint. In count 13, he cites the Rehabilitation
Systems Protection Board ("MSPB"), and fmally, on Act of 1973, and in count 15, he asserts disability
appeal, with the US.Court of Appeals for the Federal discrimination in sum and substance. See Compl. at
Circuit. See 5 U.S.C. $§ 1214,7703. In his dissent 6-7. As discussed above, the Rehabilitation Act is

(Cite as: 133F.Supp.2d 54, *60)
the only avenue of redress for a federal employee's Ward ("the plaintiff' or "Mr. Ward"), brought this
claims of discrimination based on disability. The suit claiming numerous civil rights violations by the
plaintiff, however, has failed to set forth a prima-facie defendant, William E. Kennard ("the defendant"),
case of discrimination based on disability in any of Chairman of the United States Federal
his pleadings or submissions. [FN3] Moreover, he Communications Commission, named in his official
has failed to demonstrate any evidence that would capacity. The plaintiff now asks the court to
support or tend to support such a claim. Alternatively, reconsider its Memorandum Opinion. For the
the plaintiff may have intended to allege in these reasons that follow, the court will deny the plaintiffs
counts that the defendant did not give full accord to motion.
the plaintiffs veteran status. Such an argument,
though, would relate to the plaintiffs *61 CSRA 11. BACKGROUND
claims (discussed above in Section 4), over which this Pro se plaintiff Michael R. Ward "had worked as a
court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. If the writer-editor and at the GS-12 level for several
plaintiff meant to assext a claim other than years." CompI. at 2. [F'Nl] In his complaint, Mr.
discrimination or a prohibited personnel practice Ward asserted that he had "competitive civil service
relating to veteran-preference, then the plaintiff has status" and that he was "a preference eligible
failed to meet the specificity requirements of Federal candidate, a 10-point compensably [sic] disabled
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See FED.R. CIV. P. veteran with a service-connected disability rated at 30
8(a); Wolfgram v. El Dorado County, 934 F.2d 325, percent or more by the Department of Veterans
1991 WL 92339 (9th CiT.1991). Accordingly, the Affairs." Id.
court will dismiss counts 13 and 15 of the complaint.
FNI. Since the complaint provided only a
FN3. As the defendant notes, if the plaintiff brief statement of facts, the court could not
intended to raise a separate claim under the ascertain several details. For example,
Rehabilitation Act, this claim would be although the plaintiff said that he worked for
barred since the plaintiff failed to exhaust several years at the GS-12 level, he did not
his administrative remedies because he say where he worked. Exhibit 2 of the
never raised the claim during the plaintiffs motion for partial summary
administrative process. See Williamson v. judgment is a "Notification of Personnel
Shulala. 992 FSupp. 454, 457 Action," which seems to indicate (although
(D.D.C.1998);Mot. for S u m J. at 11. the print is rather faint) that the plaintiff
The plaintiff never responds to this rwigned from his GS-12 level job as a
argument in the relevant section of his Public Affairs Specialist for the Depa-nt
opposition to the motion for summary of the Navy in 1991 for "personal" reasons.
judgment. See P1.k Opp'n at IO. The court
may treat the plaintiffs failure to respond as
a concession on this point. See Local Civil
From July 11, 1994 through August 12, 1994, the
Rule 7.1(b). FCC posted Vacancy Announcement Number
(VAN") 94-128, seeking applications from "all
IV. CONCLUSION sources" to fill the position of writer-editor, grade
For all of these reasons, the court grants the GS-13, in its Office of Public Affairs ("OPA"). See
defendant's motion for summary judgment and denies Det's Mot. for Summ. J. at 3. Mr. Ward applied for
the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. the job, but the FCC did not select h for the
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion position. See Compl. at 2.
is separately and contemporaneously issued this 1lth
day of December, 2000. Mr. Ward alleged that the FCC's rejection of his
application violated his constitutional right to due
MEMORANDUM OPINION process and amounted to employment discrimination
DENYING THE PLAR\ITIX;F'SMOTION FOR on the basis of his sex, age, and disability, In
RECONSIDERATION addition, he claimed that by denying his application,
I. INTRODUCTION the FCC violated the merit-system principles
This matter comes before the court on the plaintiffs embodied in 5 U.S.C. 0 2301, and committed
motion for reconsideration of this court's December personnel practices prohibited by 5 U.S.C. Q 2302.
12, 2000 Memorandum Opinion ("Memorandum See generally Compl. Mr. Ward brought his claims
Opinion"), which granted the defendant's motion for under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
summary judgment. The pro se plaintiff, Michael R. Constitution, 5 U.S.C. $9 1302, 2108, 2301, 2302,
0 2006 ThomsonMrest. No Claim to Ong. U.S. Govt. Works.

(Cite as: 133 F.Supp.2d 54, *61)
3309, 3313, 3314, 3317, and 1318, the Rehabilitation Judgment," provides that: "Any motion to
Act of 1973 (9 501, 29 U.S.C. 5 791), the Age alter or amend a judgment shall be tiled no
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 later than IO days after entry of the
U.S.C.p 633(a)) ("ADEA"), Title 38 U.S.C. *62 0 judgment."
4214, Title 42 U.S.C. 0 2000(e) et seq. ("Title VII"),
FN3.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure GO(b),
and 42 U.S.C. 1981(a). See Compl. at 2-15.
entitled "Relief from Judgment or Order:
Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable
Mr. Ward charged that because he had competitive Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence;
civil service status, was preference eligible and had a Fraud, Etc.," provides, in pertinent part,
disability rated at more than 30 percent, the FCC's that:
selection of another person for the writer-editor On motion and upon such terms as are just,
position violated both merit-system principles and the court may relieve a party or a party's
government personnel practices. Specifically, the legal representative from a relief judgment,
plaintiff alleged that the FCC failed to follow proper order, or proceeding for the following
selection procedures in assessing applicants, reasons: ( I ) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
intentionally excluded his application fiom or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence which by due diligence could not
consideration, and manipulated the selection process have been discovered in time to move for a
to select the applicant of its choice. See general& new trial under Rule 59@); (3) fraud ...,
Compl. Moreover, Mr. Ward asserted that the misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an
defendant had committed all these acts with the intent adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5)
to discriminate against him on the basis of his age, the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
sex, and disability. See id. discharged, or a prior judgment upon which
it has been based has been reversed or
otherwise vacated, or it is no longer
As noted above, on December 12, 2000, the court
equitable that the judgment should have
granted the defendant's motion for summaryjudgment prospective application; or (6) any other
and denied the plaintiffs motion for partial summary reason justifyingrelief from the operation of
judgment. The plaintiff now asks the court to the judgment.
reconsider that decision.
FN4. The plaintiff filed his motion for
111. DISCUSSION reconsideration on January 9,2001.
A. The Plaintifls Motion for Reconsideration Does
Not Constitute a Legitimate IRhis motion, the plaintiff does not raise allegations
Rule 60(b) Motion of fraud, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly
The plaintiff brings this motion for reconsideration discovered evidence, surprise, or misconduct that
without explicitly stating which Federal Rule of Civil would qualify his motion as a legitimate Rule 60@)
Procedure he seeks to employ. In short, he fails to motion. See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). After reviewing
make clear whether he intended to file a Rule 59(e) the motion, the court can only presume that the
motion [FN2] or a Rule 60(b) motion. [FN3] The plaintiff intends to assert that the court made various
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure help answer this errors in its legal reasoning in fomulating its
question. Since the plaintiff filed his motion for Memorandum Opinion. For example, the plaintiffs
reconsideration more than 10 days after the court motion states, "the Court misconstrues and contorts
issued its December 12,2000 Memorandum Opinion the substance of the plaintiff's sex and age
[FN4], Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) does not discrimination claims to his detriment...." Mot. for
allow the court to treat the motion as a Rule 59(e) Recon. at 1-2.
motion. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6@) (the court "may
not extend the time for taking any action under Rules *63 The federal courts of appeal are split over
50(b) and (c)(2), 52(b), 59@), (d) and (e), and 60(b) whether parties can use Rule 60(b) motions to assert
....'I). Accordingly, since the court cannot construe that the court made an error of legal reasoning. A
the plaintiffs motion as a Rule 59(e) motion, the majority of the circuits that have addressed the
court will construe it as a Rule 60@) motion for question state that parties cannot do so. For
reconsideration. example, the First, Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth
Circuits oppose allowing parties to use Rule 60(b)
FN2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure S9(e), motions "to correct legal errors." See, e.g., Elias v.
entitled "Motion to Alter or Amend Ford Motor Co., 734 F.2d 463, 467 (1st (3.1984)
0 2006 ThornsodWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

(Cite as: 133 F.Supp.2d 54, *63)
(Rule 60(b) cannot alone fix errors of law); Smith v. court based its legal reasoning on case law that it had
Evans, 853 F.2d 155, 158 (3d (3.1988) (Rule 60@) failed to realize had recently been overturned. See
cannot be used when a motion solely alleges legal District of Columbia Fed'n of Civic Ass'ns v. Volpe,
error and reiterates the original claims); McKnight v. 520 F.2d 451,451-53 (D.C.Cir.1975).
U.S. Steel C o p , 726 F.2d 333 (7th Cir.1984) (Rule
60(b)'s purpose was not to correct legal errors); Applying the D.C. Circuit's standard to the case at
Spinar v. South Dakota Board of Regents, 796 F.2d bar, the court holds that the plaintiff fails under Rule
1060, 1062 (8th Cir.1986) ("This court has 60(b) since he is merely arguing that the court made
maintained consistently that 'Rule 60(b) was not an error of legal reasoning.
intended as a substitute for a direct appeal from an
erroneous judgment.' " (quoting Hartman v. Lauchli, B. The Deadline for the Plaintiffs Possible Appeal
304 F.2d 431, 432 (8th Cir.1962))). The Fourth The court is sympathetic to the fact that the plaintiff
Circuit has held that "Rule 60(b) does not authorize a is proceeding pro se and that he may not be familiar
motion merely for reconsideration of a legal issue.... with certain procedural deadlines. Accordingly, the
Where the motion is nothing more than a request that court notes that the plaintiff does have another option:
the district court change its mind ... it is nor namely, he can appeal to the United States Court of
authorized by Rule 60(b)." United States v. Williams, Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Federal Rule of
674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir.1982). These circuits Appellate Procedure 4(a)( l)(B) lays out the time
have emphasized that unless extreme circumstances frame for a party to N e a notice of appeal with the
exist, the movant has other options to challenge the district clerk: "When the United States or its officer
decision, notably, the fight to appeal. See Centerf o r or agency is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed
Nuclear Responsibiliv v. United States Nuclear Reg., by any party within 60 days after the judgment or
781 F.2d 935, 940 n. 8 (D.C.Cir.1986); McKnight, order appealed from is entered." FED. R. APP. P.
726 F.2d at 337 ("The plaintiff may not, however, use 4(a)(l)(B). Since the federal government is the
Rule 60&) to correct alleged errors of law by the defendant in this case, the plaintiff has 60 calendar
district court which may have been raised by filing a days from December 12,2000 to file his appeal.
timely appeal....").
1V.CONCLUSION
The Second Circuit has adopted a slightly more For all of these reasons, the court denies the
permissive standard, cautiously allowing application plaintifl's motion for reconsideration. *64 In
of Rule 60@) only "With very special facts." addition, the court denies all of the plaintiffs other
Tarkington v. United States Lines Co., 222 F.2d 358, pending motions since they were improperly filed
360 (2d Cir.1955)(allowing Rule 60(b) motion when after the court dismissed the case on the merits. An
the Supreme Court overturned case law relied on in order directing the parties in a fashion consistent with
the district court's judgment). On the most this Memorandum Opinion is separately and
permissive end of the spectrum, the Ninth Circuit contemporaneously issued this 24th day of January,
does allow parties to employ Rule 60(b) motions to 2001 1
challenge alleged legal errors. See Liberiy Mutual

Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 691 F.2d438 (9thCir.1982). 133 F.Supp.2d 54
191 Most importantly for this court, the D.C. Circuit Motions, Pleadings and Filings (Back to top)
has adopted an approach similar to the Second
Circuit's. The D.C. Circuit allows Rule 60(b) . 1:OOCV00419 (Docket) (Mar. 0 1,2000)
motions to challenge alleged legal errors only in the
most extreme situations: namely, when the district END OF DOCUMENT
Q 2006 ThomodWest. No Claim to Orig.US.Govt. Works.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9
FEDERAL TRADE COMMIS@N
WASHWGTON, D.C.20580 La
8
N
m
Office of the Secretary - 4
s
MAR 8 2006 3
Re: FTC Ref. No. 7787307
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Richard J. Hahn of Chicago,
concerning unsolicited faxes. As you know, the Federal Trade Commission has been directed by
Congress to act in the interest of all consumers to prevent deceptive or unfair practices and unfair
methods of competition, pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq. In
determining whether to take enforcement or other action in any particular situation, the
Commission may consider to a number of factors, including the type of violation alleged; the
nature and amount of consumer inquiry at issue and the number of consumers affected; and the
likelihood of preventing future unlawhl conduct and securing redress or other relief. As a matter
of policy, the Commission does not generally intervene in individual disputes. However, letters
from your constituents provide valuable information that is frequently used to develop or support
Commission enforcement initiatives.
I appreciate learning of your constituent’s problem, but primary jurisdiction over this
issue lies with the Federal Communications Commission. Therefore, I have taken the liberty of
forwarding your inquiry to the Commission for their review. I appreciate your interest in this
matter, and please let us know whenever we can be of assistance.
Donald S. Clark
Secretary of the Commission
Jc: Director of Congressional Liaison

445 - 1 2 Street,
~ SW
03/03!06 11:32 FAX 312 886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA Fa 002
coMMi-rrEEs
WRACK OEAMA
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RElATlONS
2Bnitr-d Stat@j5enstt VETERANS AFFAIRS
March 3,2006
Ms. Anua Davis

Director, Office of Congressional Relations
Federal. Trade Commission
Dear M:s. Davis:
The enclosed correspondence was received by my Chicago office from my constituent, Richard
Hahn. Attached you will find a letter which gives a more accurate description and explanation of
Mr. Bdm's concerns.
In my 1e:tter to Richard Hahn, 1assured him that you would be in touch with him at your earliest
convenience.
If you rr:quire any further assistance or have any additional questions, please do not hesirate to
contact Jenna Pilat at 312-886-3506
Barack Obama
230 S-Dearborn St.

Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60604
WAS~IWKWON OFFII:~ CIIKAGO OFFICE 6PRINORUO OFFlC6 &RICIN OFFICE amp c m r ~

orn~rr
713 HARTSENATE OFFICE 3UlLDlNG 230 S. DEARBORN 607 ErSrAaAM!: 701 NOWN Cwnr ETWEY 1911 52NDAVENUE
WA$WINCTON. DC 20510 SURE su1n 1520 M I O N , IL 62959 MOUNE.IL61265
OFFICE (202) 224-2EZ4 cnic.cn. IL E0004 Srnircrmb~,IL 62701 OrriCC W E ) 997-2402 OFFICE (309)7361217
Fnx 1202) 22-2€0 OFFICE(312) 886-3506 OFFICE (217) 492-6890 FN (era) s s 7 - 2 ~ ~ ~ FAX1309) 738.1232
F a (312) 226-3514 FUC (217) 482-5099
03/03/08 1 1 : 3 3 FAX 312 886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA BO03
Erlabliibrd I859
JUERGENS G. ANDERSEN CO.

PITTSFIELD BUILDING
55 East Washington Street Chicago, Illinois 60602-2193
(312)782-5100
I-800-621 -e333
w (312)7a2-004a www.acidapearl.com
(312)7132-1339
F~X E-mail! addapearl8aol.com
Jan. 30,2006
Homrable Senator Barack Obama

Chic:ago, TL 60604
Dear Honorable Senator Obama,
Sorry to bother you with such a small problem however I am not able to get anything
accomplished myself so 1 have to call on you for some help.
Protllern is junk faxes sent to my home fax machine which is in a bedroom and it is
disturbing to peoplc sleeping in that room, what with these h e s coming through at early
hours of the morning. In addition I am on the national DO NOT CALL REGISTRY
LIST.
I have telephoned lo this fax removal service number but they do not pay any attention
therefore I am requesting that if you would do this for me I would very much appreciate
it. The fax number at my residence question is 312-540-1386. Enclosed are 3 junk
faxes which 1 do not want. The first one was dated 1-10-06 which I telephoned to but
they continue to send others Like one each week.
I am also bothered at my office with the same junk fax from the .same company and that
number is 312-782-1339 which I would also like to have removed ffom their list.
Many thanks for taking care of this for me. Again I regret to bother you 4 t h this when I
know that you have so many more national problems on "your plate" but you are doing a
great job for the country and for your fellow colleagues here in Illinois.
Richmd Hahn
- - 03/03/06 1 1 s . 3 FAX 312-886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @ I
004
FEB 2 1 2Q06
NITED STATES SENATOR'BARACK

OBAMA
CHICAGO OFFICE
r \ PRIVACY ACT RELEASE FORM I

The provisions of Public Law 93-579 (Privacy Act o f 1974) prohibit the disclosure of
information of a personal nature fkom the files of an individual without their consent.
Accordingly, I authorize the staff of Senator Barack Obama to access any and all of my
.-. -4-_
Date:
- - -_-_
'Fe'b'. 17, 200'6
. . A
- --
-
To begin processing your case, please complete the following information:
Richard J . Bahn Date OfBirth:
Ibmc:
,iddress: 3 6 0 E a s t R a n d o l p h S t r e e t U . n i t 1808
CJity: C h i c a g o State: IL zip:6060 1. Homc Phonc: 3 12-54.0-1 385
I?lnce of Work: J U E R G E N S AND A N D E R S E N C O .
Address: 5 5 East W a s h i n g t o n S t r e e t Suite 845
(Iity:C h i c a g o State: IL. Zip: 6 0 6 0 2
';NorkPhone; 3 1 2 - 7 8 2 - 5 1 0 0 Ernail Address: a d d a p e a r k a o l , corn
Social Security Number: Section 8 No:
,41ien Registration Number: FEIN No:
Branch Service: . Rank:
Ibiefly explain your problem or the information dcsircd: em O a e ':
my.'' 'me -
f a x n u m b e r o f 3 1 2 - 5 4 0 - 1 3 8 6 t o b e removed f r o m j,u,njc fgxes,- We_.-a.rq.
.-. . .-. - -&.he DO.,-N@T--CALL;'-E'fst 'but' t h i s ' d n e c'6$p-;n-?'-"'--'--
s e e m s - t o n o t pay a t t e n t i o n
t~ t h e i r own f a x r e m o v a l s e r v i c e a n d I c o n t i n u e t o receive t h e s e
unwanted f a x e s . ,Hopefully y o u ' c a n h a v e t h i s e n f o r c e d f o r m e f o r
-
-my .horns r a x number O X 3 1 2 3 4 0 L386 - and a l s o m y 2 f a x e s at m y
o f f i c e which are 312-782-0048 a n d ' 3 1 2 - 7 8 2 - 1 3 3 9 . You already
IULI UL
I
-# . ,.
L 1 L e IJJJ
Many t h a n k s , T h i s i s s l n c e r e l y appreciated,
.PLEASE RETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO ONE OF SEN. OBAMA'S STATE OFFICES:
230 S. Dearborn St., Sle. 3900 GO7 E.Adam St 721 N.Court Street
Chicago, l L 60604 Springficld, IL 62703 Marion, TL 62959
(3 12) 886-3514 -FX (217) 492-5099 - FX (61 8) 997-2850- FX
03/03/06 11:33 FAX 312 886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA a 005
E$Mlishrd 1859
JUERGENS G. ANDEKSEN GO.

P I T T S F I E L D EUI LO1N O
55 East Washington Streer Chicago, Illinois 60602-2193
(312)782-5100
-8333
1-800-621
Fw; (312) 782-6048 www.addepearl.com
F a : (312)782-1339 Email: addapesrl@aol,corn
Fcb'rwary 1 7 , 2006
O f f i c e o f Honorable S e n a t o r B a r a c k Obama
United' S t a t e s Senate.:
2 3 0 S . Dear'born S t r e e t
Chicago, IL 60604 . .
ATT: Us. J e n n a Pilar
Dear Jenna,
Many t h a a k s for your Lett,er' o f February 1 3 t h in r e p g y c t o

m y l e t t e r of January 30th. r e g a r d i n g the' unwanted r e c e i v i n g
o f junk f a x e s a t m y h o m e f a x residence n u m b e r o f 3 1 2 - 5 4 0 - 1 3 8 6 .
A s y o u r e q u e s t e d I h a v e enclosed t h e c o m p l e t e d form f o r t h e
P r i v a c y A c t R e l e a s e Form.
I: don't know if t h i s i s a "blanket t y p e " f o r m t h a t w o u l d

a p p l y t o any and all t y p e s o f junk faxes however h o p i n g that
i t d o e s , i f y o u c o u l d p l e a s e s e e t h a t m y , r ' e s i d e n c e f a x and my
two f a x numbers h e r e a t m y office .are adhered t o a s I d i d p u t
m y name on t h e NATIONAL D O N O T CALL LIST but I a m s t i l l p e s t e r e d
b y many of these.
H O M E FAX 312-540+1386
O F F I C E FAX 312-752-0048
O F F I C E FAX 312-782-1339
.. _.
J e n n a , I v e r y much a p p r , e c i a t e this help from y o u .
m
Control No. 060052 1/kah
Mr. Richard Hahn

Juergens & Andersen Co.
Pittsfield Building
55 East Washington Street
Dear Mr. Hahn:
Thank you for your letter to Senator Barak Obama regarding unsolicited facsimile
advertisements you are receiving. Specifically, you are concerned with the continued receipt
of such facsimile transmissions and ask for the Commission’s assistance in the matter.
Senator Obama forwarded your letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and requested
that they respond directly to you. The FTC forwarded your letter to us for handling.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was adopted in 1991 to restrict the
use of the telephone network for unsolicited advertising via telephone and facsimile. Pursuant
to the TCPA, the FCC adopted rules in 2003 to establish a national do-not-call registry for
consumers who wish to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls. Under the do-not-call rules,
telemarketers are prohibited, subject to certain exceptions, from contacting consumers who
have placed their telephone numbers on the national registry. While there is no similar “do-
not-fax” list to avoid unwanted facsimile messages, the TCPA prohibits the use of “any
telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to
a telephone facsimile machine. ” The TCPA applies only to those facsimile messages that
constitute “unsolicited advertisements, which are defined as “any material advertising the
commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to
any person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission, in writing or
otherwise.” See 47 U.S.C. 0 227(b)(l)(C) and 47 U.S.C. 0 227(a)(5). The statutory
prohibition applies to such advertisements sent both to residential and business facsimile
numbers.
On July 9, 2005, the President signed “the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005” (2005
Act), which amends the TCPA. Specifically, the legislation permits the sending of unsolicited
facsimile advertisements to individuals and businesses with which the sender has an established
business relationship (EBR) and provides a process by which any sender must cease sending
such advertisements upon the request of the recipient. The legislation also requires the
Commission to adopt rules implementing the 2005 Act within 270 days of enactment.
I ’I
Mr . Richard Hahn Page 2
Enclosed is a copy of the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) released on

December 9, 2005, in CG Docket No. 05-338, seeking comment on how best to implement
these requirements and update the Commission’s rules accordingly. We encourage you to
actively participate in this rulemaking proceeding to ensure that your opinions are expressed
and considered fully.
If you wish to file a complaint with the Commission, you will need to provide copies of
the facsimiles or provide the specific information identifying the name and telephone number
of the organization responsible for the transmissions. Complaints received by the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau regarding alleged TCPA violations are forwarded to the
Enforcement Bureau, which may take enforcement action against alleged violators. Although
the FCC does not resolve individual complaints, and cannot award monetary or other damages
directly to consumers, we do closely monitor such complaints to determine whether
independent enforcement action is warranted. Where the alleged violations involve non-
common carrier entities, the Communications Act requires the issuance of a warning citation
that informs the sender that it is in violation of the Communications Act, and describes the
monetary forfeitures that can result if the unlawful activity continues. As provided by the
Communications Act, if unlawful activity continues after this warning, the Enforcement
Bureau can initiate a forfeiture proceeding against the company. The Commission has issued
numerous citations against violators of the TCPA and the Commission’s unsolicited facsimile
advertising rules. (See the Enforcement Bureau’s web site at
http: //www. fcc .gov/eb/tcdlufax. html). These enforcement actions can eventually result in
monetary penalties of up to $11,OOO per violation.
marketing communications to which they object. You may also wish to note that, under the
TCPA, consumers may bring a private lawsuit in state court to recover damages, if otherwise
permitted by the state’s laws or rules of court.
We invite you to visit the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau’s Internet web site
at http://www. fcc.gov/cgb for additional information. The Commission has available an e-
mail service designed to apprise consumers about developments at the Commission, to
disseminate consumer information materials prepared by the Commission to a wide audience
and to invite comments from other parties on Commission regulatory proposals. This free
service enables consumers to subscribe and receive FCC fact sheets, consumer brochures and
alerts, and public notices, among other consumer information. To subscribe, you should visit
the FCC Consumer Registry at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/contacts/.
I
Mr. Richard Hahn Page 3
questions.
Sincerely,
A
Erica H. McMahon
Enclosures
cc: Senator Barak Obama
- 1
BARACK OBAMA COMMIll€€S
PUBLtC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
'Wnited statu %enate VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON. DC 20510
February 14,2006
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Room 8-C453
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received in my Chicago ofice from my constituent, Jean L.
Tribo. Attached you will find her letter which gives a more accurate description and explanation
of her issues.
contact Jehnifer Mason at 3 12-886-3506.
Sincerely,
,
, .- ~
I .
WASHINGTON OFFICE CHWGU OFFICE SPRlNGFiEw o-.. MIRION~FHCE

713 HARTSENATEOFFICEBUILDING 2305 DEARBDRN ' 607 EASTADAM 701 NORTH COURT STRWT
WASHINGTON,DC 20510 SUll€3900 ,' ' sum 1629 MARION, IL 62959
OFFICE (202) 224-2854 CHICAGOIL 60604 'SPRINGFIELD,IL 62701 OFFICE(618) 997-2402
FAX (202)2284260 OFFICE(312) 886-3506 OFFICE(2171 492-5890 FAX (618) 997-2650
FAX (312) 226-3514 FAX 1217) 492-5099
Dear Sir,
Now that rscnisrs make up the largest seetion of OUT population, wetre -
eomting on yeu t o aet OB one sf o u r e~merns.
We l i r e irm a 144 u n i t senior building where the owner i s getting a
mim. of #840 per w i t per molath whish ~ Q I K L I . t @a h s s t a m i l l i s m atad a
half a y e a r , The building i s about 25 years old, It has also been
soldseveral t i m e s i n the past f e w years ,
We reed your h e l p ! We have t f i e d f o r yuars to get seme kind ef affordable
eable Tv. Wconly get the loral Chirago stuff whish i s everhadcd with
~ l Z = t m a n l t % ~ ~ - - w G ~ ,
Tor years the message iB:'cwe*re working em i t " , "we're aranaliziplg i t m ,
f'the owner i s out sf the e o m t r y f r (er tewn). Saae story fsr TEARS. I
rake another s a l 1 lO-10-05, same s t o r y .
Abeut a year ago they.gave a sheet t s eash apartment if ~ Q wanted U te
have aable fox $40 a menth sign y@urnare amad turn I t in t o t h e effiee,
- _ __ - _ _
- - ___-~
I went
___-- to the h e a l. C o l s a s t Cable obfise, Thef said L
---____ 2CJ aprox0
__- - _- -
our- eo&$-;%- course the-4G-aade- meet swalors- ehazsge- their d a d .
have Qepies and 6- prove this,
I hare contaetek mother Garden Heuse i n Calumeg Cityc Ssae BQMP~,E~Y,
They have WOW cable, I called WOW, they do NOT s e m i e e Park Forest,
In m y opinion the bottom line seems t o be soaeomes bsnus or greased
palm. What else ?
But f o r now, befere the holiday season,,,PLEkSE PLEOSE PLEXSE have
your o f f i e e rall: 6 Kevin Maxsney
#etroplerp In@,
200 Eo Randolph S t ,
Suite 2100
Chiaago, 11, 606014432
31 2-726-5600
Cell 3 12-345-32 19
Please use the sell number because he islatt i n the s f f i e e mueh and they
give YOU the eel1 number.
If you f e e l we need o t h e r fasts t o reinfsree eur request, w e have a U s %
of other items that eeuld or should be a l b e s s e d ,
P&k F o r e i t , I1 60466
708 481-4042
October 13, 2005
For Your Attention PIXHE!
Now t h a t seniors a r e t h e l a r g e s t section oPeour population ( w t i n g ) , we're

counting on your help on one of o u r concerns.
We l i v e i n a 144 u n i t senior b u i l d i n g where t h e owner is g e t t i n g a min. of
$840 per u n i t PEE month which amounts t o a l a o s t a million and a half a year.
The b u i l d i n g i s about 25 years old. It has a l s o been s o l d several times i n
t h e p a s t few years, I am to16 b u t I cannot prove ( i n T r u s t ) t o *rinsidersm.
The r e s i d e n t s have t r i e d f o r yeass t o get some kind of affordable cable TV.
W e only g e t t h e l o c a l C h i c m TV which is overloaded with s p o r t s a04 our
make up i s about 90!% women. We do not c a r e f o r sports.
For y e a r s t h e message has been, "we're working on it:', w e ' r e annalizing itr,
"the owner i s out of t h e country o r townn. Then t h e classic..%allme i n 2 months.
I did c a l l 10-10-05, same story. I h o w f o r a fact that t h e several companies
sent t h e i r info almost a YEAR ago and he never ansuere$ them. A n o t i c e was
given t o each tenant about a year ago i f you wanted to sign up f o f cable
f o r #4O a month you should si@ t h e sheet and tun, it in. So I went t o
t h e l o c a l COMCAST o f f i c e here i n Park Forest. The cost f o r t h e seniors
would be i n t h e a r e a of $20 f o r b a s i c eable. That $40 put some people in
..
o r b i t they (we) a r e not a b l e t o pay t h a t but it did shut lsa~lyup.
Yesterrla$ I c a l l e d t h e other Garden House i n Calumet City 706-862-2311 they
a0 have'WOW cable-but she couldn'k sax how much they pay. So I calle-d WOW
and they do not service Park f o r e s t . My personal opinion says e i t h e r this
subject has some e f f e c t on maybe a- bonus or perhaps a nonataTy issue. This
is s t r i c t l y my opinion. But t h e holiday season i s real soon and PLEASE
PLIEbSE have your o f f i c e c a l l : Kevin Maroney
,
Metroplex I n c
200 E.Randolph S t ,
S u i t e 2100
Chicaw, 11. 60601-6432
312-726-5600
cell 31 2-345- 32 19
Please call t h e c e l l number because he i s n ' t i n t h e o f f i c e m c h so t h e y ' l l
just give you t h e c e l l number.
If you f e e l we need other facts t o r e i n f o r c e o u r request j u s t l e t me know,
we have a list.
Thank you very much.
r
_- Yours t r u l y ,
Jean L, Tribo
Garden House O f Park Forest Apt 605
69 Park St.
Park F o r e s t , I l l i n o i s 60466
708-481 -4042
Federal CommunicationsCommission
Washngton, D.C. 20554
April 19,2006
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0600686

230 South Dearborn
Suite 3900
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your follow-up letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Jean L. Tribo of
Park Forest, Illinois, regarding the cable television service that is available to the residents of her
apartment building. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
Commission records indicate that the Media Bureau responded to your inquiry on behalf
of Ms. Tribo on February 27,2006. For your information and review, I have enclosed a copy of
the Bureau’s response.
I hope that this information is helpfbl and please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be
of fbrther assistance.
Sincerely,
hh&dA.
Michael S. erko
Media Bureau
Enclosure
OBAMA Wnni / n i 2
CHICAGO OFFICE
URGENT REVIEW PLEASE C O m N T REPLY PLEASE RECYCLE
= = = = = - i
230 SOUTH D E A R D O R N S U I T E 3 9 0 0 CHICAGO, IL 6 0 6 0 4

P H O N E 3 1 2 886-3506 F A X 3 1 2 8 8 6 - 1 5 1 4
R E C E I V E D TIME JVl. 5. 4 : 1 4 P M PRINT TIME JUL. 5. 4:20Pwi

07/'05/06 15:41 FAX 312 8 8 6 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
___. ___ ---..-..-. - @lOO2/012
COMMITIEES.
ILLINOIS PUBLICWORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Wnitd statu Senate VETERANS' AFFAIRS
June 29,2006
Diane Alkinson
Congres,sionalLiasion Specialist
445 Twelfth Street, SW, room 842445
Dear Ms.Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received in my Chicago office from my constituent, Richard
Hahn.,4ttached you will find his letter which gives a more accurate description and explanation
of his issues. Please consider that this is a follow-up on the status of Mr. Hahn's complaint-
lema Pilat, who assists me in these matters, of your findings.
contact Jenna Pilat at 3 12-886-3506.
Sincere1y,
Senator Rarack Obama

CC: BO/jp
WCSMINOSONOFFICE CMICAOO OFFlCS

SVNNOFELD MARION &FP3 QUAD m m OFFUC
713 HARTSENATE:OWICE BUILDING 230 5 DEARDOnN 807 EST ALSAMB 101 NORTH CWUT STREET 1 Dl 1 5ZND AVENLE
WnsnlNGTON. DC 2051 0 Sun'€ 3900 SUITE 1520 MAAION. I 1 62959 MOLINE. IL 61265
OFFICE (201) 224.285d Cnicnco, IL 60604 IL 82701
SPFWGFICLO. OFFICE (618) 997-2402 OWICE(309)7961217
FAX (202) 22&4160 OFFICE (312)8 8 w 6 0 6 OFFICE (217) 432-5890 FAX 1818) 9 9 7 - Z S O F a (3W) 738-1233
FA* 1312)B E M 5 1 4 Fax (2171 492-6099
RECEIVED TIME JUL. 5. 4 : 1 4 P M PRINT TIME Jirl. 5, 4 : 2 0 P M

_^-_
II_-- ~ I_.I ___
07/05/06 15:41 FAX 312 8 5 6 3514 SENATOR BARbCK OBAMA
__-. --- -. - - @l003/012
UNITED STATES SENATOR'BARACK

OBAMA
CHICAGO OFFICE
E \ PRIVACY ACT RELEASE FORM I

'.b prov%iongof Public Law 93-579 (privacy Aot of 1974) prohibit the dkdosute of
information of a personal nature M m the files of an individual witbout their c a w n t .
Acoodns&, I authorize thc s t d of Senator Bmack Ob- to access any and aU o f my
-
T o begin processiug your case, please complete the following inhrmation:
Namc: RichardD J . Rahn a w ofBirth:
&bm69: 360 East Randolph S t r e e t Unit € 8 9 8
Gilty: Chicago State; IL zip;6060L H ~ f i ~ c : 3 1 . 2 - 5 4 0 - 1 3 8 5
17lrice o f Work; JUEPGENS AND ANDERSEN CO .
iwlrcss: 5 5 East Waehingeon S t r e e t Suite 845
city:Ch i ca g o state: IT. Zip; 6 0 6 0 2
'Work Phom: 3 1 2 - 7 8 2 - 5 1 0 0 Email Adbess: a d d a o e a r h a o l corn .
:Sc~c.ialSecurityNumbex: Seotion 8 No:
,%lienRedsh-ationNumber; FEZN No:
Bmnch Sarvice: - Ra&
Briefly explain your problum or the -ib6amtiolr dc&ed: r'myi.*hame -
f a x n u m b e r of 312-540-1386 t o be removed from lu,n_k f a ~ a a . - ~ ~ . , a t e..
s a 0 D O - . M T - C A L L 'Efst ' b u t -this'o n e 6 6 m i b - a n y - ~ ~ m mt o m o t p a y attention
--
t o f h e t r own f a x removal s e r v i c e and I c o n t i n u e t a r e c e i v e t h e s e
unwanted f a x e s . - H o p e f u l l y p o u ' e a n have t h i s a n f o r c e d f o r m e f o r
.-u,y h o m e rax qurnber o f ~ L c 34u Z -
ll8b ana also m y 2 r axes a t m y
o f f i c e w h i c h are 3 1 2 - 7 8 2 - 0 0 4 8 a n d 312-782-1339, You already
c
L V I LIIL u UUUtrePrblCb LLVYI W O U B
thanks, T h i s ts sincerely a p p r e c i a t e d ,
,PlLWE RE"YOUR COMPLETED EOhM TO ONE OF SEN. OBAMA'S STATE OFPLCES:

230 S. Dearbcrm St., Sk. 3900 607 E.A h u a St 721 N.Court Smcc
IChicago, L 606M Springfintd, U,62703 Morion, lL 62959
1:3 12) 886-3514 -I% (217) 492-5099 - PX (61 8) 991-2850 -FX
- R E C E I V E D TIME-JU!. 5,-' 4 : 14PM

.- *.--.
PRINT TIM.E'"JU1.
....I
5.
_._....,,.-,,..*----
4 : 20PM
-.-.---..- .
07/05/06 15:42 FAX 312 886 3514 SENATOR OBAMA,,
___-. - -- - BARACK
.- - @l004/012
Jan. 30,2006
Honmble Senator Barack Obama

230 Scruub Dcarborn S t r a t
Chicago, lL 60604
Dear Honorable S e W r 0
-
S o a y to b o t h you with such a d problem howsvet I am not able to gst anytbipg

accomplished myself so 1 haw to cdl on you for some hdp.
l%blern Is junk fEutes sent to my home fax m h h e which is b a bedroom and it is

distcul6ng ta p p l c sleeping in that room, what with these fat- coming through at early
burs of the momhg. h addhion I am on the aatiocu3 DO NOT CALL ReGISTRY
LIST.
I have telephoned to this fax ranowd &a number but they do not pay arry Wemiion
tharehre I am requesting tbar if you would do this for me I would very much apprechte
it. The numbcr at m y residence in quesaion is 312-540-1386. Enclosed are 3 junk
faxes which I do not want, Thc one was dated 1-1046 wihicb I tdqhoned to but
they continue to ~ m otheR
d likc one w h week
I am also bdmred at my of0ce with the w n e junk f b c %om the same company and that
numbcr is 312-782-1339 which1 would also like to havc mnoved from thtir lid.
Many than& fm taking cam of this for me. Again I ragrat to bother you with rhis when 1
know that you have BO many mare ~ t i o problems
d on YoUr plate” but you aze doing a
grcat job for thc country add far your fellow colleagues bac in Illinois.
_-_. .- - . . .-...- .<-- __I-.- --

- ---
R E C E I V E D TIME-JUi. 5. 4:14PM PRINT TIME JUL, 5. 4 : 2 0 F M
l_----l_l_l__-.I- _ *
l_
----- -”- - _II----
- l-^_l_ll
I - -
07/05/06 15:42 FAX 312 8 8 6 3514
_-.- --- ,
@005/012
Eirablirbrd JBS4
JUERGENS 6 ANDERSEN GO.

PIT'I'S FI EL D I3 U ILD IN G
55 Easl Washington Street Chicago, Illinois 606024193
(312)782-5100
I -800-621-a333
Fax' (312) 782-0048 www.sddawarl,com
F a ;(312) 782-1339 E-mall: addapearlQaol.com
June 23,2006
Honiorable Senator Barack Obama

Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Honorable Senator Obama,
Earliier this year I had some correspondence and a few phones fiom your Jenna Pilat
regarding me receiving junk mail faxes that I do not wish to receive. Each time T have
called the fax removal number to cancel these faxes----but it appears that this entire fax
removal number system is a scam and no way to stop these faxes. I wrote to you several
times regarding this and all I received was some long forms to fill out from the Federal
Communications Commissions. I did fill them out and returned them but apparently
there i s no real enforcement of this or the laws. Looks l i e no penalty at all for the
continucd viol atom
I'll try again. This time I have separated the faxes. The fax entitled 'HOT NEW
STOCKS' I have called rcpeatedly on 6/16/06-6/16/06--snd 6/20/06but it i s too no
avail. The fax entitled ' HOT NEW STOCK ALERT' I did call on 6/15/06. The next
one called 'UNDERVALUED STOCKS" was just received and I probably will not call
as it appears to be a waste of my time.
Jenna-the fax numbers that T would l i e removed are: 312-540-1386------312-782-1339

andl 3 12-782-0048-
T hiwe also been on the do not call registry for quite some time now however I still do
recleive some unwanted junk phone calls on our 3 12-782-5100. As soon as I tell the
person that 1 am on the "do not call list" they hang up and as I do not have caller ID, I
have no way to track it back.
It really seems criminal that one person who desires their own private "down timc" in
their very own residence has to be continually abused by these faxes and with laws that
seem to have no meaning or enforcement.
Like 1 said, 1 have written to you and Senator Ob- several times now and while I
surely do not intend this statement to be sarcastic or dis-respectful in any way to the
RECEIVED TIME Jiii. 5. 4 : 1 4 F M

07/05/08 - FAX 312 886 3514
15:42 - -
SENATOR -OBAMA
BARACK @l006/012
Eimblirbd 1834
JUEKGENS 8 ANDERSEN GO.

la ITTS F IE L 0 B U I I” D ING
55 East Washlngton Street Chicago, Illinois 60602-2193
(312) 782-5100
1-800-621-8333
FEN: (312) 782-0048 www.addapearl.com
F ~ X(31
: 2) 782-1 333
E-mail; addapoarl0aol.com
Sen;3tor, I would have to say that it actually frightens me greatly ro think what would
happen to our country should Senator Obama be elected President ofthe United States if
he cannot stop a few simple faxes.
It is hard to believe that you cannot stop these faxes. In addition, I don’t see why I have
to fill out a ‘kern” of paperwork which has no “teeth” in it anyway.
Like my son always says ‘%hevictims really get victimized.”
Jema, I hope that you can help me out and stop these junk faxes.
Richard Hahn
RECEIVED TIME JUL. 5. 4:14FM P R I N T TIME JUL. 5. 4:19PM

- - - ~ - ~ “I--
I _
07/05/06 15:42 -
__- FAX 312 886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA B.007 / 01 2
Tn I From) Hot New Stocks 4-22-06 9:ziam p,
Dear Fellow Tnvestors: Reasons to buy this stock:

Over GO inillion Americans LISB Gnlinb dating services. The inen and 1, We Anticipate LVTl could rise to a target price of f6,OO over the
women in America ttiat &A single or divorced. are looking for love or just next few months. At this level. hls would represent a profil
dates with different p~?ople. return of nearly 1000% over today's price.
Online dating ailoid/s inen nnd'wonren atrass the world to seaich in detail Luvoo.com will offer ib sewice for FREE for up to 12 inonths
for a prospective love match with the same interests . Everyday, more sdding to its subscriber base daily! Luvoo ankicipates signing
men end vvorneii ar8 signing up with different online dating websites and LIP at least 3 million free users through ils Celebrity endorsed
services to avoid the hassles encountered when ssarching In bars and national awareness campaign, Luvao will eventuelly convert
night clubs. its subscriber base lo "Paid Users" and should generate
revenues up to $30 million per month ,... HUGE REVENUES!
Most /ikeiy you yourself are single or divorced and probably use one
or more dating welbsites in search of that opecial someone for YOU! 3, There is a trblnendoils deinand in the dating lnduslry for online
Are you tired of those same old bar flies that iflf8S? the clubs you datiiia services due lo the OonveniBnce for today's working
visit? You Know the ones ......the ones you see every time you visit individuals
~
&at same club or Irar.......dating selections a n much better online!

4. While there aie inany online dating sites on the web -- only a
few are direct competilors to Luwoo.com (examples include
Come and JOIN Luvoo.com (LVTI) its FREE ehariflOr7y.CGiTl, inatch.com, and AFF.coin) Only two
Most senices charge a monthly fee rrangiiv from S12.Y9 to $29.85.

others are publicly traded companies.
-Luveo.com
. (LVTI) is FREE, up to !he first 12 month$ CARMEN
ELECTRA is NOW Luvoo's Celebilly Spokesperson, Cai inen Eleclra's L
notoriety will make Luvoo.com a household name LVTl uses the same
Rnancial model as holmail.corn where the SUbscribel'G model IS FREE but
advertisers pay BIG MONEY to advertise. NET-ZERO used this same
mode\ then converted its subscriber base to paying customers and its now
groa,sing $inulti-inill,ions per rnmthl With over 60 iiJllion online U"J e r S , we
believe our consumer and m m i v e celebrity awsreriess campaigns will
generate a Ininirnucn of 5% inarkel share (net}resulting in approkimately
30 million dollars in revenue per month (based on an estimated S9.95 Since bnnqit'lci on Carinen Electia a; Its Celebrity spokeapeison, LVTl's
scrhao-ipfion fee. which is significant/y lower than its competitiot~). w B L e ISb m q inundated wlth new subsaibers that are flocklnq Lo stqn
Addiiionai revalue from adverhsars will inake luvoo a literal cash Cow .... UP on Luvoo.com The Stock hag. steadilv aarned more and more
momentum 8s the Share Price coritlrliies Lo increase in value alinosl dailv
We strongly recommend LVTl and is axoected to hade in the millions of shares Der day a$ Luvoo hits
the national airwaves1 LVTI could someday hit a share orice of that of
About the company: Match corn trading at over $24 00 Der share1 "DON'T MISS OUT on L ul
Luvoo.com has astablishad ai) affiliate biJsiiV3ss opporlunlty In which
Individu-,ls, busineoses, and espacially web masters can join and make
rr;oii?.y a r d lois clf it when they refer members lo Luvoo.com. Oiiliiif
dating is one of ;he fastest growing areac d the Internet. WIth 60,900,000
singles, divorce rates at 50%, and people wsnting to make money, Luvoo
should succeed, Luvoo has filed its Provisional Patent With the
United States Pistent and Trademark Office for iQ unique concept,
"The Luvoo datiiia Cards". "Verified Member" and far !echnoloav. its
unlque "Instant FlOtifier".
, 0 - I udA LIDO
members. a/7d rnvsDace.com. a glace b rtralte frierlds aitd find dates has
well over 76.000, @GO rnernberS cifrrentlv and qrowinq each day.
RECEIVED TIME JUL. 5. 4 ; 1 4 ~ ~

07/05/08 15:43 FAX 312 886 3514
_____-- --.- - -SENATOR
- ..' BARACK , -
OBAMA
-. ----- a008/012
To; From; Hot New Stocks 6-19-06 b37arn p, 1 of 1
Dear- Felllow Investors: Reasous to buy this stock:

Over GO inillion Amielicans USE! online dating services, The men and 1. We Anticipate LVTl could rise to a target price of S6.00 over the
women in America that single or divorced. are loaking for love or just next few months. At this level, this would t'epleS8nt a profit
dates with different people. return 07 nearly 1OOOOh ovet today's price.
Online dating allow?; nien and wolnen across the world to search in delall Luvoa.com will offer its service for FREE for up to 12 months
far a prospective love ma!ch with the same interests , Everyday, more adding to its subscriber base daily! luvoo anticipates signing
men and women are signing up with different online dating websites and up at least 3 million free users through its Celebrity endorsed
services 13 avold Lhe hassles encountered when searching In bar3 and national mraeness cainpaign, Luvoo will eventually convert
iiight clubs. its subscriber base to "Paid Users" and should generate
MostliXely you yoiirself are single or divorced and probably use one
revenues up to 530 million per month .... HUGE REVENUES!
or more dating websites in search of that special someone for you! 3. There is a Ireinendous deinand in the datinq Industry for onllne
Are you tired of I'hose same old bar flies #?at infest the clubs you datinq services due to the convenience for today's workinq
visit? You know the ones ......the ones you see every Lime you visit individuals.
that same club or bar ... .... dating selections are muoh befteronlinel
4. While lhere are many online datlflg sites on the web --
only a
few are direct coinpetlters to Luvoo.com (examples include
Come and JOIN Luvoo.com (LVTI) its FREE eharinony.com, inaIch.com, and AFF.coin) Only ("VI0
Most services sharge a monthly lee ranging from $12.99 to $29.95.

Luvoo.com jLWl';i_s FREE, up t6 the first 12 months! CARMEN
ELECTRA is NOW Luvoo's Celebrity Spokesperson. Carillen Electra's
notoriety will make Luvoo.com a hoimhold name. LVTl uses the same
financlal inadel as ho1lnail.coin where h e subscribers model is FREE but
model then cciiverled its subscriber base to paying customers m d its ilow
.-g1-osaii.ig Smultl-mil,iiono per month! With over 60 inillion online users, we
believe our consumer and mmsive celebrity awareness campaigns will
generale a !Mimuin of 5% market share (net) resulling in approxilnately Investment considerations:
30 million dollars in revenue per month (baseu on an el'drnafed 39.95 Since brinqina on Carinen Eleclra as its Celebritv spokesperson, LVTl's
scibscription fee, which is sigMca,ntly lower than ik c o n 7 , ~ i t i t i ~ ) . website is beinq inundeted with new subscribers that are flocking lo sian
Addltlonal revenue froin advertisers will make Iuuoo a lileral cash cow .... UD on Luvoo.com. The stock has steadily gained more and more
momentum as the Shale P i c e iontirues t3 increase in value Olinosr daily
We strongliy recommend LVTI al?d is expected to trade ij7 the millions of shares per day gs LU\W hits
!ho nafional airwaves! LVTl could $.omedw hit a share mice of that of
About the colmpany: Match.com tradina at over $2,4.0@IXIShare! "DON'T MISS OUT on LVTl!
Luvoo.com ha3 established an affiliale business opportunity in which
individuals, businssses, and especially web masters can join and make
money and lcts of it when they refer members to Luvoo.com. Online
dating is one of the fastest growing areas of the Internet. 'Wth 60,000,005
singles. divorce rates at 50%. and people wanting to make money, Luvoo
should succeed. Luvoo has filsd its Provisional Patent wia the
United States Patent and Trademark Office for its unique concept,
'The L w o o datinq Cards". "Verified Member" and for technolow its
unique "Instant IJotifier". Adulth-iendfinder corn has well Over 8.OC)O,COO
members. a/id rrjys/Jqce.com.a /&CS to make fn'e/Tdsand find dgtes has
well over 75,000,000 members ctrrently and irowinq each day.
RECEIVED TIME JUL. 5, 4 ; 7 4 ~ ~ P R I N T TIME JUL, 5, 4:19FM,

07/05/06 1 5 : 4 4 FAX 312 8 8 6 3514
___-- - - - SENATOR
- -----BARACK OBAMA
- @I009/012
From: Hot NBN Stocks 6-16-06 1 1 : 2 9 ~ a. 1 of 1
TO:
773 4 3 3 7
HOT NEW STOCKS
'(CarmenElectra and Lavoo.com"
A MATCH MADE IN HEAVEN
You can't afford to miss this Ground Floor Opportunity!
Dear Fellow Tnvestors: Reasons to buy this stock:

Over 60 inillion Americans use online dating services. Most
of these services charge a monthly fee ranging from $12.99 1. We Anticipate LVTI could rise to a target price of
to $29.95, I-uvoo.com (LVTI) is FREE, up to the flrst 12 $6.00 over the next few months. At this level, this
months! Wkh Carmen Electra as the new celebrity would represent a profit return of over 1000% over
spokesperson. Luvoo.com uses the same financial model today's price.
as hotmail.com where the subscribers model is FREE with
celebrity endorsement. With over 60 million online users we
believe our consumer and aelebrity awareness campsigns 2. Luvoo.com Inc's operations will not be affected by
will generate a minimum of 5% market share (net1 resulting seasonality
in approximately 30 inillion dollars ih revenue per month
(based on an estimated $9.95 subscription fee, which is 3. T h q
significantly lower than its competition). Additional revenue industry for onllne datina ce rvicev due to me
from advertisers will make luvoo e, literal cash COW. ... convenieme for today's working individuals.
4. While there are many online dating sites on the web

We strongly recommend LVTI -.
only a few are direct compstitors to Luvoo.com
(examples include eharmony.com, match.com, and
AFF.corn) Only two others are
About the company: publicly traded companies.
Luvoo.com ha6 established an affiliate business opportunity

in which individuals, businesses, and e6pecially web masters Publicly Traded -
can join and make money and lots of it when they reler
members to Luvoo.com. Online dating is one of the fastest
Online Dating Business
growing areas of the Internet. With 60,000,000 Singles,
divorce rates at 50%, and people wanting to make money,
Matchconi (lf\CI) ,, ... $23.70u ofooW~kl6
Luvoo should succeed. Luvoo has filed its Provisional Anrer'icaii Singles& ..,....\qiO.C)O:,,,,ro~,~~lvo~
Patent wlth the Unlted States Patent and Trademark
O f c e for its unique concept, "The Luvoo datina Cards", Tnvcstmcn t cansidcrations:
"Verified Member" and for technolosv, its unique "Instant
Notifier". Adultfriendfltlder.com has well over 8.000.000
members, and myspac;e.com, a place to make friends and
find dates has well over 75,000,000 members currently and
growina each day,
07/05/00 15:44 FAX 312 8 8 6 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
--- - ----- , _---..- - @I010/012
m, From: Hot New Stocks / 6-20-06 9:05am p . 1 of 1
Dear Fellow Tnvestors: Reasons to buy this stock;

Over GO inlllion Americans use online daling services. The inen and 1. We Anticipate LVTl could rise to a target price of $6.60 over the
women in America that single or divorced, are looking for love or just next few months. At this level, this would represent a profit
dates with different people, return of nearly 1000% over today's price.
Online dating allows inen and woinen across the world to search in detall Luvoo.com will offer its service for for up to 12 rnanths
for a prospecticfe love match with the same interests . Everyday, more adding to its subscriber base deily! Lwoo anticipates signing
men and women are signing up with different online dating websites and up 81 least 3 million free users through its Celebrity endorsed
services tG avoid the hassles encountered when searching in bars and naUonJ awareness campaign, Luvaa will eventually convert
night c! ubs. ite subscriber base to "Paid Users" and should Generate
revenues up to $30 million per month .... HUGE REVENUES!
Most likely you yourself ate single or divbrced and probably use one
or more dadng websites in search of that special someone lor YOU! 3. There is a trainendolls demand in the datinq industry for online
Are you tired ef those same old bar flies that infest the clubs you datina sewices due to the convenience for tqdav's workinq
visit? Ybu koow the ones...... the ones you see every time you vislt ipiividuals.
tbatsame club or bar.,._ _ _ _ dadng selections ere muuh betteronline!
4. While there are many online dating sites on the web -- only a
few are direct coinpebtors to Luvoo.com (examples inclLide
Come and JOIN Luvoo,com (LVTI) its FREE eharlnony.com, inatch.cotn, and AFF coin) Only two
Most services charge a monthly fee ranging from $12.99 to $29.95.

Luvoo.com (LVTI) i s FREE, up to the first 12 months! CARMEN
ELECTRA is NOW Luvoo's Celebrlty Spokesperson. Carinen Electra's
notoriety will make Luvoo.com a household name. LVTl uses the same
financial inodel as hottnail.com where the subscribers model Is FREE but
model !hen corrverted its subscriber bese to paying customers end its now
grossing $inu\ll.millions, per month! Wlul over DO inillion online users, we
believe our consumer and massive celebrity awareness campaigns will
- - - - a initiiinuin of 5% market share (nel) resulting In approxilnately
aenerale
a
30 million dollars in revenue Der month'(b&ed on i n esfikared 59.95
sdxcription fee, which is significantly lower than Its competiiion).
Additional revenue froin advertisers v~iilmake luvoo a litbra1 cash COW ....
We strongly recommend LWl

About the company:
Luvoo.eom has established an affiliate business opportunity in whlch
Individuals, businesses, and especially web masters can join and make
money and lclts of it when hey refer members to Luvoo.com. Online
daling is one Iof the fastest growing areas of the Inlernet. With GO,OOO,OOO
singles, divorce rates at 50%, and people wanting lo make money, Luvoo
should succeed. Luvoo has filed its Provisional Patent with the
United States Patent and Trademark OPlice for its unique concept,
"The L w o o dalina Cards", "Verified Member" and for technolow. its
unique "InstantNotifrer". Adu~iendfinder.corn has well over 8,WO.OoO
members. and rnvsPace.com. E) Dlace to make friends arid fhrl dates has
well over 75, iJoO,OOO members ciirrently and qrowinq each daL.
RECEIVED TiME J U L , 5, 4;14PM
.._ - -c .. .--l__-l,___^_ "
07/05/06 15:45 FAX 312 886 3514 SENATOR
-- BARACK
- OBAMA @l011/012
[=?tion: Subscribers, Brokers, and Sawy lnuestors JWJW,

20.2066
It hes been kng uaderstoad thel Man can wrvivC without b o d for W s end wilhout
water for days, but only minutes m'thwt oxygen.
Undervalued Stocks Presents OK PINK (NHYB)
Rating: five .Stars

them been Iomg understood thet M e n The US Food and Drug NVESTMENT HlGHLloMTS
AdminlsMtron (FDA) has
:an survive without food for weeks approved HBOT to treat
and' widhout watw tor days, but only QecomOresslonsickness,
ninures without oxygen. gangrene, braln abscess, air
Dubbh In Me Mood, and
The imiracle of hyperbarictrtstment is lnjuries in W c h Ossue6 am
,rin!jng healing and h o p ~b mlllkms aC not get~ng-ugh oxygtn.
IlaDieUca and stroke patl6inm around the Claims about the alternmtw
:ountry and around the world. National use of HBOT include hat ~t
4ypt:rbaric Rehab Center is at the forefrOn1 e1 destroys etseaseeusing
r115medical revolutiow mcroorgansrrs, helps
cancers path&, allerktes
chronic fatigue syndrome,
D%yrgenis the basis for life It has lmg been and decreasesallergy
Jnderstood that healing cannot be achieved symptoms, A few SupwrterY
ktthi~vtsulklent orygon levels in the body's also claim char HBOI helpr
tlssues,where most illnesses and injuries occur paUents wrrh AIDS, arthritii,
and often Ihger. Hyperbark oxygen not only spans injurlas, mukiple
provides this osygen naturally. but it does 60 sderesls, auhsm, sadte,
#iRuJ(y rrsk-free cerebral palsy, senllHy.
clnhoots. Lyme disease,
Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) is a gasuolntesanalulcers and
non--invasiwprocedure. The palienl breathes many other chrmlc
1OVL oxygen whue in a chamber pressurized to diseases.
greaiter-than-normalahrrPopheric p-ure
HBCIT is a wt-muneea, wll-researched and In a recent press release they
accepted h h n d a g y assisting in the trcatmsnt c announce a Texas Partnarship
certuin diff~~dt.
p t m s h t , ~ o d ory otherwise k e r ofIntent had been
hopeless clinical problems. slgnea by all parws concernec
and mdudes speck
requirements far the Texas
How it works: Pemrs b prpvlde 60
The use d hVperbancoxygen bwan all the war hOSp6alS under c o n M wtl
back m !he 1 r n S for t m h n g dampression NHRC wWn the next fwe
r-dtness in divers A nm-invasiw procedure.
HBOT pressurizw oxygen, p i n g patients 10
years. The Letter oflntmralso
i c l u d Q i ; a requiremmtto
,
trmc~ the nomet oiygm intake kvel The ertm prow& Ule necessary
oxynen dissohm into the bbodstream and 18 expanslan capital to *ilkate
qukkly transported to areaa ol the body suflerin the equipment purchW,
aryigen depnvabon, such as Lhcse wlm damage hospital build-wts, and lnlllal
I~siueor poor cwculaton. The Increased oxygen operating expense tor each
lovc?lshave been shown to dramatcally enhenc acquired hospital)ocnl Yenwre.
the g r d h of new blood ressek, dadrey harmf Each hospital p n t venture k
bacterra, increase the abtMy ol whlte bload projectedto hare the potenlrrl
to generate mare than
Savvy lnvectorrr Strike when the tron is hot w45,oOo gmbs revenue per
and wlth N m B It Is jwt Stamng Io bl2lle month al full tzapaclty
R E C E I V E D T I M E JUL. 5. 4:14PM PRINT TIME JUL. 5. 4:19PM

,
07/05/08
, _.--
15:45 FAX 312 886
---.------. -. __ SENATOR-..--.-BARACK
-__.
OBAMA 012/012
JUL 2 4 2006

Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Richard Hahn, providing
copies of the unsolicited facsimile advertisements he is receiving. Mr. Hahn is concerned
with the continued receipt of such facsimile transmissions and asks for the Commission’s
assistance in the matter. We are sensitive to the concerns that Mr. Hahn has raised and as
noted below, we have referred his complaints to the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau.
As you are aware, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was adopted in
1991 to restrict the use of the telephone network for unsolicited advertising via telephone and
facsimile. Pursuant to the TCPA, the FCC adopted rules in 2003 to establish a national do-
not-call registry for consumers who wish to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls. Under the do-
not-call rules, telemarketers are prohibited, subject to certain exceptions, from contacting
consumers who have placed their telephone numbers on the national registry. While there is
no similar “do-not fax” list to avoid unwanted facsimile messages, the TCPA prohibits the use
of “any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited
advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine. The TCPA applies only to those facsimile
”
messages that constitute “unsolicited advertisements, which are defined as “any material
”
advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is
transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission, in
writing or otherwise.” See 47 U.S.C. 0 227(b)(l)(C) and 47 U.S.C. 0 227(a)(5). The
statutory prohibition applies to such advertisements sent to both residential and business
facsimile numbers.
On July 9, 2005, the President signed “the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005” (2005
Act), which amends the TCPA. The legislation permits the sending of unsolicited facsimile
advertisements to individuals and businesses with which the sender has an established business
relationship (EBR) and provides a process by which any sender must cease sending such
advertisements upon the request of the recipient. On April 5, 2006, the Commission amended
its rules to implement the provisions of the 2005 Act. Specifically, the rules allow fax
advertisements to be sent to parties with whom the sender has an EBR; require the sender to
provide clear and conspicuous notice and contact information on the first page of a fax that
allows recipients to “opt-out” of future fax transmissions from the sender; and require senders
to honor opt-out requests within 30 days. Enclosed is a copy of the Commission’s recent
order.
The Honorable Barak Obama Page 2
Mr. Hahn’s correspondence relating to this matter will continue to be handled as a

TCPA complaint. Complaints received by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
regarding alleged TCPA violations are forwarded to the Enforcement Bureau, which may take
enforcement action against alleged violators. Although the FCC does not resolve individual
complaints, and cannot award monetary or other damages directly to consumers, we do closely
monitor such complaints to determine whether independent enforcement action is warranted.
Where the alleged violations involve non-common carrier entities, the Communications Act
requires the issuance of a warning citation that informs the sender that it is in violation of the
Communications Act, and describes the monetary forfeitures that can result if the unlawful
activity continues. As provided by the Communications Act, if unlawful activity continues
after this warning, the Enforcement Bureau can initiate a forfeiture proceeding against the
company. The Commission has issued numerous citations against violators of the TCPA and
the Commission’s unsolicited facsimile advertising rules. (See the Enforcement Bureau’s web
site at http://www .fcc.gov/eb/tcd/ufax.html). These enforcement actions can eventually result
in monetary penalties of up to $11,OOO per violation.
marketing communications to which they object. Mr. Hahn may also wish to note that, under
the TCPA, consumers may bring a private lawsuit in state court to recover damages, if
otherwise permitted by the state’s laws or rules of court.
questions.
Sincerely,
P Axr 4 4.
Erica H. McMahon
Enclosures
/%
BARACK OBAMA
ILLINOIS
4y
,& COMMITrEES:
ENVIRONMENT AND
&'
r2"*
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
June 27,2006
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received in my Chicago office from my constituent, Mr.
Gordon N. Skul. Attached you will find his letter which gives a more accurate description
and explanation of his issues.
Sincerely,

WASHINGTON OFFICE CHICAGO OFFICE SPRINGFIELD OFFICE MARION OFFICE MOLINE OFFICE
713 HARTSENATEOFFICEBUILDING 230 s. DEAR0ORN 607 EASTADAM?. 701 NORTHCOURT STREET 1911 52NDAVENUE
WASHINGTON,DC 20510 SUITE 3900 SUITE 1520 MARION, IL 62959 MOLINE. IL 61265
OFFICE(202) 224-2854 CHICAGO,IL 60604 SPRINGFIELD,IL 62701 OFFICE(618) 997-2402 OFFICE(309) 73&1217
FAX (202) 228-4260 OFFICE(312) 886-3506 OFFICE(217) 492-5089 FAX (618) 997-2850 FAX (309) 7361233
FAX (312) 8863514 FAX (217) 492-5099
-.., - \'a,
GORDON N. SKUL
P.O. BOX 521
CRETE, IL 604 17
THE HONORABLE BARACK OBAMA

230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET
SUITE 3900
CHICAGO, IL 60604
The Honorable Barack Obama June 9,2006
Suite 3900
Chicago, 1L 60604
Dear Senator Obama:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you and share my concern about arbitrary and capricious enforcement by the
FCC in Amateur Radio Service. The FCC's definition of the Amateur Radio Service is: "A radiocommunication
service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that
is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technology technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary
interest." Probably the best-known aspect of Amateur Radio in the public eye is its ability to provide life-saving
emergency communications when normal means of a contact are down. It is hardly unusual for an amateur to have
invested thousands of hours of his time and many thousands of dollars in setting up and maintaining his radio station,
without any pecuniary benefit.
Attached hereto are three letters which I recently received from FCC Enforcement Bureau Special Counsel, W. Riley
Hollingsworth. In addition to the letter the FCC addressed to me, a copy of the letter which the FCC sent to another
amateur, operator of W9BCL, and a copy of a complaint against W9BCL by an amateur, operator of KC4PE, are
enclosed.
Operator of W9BCL, John H. Polzin, in his response to the letter from the FCC alleging interference to the operator
of KC4PE, stated, "I have trouble with WB9BCL using my call sinnce (sic) 1985." This is a totally groundless,
wanton, and blatantly false accusation. My use of Polzin's call sign, which would actually be a violation of the
Commission's rules, wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. Firstly, I have held the "Extra" class license, which
allows maximum amateur privileges, for thirty years. FCC records indicate that since 1985 Polzin has held a more
restrictive "General" class license. In his response to the FCC, Polzin stated that he has not been on the "20 meter"
band for 10 years. For decades, my amateur activity (radiotelephone, SSB modulation) has been exclusively in the
"Advanced" and "Extra" segments of the "20 meter" band -- where Polzin has not been authorized to operate with his
"General" class license. In addition, since amateurs are required to identify their call signs at least every ten minutes
during a communication, the repeated use of someone else's call sign over a twenty one year period -- particularly in
the segment of the band where that call sign is unauthorized -- would certainly have been noticed by numerous
amateurs. The FCC has at numerous times expressed the expectation that the Amateur Service be largely self-
regulated; thus, a flagrant violation of the rules such as the repeated use of someone else's call sign in an
unauthorized segment of the band would not be left unreported for long. The call sign of an amateur station, class of
license, license privileges, and the name of the operator is public information, which is readily available on the
Internet. Prior to Polzin's false accusation, in his response to the FCC enforcement letter alleging interference, there
had not been a single indication of any kind that anyone, including Polzin, had filed any complaints about my use of
someone else's call sign. Thousands of amateurs world-wide know and recognize my name, my voice and associate
it with my own call sign, WB9BCL, which has for thirty years been authorized for use in the "Advanced" and
"Extra" segments of the "20 meter" band. Interestingly, prior to Polzin's false accusation, I had no encounter or
experience of any kind with Polzin and have never communicated with him. Significantly, the FCC did not bother
to inquire about what Polzin means by having "trouble with WB9BCL using my call sinnce (sic) 1985." Evidently,
in response to the FCC inquiry, Polzin made a false statement with impunity -- which subsequently resulted in my
receipt of the FCC enforcement letter stating there is "an indication" that I have used the call sign W9BCL.
Evidently, as far as the FCC is concerned, this false accusation will be allowed to stand and is deemed a valid
complaint against me. Since, arbitrarily and capriciously, the FCC uses complaints from other amateurs -- evidently
without making an effort to substantiate their merit -- as a basis for choosing to decline to renew an amateur's license,
civil legal action against Polzin seems to be my only alternative in order to prevent his false accusation to be used as
a possible rationale by the FCC for a refusal to renew my amateur license. As further evidence of arbitrary and
capricious nature of FCC's complaint-based enforcement in Amateur Radio Service, without regard to whether FCC
rules or regulations were actually violated, is the fact that Special Counsel Hollingsworth in his enforcement letter to
Polzin disregarded the fact that Polzin's license does not authorize operation on 14.18 1 MHz, the frequency on
which, as alleged in the complaint by operator of KC4PE, W9BCL operated. Operation by an amateur on a
frequency that is not authorized under the amateur's license is a clear violation of FCC's rules. Documentation of
my license class, Polzin's license class and the frequencies which are authorized under the two license classes is
attached hereto.
The FCC rule book states: "Except when it concerns emergency communications, amateur-to-amateur interference is
not, in and of itself, illegal. Each amateur station has an equal right to operate; just because you've used the same
frequency since 1947 doesn't mean you have any more legal right to it than the guy who got his license in the mail
five minutes ago. The rules specifically prohibit willful or malicious interference." The FCC rule book further
states: "The amateur frequencies tend to be congested; interference is just a fact of Amateur Radio life." As a matter
of accepted practical reality for the type of modulation (SSB) under consideration, selecting a transmitting
frequency with a 3.0 kHz frequency separation from a contact in progress is deemed adaquate to minimize
interference (from FCC license study guides). Operator of KC4PE alleged interference due to operation of W9BCL
on 14.181 MHz, 3.0 kHz higher than the operating frequency of KC4PE; clearly, nothing in the complaint by
operator of KC4PE is evidence of a violation of any known, printed or published FCC regulations -- except for
alleged operation by W9BCL on a frequency that is not authorized under his license class! As previously mentioned,
this fact was disregarded by Special Counsel Hollingsworth in his enforcement letter to Polzin, operator of W9BCL.
If the complaint by operator of KC4PE is assumed to be against the operation of my station, WB9BCL, then the
complaint can be shown to be false and without merit -- in addition to not being any evidence of a violation of any
known, printed or published FCC regulations. It is well-known that solar activity profoundly affects propagation
and thus communications on the "20 meter" band; records of daily solar activity are kept and are readily available.
Based on this information and basic point-to-point ionospheric propagation analysis, which can be performed and
verified by virtually any communications engineer or experienced radio amateur, it can readily be shown that
propagation and thus communications between my location and KC4PE's were very unlikely on the specified
frequency at the time of alleged interference. Detailed documentation of the analysis will gladly be provided upon
request.
It is relevant to point out that the the operator of KC4PE is a member of the group which has operated almost
exclusively on 14.178 MHz, the so-called "wideband audio" frequency, for well over a decade. A few years ago,
due to long-standing use of excessive transmission bandwidth by several members of this group, some amateurs have
petitioned the FCC to restrict the SSB transmission bandwidth to 2.8 kHz. The petition was denied by the FCC;
nevertheless, due to numerous complaints about the use of excessive transmission bandwidth, which is an actual
violation of the FCC rule that no amateur station shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information
rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice, some in this group received
"Advisory Notices" from Special Counsel Hollingsworth. A copy of such an Advisory Notice is attached hereto.
In the Advisory Notice Special Counsel Hollingsworth states: "No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use
of any station. When an amateur station transmits a voice emission that occupies more bandwidth than necessary in
order to achieve a "great audio" sound, that emission occupies spectrum that could be utilized by several other
amateur stations. To occupy more bandwidth (than) necessary in a heavily used amateur band is not only extremely
inconsiderate, but is contrary to requirement that amateur operators cooperate in the utilization of frequencies
allocated to them, and make the most effective use of them." During daytime, the band in question is inarguably the
most heavily used amateur band. Nearly all members of the "wideband audio" group, including the complainant,
have frequently engaged in making recordingsiplaybacks while using excessive receive bandwidth, typically 6.0 kHz,
and recently as high as 9.5 kHz. Evidence of this activity will gladly be provided on request. In view of the fact
that typical amateur SSB receiver bandwidth is between 2.1 and 2.7 kHz (from FCC rule book), the use of 6.0 - 9.5
kHz receive bandwidth is hardly good amateur practice. According to Special Counsel's quoted statement, this
spectrum could be utilized by several other stations. Thus, it makes precious little sense that particularly this
complainant could have a valid claim of interference against any other amateur station operating 3.0 kHz higher than
the complainant's operating frequency. Actually, for anyone with a suitable short wave receiver, a readily
observable fact of every day operation on the heavily used amateur "20 meter" band is that, most of the time,
frequency separation between adjacent ongoing communications is less than 3.0 kHz.
Based on implausible, unverified and false complaintis, and without any evidence that any of its rules or regulations
were breached, the FCC has initiated arbitrary and capricious enforcement against me with its letter, dated May 3,
2006, case #EB-2006-2858. Subsequently, the FCC made this letter available to the American Radio Relay League
(ARRL) for the purpose of posting this letter on ARRL's Internet website; the letter was posted on said website on
June 2, 2006. A copy of this posting is attached hereto. Incidentally, this posting also shows, in an enforcement
letter sent to another amateur, that complaints from amateurs are used by the FCC as a rationale for declining to
renew an amateur's license. The letter which I received from the FCC is now linked to my name and is readily
available on the Internet, creating a world-wide, false impression that I was in violation of some FCC rule or
regulation. This FCC facilitated posting is gratuitously derogatory and encourages further false complaints and,
therefore, further arbitrary and capricious FCC enforcement action. Recently, in front of a gathering of Amateur
Radio operators, Special Counsel Hollingsworth acknowledged that, "This country's communications infrastructure
needs Amateur Radio," but that in his view, radio amateurs all too often are hypersensitive and rude. Nevertheless,
this view of Amateur Radio operators does not seem to temper Special Counsel's enforcement actions -- based solely
on patently implausible and unverified complaintis from radio amateurk. It seems that implausible, unverified, and
false statement or complaint from any one of the 700,000 radio amateurs licensed in the United States, such as John
H. Polzin for example, is sufficient to instigate an FCC enforcement action against a radio amateur. Incidentally,
failing to respond in a timely manner to an FCC enforcement letter results in a liability for monetary forfeiture of
$4000. Some amateurs have had this liability imposed on them by the FCC. Since the FCC evidently does inititate
enforcement actions on the basis of false complainb's, a radio amateur never knows when an FCC enforcement letter
could arrive -- even if the radio amateur has not been active, has no transmitting equipment, and has not made a
single transmission in years. This clearly implies that in order to avoid the $4000 potential liability to the FCC,
radio amateurs, whether active or inactive for years, before leaving on an extended trip or vacation, need to register
their itinerary with the FCC in order to ensure that a timely response to an arbitrary and capricious enforcement letter
can be provided.
Enforcement initiated without any plausible evidence of a violation generally results in abuse, is unethical, and
clearly wrong. Consider, Senator Obama, what this society would be like if other licensing agencies adopted
enforcement measures similar to the FCC's. For example, if Secretary of State, with its authority to issue, suspend
and renew driver's licenses, followed the FCC paradigm of enforcement outlined above, the following would ocurr:
on the basis of any patently implausible, unsubstantiated complaint by anyone with a driver's license against anyone
else with a driver's license, an enforcement letter to the licensee against whom the complaint was made would be sent
out by Secretary of State; the penalty for not providing a timely response to the Secretary of State would be $4000.
Subsequently, the Secretary of State would make the enforcement letter available to the American Driver League (an
association of drivers) for the purpose of posting the letter on its website -- the letter with a false implication that
some serious traffic rule was violated would be linked to the letter recipient's name and the letter would be readily
accesible world-wide on the Internet. In addition, unsubstantiated complaints from anyone with a driver's license
would be used by the Secretary of State as a basis not to renew someone's driver's license. That would be very
scary indeed, even though one's driving obviously involves far greater hazards to others than does the operating of an
Amateur Radio station.
Senator Obama, since the FCC obviously does not have any plausible evidence of a violation of any of its rules or
regulations due to my amateur operation, I strongly object to the FCC's making the enforcement letter available to
the ARRL for the purpose of posting the letter on the Internet -- thereby speciously implying that a serious violation
of some FCC rule or regulation ocurred. As previously mentioned, the FCC facilitated posting of this letter is
gratuitously derogatory and encourages additional false complaints, and therefore, additional arbitrary and
capricious FCC enforcement. I therefore request that the posting of this letter be removed. Also, the FCC's
apparent practice of using unsubstantiated complaints from other amateurs as a basis for declining to renew an
amateur's license is arbitrary, capricious, and clearly wrong. As a consequence of writing this letter to you, I realize
it is quite possible that additional FCC enforcement measures may be contemplated against me; however, the issue
here transcends Amateur Radio and, besides, the FCC's Amateur Radio related enforcement practices are already
arbitrary and capricious.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gordon N. Sku1
P.O. Box 521
Crete, 1L 604 17
Enforcement Bureau
Spectrum Enforcement Division
1270 Fairfield Road
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325-7245
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

May 3, 2006 /
Gordon N. Sku1
P. 0. Box 521
Crete, IL 60417
RE: Amateur Radio license WB9BCL: case #EB-2006-2858
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint filed against the operation of W9BCL, and a response
indicating that you have used the call sign W9BCL. The complaint alleges interference on the 20
Meter Amateur band at various times in February 2006.
Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. gives the
Commission the authority to obtain information from applicants and licensees about the operation of
their station and their qualifications to remain a licensee. You are requested to review and fully
address the complaint within 20 days of receipt of this letter. Additionally, you are requested to
describe in detail the configuration of your station, including all linear amplifiers.
In an inquiry of this type we are required to notify you that a willfully false or misleading reply
constitutes a separate violation made punishable under United States Code Title 18, Section 1001.
I
Sincerely,
W. Rile5 Hollingdorth
Special Counsel
Enclosures: 2
cc: FCC Northeastern Regional Director
Enforcement Bureau
Spectrum Enforcement Division
1270 Fairfield Road
Gettysburk Pennsylvania 173257245
March 28,2004
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 1 REWD &#4SPEC"ED

John H. Polzin
5 11 15* Street N APR 0 6 2006
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494
FCC-QBG fVlNLROOo1rA
RE: Amateur Radio license W9BCL; Case #EB-2006-2858
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint filed against the operation of your station. The complaint
alleges interference on the 20 Meter Amateur band at various times in February 2006.
Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. gves &e
Commission the authority to obtain information from applicants and licensees about the operation of
their station and their qualifications to remain a licensee. You are requested to review and h l l y address
the complaint within 20 days ofreceipt of this letter. Additionally, you are requested to describe -n &mi
the configuration of your station, including all linear amplifiers.
In an inquiry of this type we are required to mtiq you that a willfidly false or iideadirig i-eeply
constitutes a separate violation made punishable under Lrnited States Code Title 18. Section 1001. ShnuJd
you wish to review a copy of the tape recording referenced in the letter, please contact me at 717-138-
2502.
f
Sincerely.
ma$*
W. Riley ollingswort
special Counsel-
' Enclosure
.... -.---1.------1 -(----.ll^-..-.l ".-- " I .

-I...-- ~"._""lll-l __._._
.. ....
_I
........... ...... .
..........
!#3-16-200610:38 FROM:SOUTHERN SQT i7a6653717i T0:17173382574
tc
.I
I ..
0
2/16/2006
To: "Riley HoJling.worth" Rilev.HolIinPsworth@lfcc.gov
From:" Bill Winks* kc4~@~bellsouth.net
Subject: Deliberate lntcrfcrcncc from W9BCL
In the mornings around S A M EST,the station of W3BCL opens up on 16-181, tiicb is three
Ktfi from my operating frequency of 14.1 78. His signal into my home in Catat I, Georgia i s
generally an S9 +20 (3KHz's away on .178) even through hc is claiming that h mtcnna is
pointed North into Europe
At this time it is interesting ta note that his signal b equally strong in Phoenix, rixnna, Boca
Raton, Florida, Waync; New Jersey, Boston, Massachusetts, Notthgharn, UK A d Rome,ltaly,
dl-thhis~ h i talltin&
k 'mta hdh....??
Evkk~tlyW9BCL has a new ieveeteil method of such a broad and poteutsigrr ,as stations
appearing on 20 mctcrs with miles of W9BCL's hame -have.less &am 1/4 of bis SI tal, whilc
transmitting Ilegal 1-500.warts.PEF.
Thus-Iam asking for your investigation and help,,..
Thanks
Bill Winkis
.....................* .....
ARRLWeb: FCC License Data Search Page 1 of 1
FCC License Data Search

.
Note: This data is from the FCC database. Changes must be submitted to the FCC using the proper
form.
SKUL, GORDON N, WB9BCL (Extra)

PO BOX 521
CRETE, IL 60417
ATTN: GORDON N SKUL
Licensee ID: LO050245 1
FRN: 0006916738
Issue Date: Apr 28,2002
Expire Date: May 12,2012
Date of last Change: May 17,2002 (License Modified)
Includes FCC actions through Jun 07, 2006
Search for
I I
I I
or
I
I Name:)
I Enter name as last, first without name suffixes (Jr, Sr, etc)
State:
ZIP: '-I (Partials OK, 3 or more digits)
I
I T w e : 0 Anv 0 Individuals 0 Clubs
" 1
Submit Query I
p
m ~~~,---"
_i - ~-~
Page lust modijkd: 01:04 PM, 15 May 2006 ET
Page author: vec@arrl.org
Copyright 02006, American Radio Relay League, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
. X - I - " X X I - ~ , ~ - " - ~ _L XnXl 'I
http://www.arrl.org/fcc/fcclook.php3?call=wb9bcl&x=l3&y=13 6/8/06
- - ~ - - -_- ~
ARRLWeb: FCC License Data Search Page 1 of 1
FCC License Data Search
Note: This data is from the FCC database. Changes must be submitted to the FCC using the proper
form.
POLZIN, JOHN H, W9BCL (General)

511 15TH S T N
WISCONSIN RAPIDS, WI 54494
Licensee ID: LO0998030
FRN: 0013198155
Issue Date: Mar 30,2005
Expire Date: Jun 26,20 15
Date of last Change: Mar 30,2005 (License TIN Added)
Includes FCC actions through Jun 07, 2006
Search for
or
I Enter name as last,Jirst without name suffixes (Jr, Sr, etc)

city:@
State: I
ZIP: (Partials OK, 3 or more digits)
I Type:
" _ 0 Any 0 Individuals 0 Clubs
SubmitQuery
*__
Page lust modified: 01:04 PM, 15 May 2006 ET

Page author. vec@arrl.org
Copyright 02006, American Radio Relqv League, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://www. arrl .org/fcc/fcclook.php3?call=w9bcl&x=17&y= 14 6/8/06

-- _" ~
-~~ -- I
ARRLWeb: US Amateur Radio Frequency Allocations Page 2 of 5
I5348 kHz 15346.5 kHz

5368 kHz 5366.5 kHz
5373 kHz 5371.5 kHz
5405 kHz (common US/UK)I5403.5 kHz
Amateurs may use USB *on&* with a maximum effective radiated power (Em)of 50 W. Radiated
power must not exceed the equivalent of 50 W PEP transmitter output power into an antenna with a
gain of 0 dBd. For details, see the 60 Meter FAQ page.
40 Meters
Novice and Technician Plus classes:

7.100-7.150 MHz: CW Only
General class:
7.025-7.150 MHz: CW, RTTY/Data
7.225-7.300 MHz: CW, Phone, Image
Advanced class:
Amateur Extra class:
Note: Phone and Image modes are permitted between 7.075 and 7.100 MHz for FCC licensed
stations in ITU Regions 1 and 3 and by FCC licensed stations'in ITU Region 2 West of 130 degrees
West longitude or south of 20 degrees North latitude. See Section 97.307(0(11). Novice and
Technician Plus licensees outside ITU Region 2 may use CW only between 7.050 and 7.075 MHz.
See Section 97.301(e). These exemptions do not apply to stations in the continental US.
30 Meters
Maximum power, 200 watts PEP. Amateurs must avoid interference to the fixed service outside the
US.
General, Advanced, Amateur Extra classes:

20 Meters
General class:
Advanced class:
Amateur Extra class:
6/8/06
W eb: P CC: Amateur KadiO Entorcement Letters rage Y or I1
Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 CFR Section 308(b), to provide
justification within 30 days as to the need for each of these call signs. Where you are claiming that
they are used by clubs, provide a list of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the
members, meeting times and dates within the past year, proposed meeting times and locations
within the coming year, and copies of minutes, if any, taken at meetings within the past three
months for each club.
We also request that you list any other club call signs licensed in your name as trustee that are not
shown here.
You may request cancellation of any unneeded or inactive club call signs. We intend to cancel listed
club call signs if you have not satisfactorily responded to this letter within 30 days from the above
date. You may call me at 717-338-2502 if you have any questions about this matter.
April 3,2003
Mr. Sareno J. Salerno

50 Caldwell Avenue
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
RE;-Advisory-Notice: Amateur Radio license W20NV
Dear Mr. Salerno:
The Commission has received numerous complaints regarding the operation of your station. The
complaints allege that your station is transmitting an "enhanced single sideband" emission with a
bandwidth wider than necessary and contrary to good engineering practice.
While precise measurements of bandwidth may be somewhat complex and the reception of a signal
depends, to some extent, on the engineering characteristics of the receiver being used, it is important
for you to understand that Section 97.307(a) of the Commission's Rules requires that no amateur
station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth that necessaly for the information rate and
emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice [emphasis added].I1 Wide
band overly-processed audio, especially when coupled with the high intermodulation levels of
certain amplifiers, results in the use of bandwidths extremely inconsiderate of other operators.
Transmitting an emission that occupies more bandwidth that necessary is contrary to the
Commission rules and to the expectation that the Amateur Service be largely self-regulated.
The Amateur Service is allocated spectnun that must be shared by thousands of individual stations.
The rules require that control operators make the most effective use of amateur frequencies. The
Amateur Service is not a substitute for the broadcast service, and the frequencies allocated to the
Amateur Service were not allocated for a "broadcast quality" audio emission or sound. Section
97.101 sets out the general standards amateur stations must follow:
(a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC rules each amateur station must be operated in
accordance with good engineering and good amateur practice.
(b) Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting
channels and in making the most efective use of the Amateur Service frequencies [emphasis added].
19.html
http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement~logs/2003/04 5/27/2006
AKKL Web: J? CC Amateur Kadio hntorcement Letters rage I U or 11
No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station.
Furthermore, Section 97.101(d) states that no amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously
interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.
Section 97.101 applies to all amateur stations at all times. When an amateur station transmits a voice
emission that occupies more bandwidth than necessary in order to achieve a "great audio" sound,
that emission occupies spectrum that could be utilized by several other amateur stations. To occupy
more bandwidth necessary in a heavily used amateur band is not only extreme@ inconsiderate, but
is contrary to requirement that amateur operators cooperate in the utilization of frequencies allocated
to them, and make the most effective use of them. Such shortsightedness on the part of control
operators that causes a station to transmit an "enhanced single sideband" emission inevitably leads
to ill will between operators, and likely will result in petitions for rule making requesting that the
Commission establish bandwidth limitations for amateur station emissions.
A hallmark of the Amateur Service is its contribution to the advancement of the radio art. As new
technologies have become available to Amateur Radio operators or as they have developed them,
control operators have endeavored to introduce these technologies into Amateur Service
communications in a way that does not have a negative impact on other amateur stations or their
operations. In many cases this has been done by operating on uncrowded amateur spectrum or at
times when spectrum used by many amateur stations is not heavily utilized. The many complaints
that we are receiving regarding the operation of your station leads to the conclusion that your
operation is having a negative impact on the Amateur Radio Service.
Contrary to assertions you may have made on the air, no frequencies in the Amateur Service are
designated as "wideband audio" frequencies, either by the Commission or by any informal band
plans. Accordingly, you are requested to hlly review the rules referenced above, make certain that
your station conforms to them and that you operate in the best interests of the Amateur Radio
Service as a whole.
CC: Northeast Regional Director, FCC

I__
March 12,2003
Mr. Hector L. Morales

4933 Sunny Ln Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33415
S-Kbkct: Technician class amateur License KAlTEN

WarninKNotice
Dear Mr. Morales:
Information before the Commission indicates that on February 26,2003, you operated radio-
transmitting equipment on 14.322 MHz. Under your Technician class amateur license, you are not
authorized to use those frequencies.
You are cautioned that such operation could not only lead to revocation of your license or a
monetary forfeiture, but would also jeopardize any fbture attempts to obtain an upgraded Amateur
-logs/2003/041 9.html
http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement 5/27/2006
ARRL Web: FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Letters Page 1 o f 6
FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Letters for the Period

Ending June I,2006
A representative listing of recent Amateur Radio enforcement-related lettersfrom the files of the
FCC Enforcement Bureau (letters are in alphabetical order by city of address):
NOTE: Issuance by the FCC of a Warning Notice indicates that the FCC has what it believes to
be reliable evidence of possible rules infractions and not necessarily that the recipient has
violated FCC rules. The FCC has the authority, pursuant to §97.519(d)(2) of the rules to
readminister any examination element previously administered by a volunteer examiner. These
enforcement letters are representative of recent Advisory Notices, Warning Notices, Notices of
Violation and other FCC communications to licensees and others involving possible serious rules
violations. Unless otherwise indicated, all letters were signed by Riley Hollingsworth, Special
Counsel in the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, and may have been edited by ARRL. This listing is
not a comprehensive record of FCC amateur enforcement actions. Follow-up correspondence
will be published as provided. Address all inquiries regarding this correspondence to Riley
Hollingsworth.
May 3,2006
Gordon N. Sku1
P. 0. Box 521
Crete, IL 604 17
RE: Amateur Radio license WB9BCL: Case #EB-2006-2858
Dear Mr:Skul:
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint filed against the operation of W9BCL, and a response indicating
that you have used the call sign W9BCL. The complaint alleges interference on the 20 meter
amateur band at various times in February 2006.
Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. gives the Commission
the authority to obtain information from applicants and licensees about the operation of their station
and their qualifications to remain a licensee. You are requested to review and fully address the
complaint within 20 days of receipt of this letter. Additionally, you are requested to describe in
detail the configuration of your station, including all linear amplifiers.
In an inquiry of this type we are required to notify you that a willfully false or misleading reply
constitutes a separate violation made punishable under United States Code Title 18, Section 1001.
Enclosures: 2
cc: FCC Northeastern Regional Director
http://www.arrl .org/news/enforcement~logs/2006/0601.html 6/8/06

-II ~
-".I_----. 1 ~ " - __l"_ II I
ARRL Web: FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Letters Page 2 of 6
May 15,2006
William F. Crowell
1 110 Pleasant Valley Road
Diamond Springs, CA 95619
RE: Amateur Radio Advanced Class W6WBJ; Renewal and Vanity Call Sign Application
Case # 2006-176
Dear Mr. Crowell:
On April 11,2006, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau granted in part your application for
vanity call sign W6WBJ. Ordinarily the granting of a vanity call sign application results in a new
ten year term, but, due to numerous complaints filed against the operation of your station N6AYJ
alleging deliberate interference, the expiration date of March 12,2007 was not extended. The matter
has been referred to the Enforcement Bureau for review.
The matters raised in the complaints must be resolved in order for your license to be renewed.
Copies of those complaints are being sent to you under separate cover pursuant to your Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request. Additionally, two complaints are enclosed with this letter. Section
308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. A§ 308(b), gives the
Commission the authority to obtain information from applicants and licensees regarding the
operation of their station and their qualifications to retain a Commission license. Accordingly, you
are requested to fully address, within 30 days of receipt of this letter, each complaint forwarded to
you pursuant to the FOIA and the complaints enclosed with this letter. In a letter of this type we are
required to advise you that Congress has made punishable a willfully false or misleading reply. See
18 U.S.C. f f # 1001.
The information you submit will be used to determine what action to take on your renewal. If this
matter is not resolved, your application will be designated for a hearing before an Administrative
Law Judge to make a decision whether your Amateur license should be renewed. As an applicant,
you would have to appear at a hearing in Washington, DC, and would have the burden of proof in
showing that you are qualified to retain an Amateur license.
Enclosures
Cc: FCC Western Regional Director
May 3,2006
RE: Amateur Radio license WB6NKJ Renewal Application
Gordon D. Young
13162 Hwy 8 Business Spc 57
El Cajon, CA 92021
Dear Mr. Young:
httD://www.arrl.orrr/news/enforcement lo~s/2006/0601.html 6/8/06

_-
.- ~
"I ~ ~ " ____ - -T--- -_ ~ -" . ~ ~- " I I
EB-SED-CL
CN 060 1620

230 South Dearborn
Suite 3900
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your inquiry of June 27,2006, on behalf of Mr. Gordon Skul of
Crete, Illinois. Mr. Skul, amateur radio licensee of call sign WB9BCL, contacted your
office concerning a letter he received from the staff of the Commission’s Enforcement
Bureau (“Bureau”).
In February 2006, the Bureau initiated an investigation into a complaint of

interference on the 20 meter amateur band, allegedly caused by transmissions from
amateur radio station W9BCL. The licensee of W9BCL, Mr. John Polzin, responded to
the complaint alleging that Mr. Skul has been operating under his call sign W9BCL since
1985. In order to fully investigate this matter, Mr. Riley Hollingsworth of the Bureau
sent a letter dated May 3, 2006 directly to Mr. Skul requesting that he review and fully
address the allegation that he has been operating under call sign W9BCL. The
Commission has the authority to obtain information fkom applicants and licensees about
the operation of their station and their qualifications to remain a license. 47 U.S.C. 5
308(b).
Mr. Skul’s reply to the Bureau’s letter was received on May 15,2006 and is
currently under review. Since this matter is still under review, Mr. Skul’s license, which
does not expire until 2012, remains in good standing with the Commission. While we
understand Mr. Skul’s concerns, we can assure you that Mr. Hollingsworth acted within
the scope of his enforcement duties. Please be assured that we will inform you of the
outcome of this investigation.
With regard to Mr. Skul’s concerns about the Bureau’s letter being published on
the American Radio Relay League’s (“ARRL”)website, all Bureau letters to amateur
radio operators are routinely made available to amateur radio organizations and other
interested parties that request them. The ARRL’s website lists various enforcement-
related letters issued to a number of amateur radio operators.
The Honorable Barack Obama 2
Thank you for your interest in this matter. If you require additional information
or assistance, please contact this office at (202) 4 18-7450.
Sincerely,
\
Michael Carowitz
Chief of Staff
Enforcement Bureau
...
4
d
' JOHN KERRY COMMITTEES.

MABBAGHUQE'ITB
COMMRCE, SCIENCE,
AND TRANSPORTATION
FINANCE
%11ited gkatul gmxlte FOREIGN RELATIONS

SMALL BUSINESS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2102
July 19,2006
The Honorable Kevin J. Martin

Chairman
445 1 2 ' ~Street, sw
In June, 2004, the Federal Communications Commissioa (FCC)issued a public

notice seeking comment on ways to increase minority, women, and small business media
ownership. Since that time, the FCC has not taken m h e r acticm in that proceeding,
You recently announced your intention for the FCC to rhove forward with a
revision o f media ownership rules. We strongly believe that thrt FCC should address the
issues of minority and small business media ownership before tlalcingup the wider media
ownership issue. Doing so will inform the overall review of our media ownership
landscape from a small business perspective.
As you are aware, the Senate Commerce, Science and Ttansportation Committee
recently completed considmation of comprehensive communicaI.ions legislation. A
KerryNelson Amendment that requires the FCC to complete coiisideration of this
proceeding before taking up wider media ownership issues was adopted. The Commerce
Committee's unanimous acceptance of this provision should provide the FCC with
sufficient incentive to advance and complete this rulemaking --'whether or not broader
conmunications legislation is considered by the full Senate this; year.
The goals of promoting minority, women,and small buolness ownership in the

communications industry are set forth in the Communications k t of 1934. For example,
under Section 309 the FCC is directed to promote opportunities for minorities, women,
and small. businesses Ensuring that such directives are accomplished i s important to
I
achieving a diverse media, particularly in an era of increased media concentration.
We urge prompt completion of the proceeding and, as olur Amendment directs,
51 'd E511 'ON

FEDERAL
C O M M U N ICATION S C O M M I S S l O N
WASHI N GTO N
OFFICE OF January 29,2007

THE C H A I R M A N
The Honorable John Kerry

304 Russell Senate Office Building
Dear Senator Kerry:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission’s review of its media ownership
rules and the public notice the Commission issued in June 2004 seeking comment on ways to
increase, minority, women and small business media ownership. The Commission has
before it for consideration our periodic report required by Section 257 of the Act, which
examines regulatory actions taken to reduce market entry barriers by each Bureau and Office
since the last triennial report, and makes recommendations for legislative action to reduce
statutory barriers to market entry.
We are seeking comment on the issue of minority ownership in our media ownership
proceeding. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the Commission released in July,
the Commission sought comment on the recommendations of the Federal Advisory
Committee on Diversity in the Digital Age. At the request of the Committee, the
Commission has included their recommendations and filings in the media ownership docket
and solicited public comment specifically on their recommendations. The Commission also
has before it a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that consolidates the
proceeding commenced in June 2004 with our media ownership proceeding to ensure full
consideration of media ownership diversity issues.
Finally, as the Commission moves forward with its review of the media ownership rules,
minority ownership will be the focus of independent studies and among the topics covered at
the public hearings.
I appreciate your interest in this very important matter, and your participation in this
proceeding. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
K d n J. Martin
Chairman
F E D E R A LCOMM u N ICATIONs COMM I ssI O N
WASH INGTON
OFFICE O F January 29,2007

THE C H A I R M A N

Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission’s review of its media ownership
rules and the public notice the Commission issued in June 2004 seeking comment on ways to
increase, minority, women and small business media ownership. The Commission has
before it for consideration our periodic report required by Section 257 of the Act, which
examines regulatory actions taken to reduce market entry barriers by each Bureau and Office
since the last triennial report, and makes recommendations for legislative action to reduce
statutory barriers to market entry.
We are seeking comment on the issue of minority ownership in our media ownership
proceeding. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the Commission released in July,
the Commission sought comment on the recommendations of the Federal Advisory
Committee on Diversity in the Digital Age. At the request of the Committee, the
Commission has included their recommendations and filings in the media ownership docket
and solicited public comment specifically on their recommendations. The Commission also
has before it a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that consolidates the
proceeding commenced in June 2004 with our media ownership proceeding to ensure full
consideration of media ownership diversity issues.
Finally, as the Commission moves forward with its review of the media ownership rules,
minority ownership will be the focus of independent studies and among the topics covered at
the public hearings.
I appreciate your interest in this very important matter, and your participation in this
proceeding. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Chainnan
COMMITTEES
BARACK OBAMA
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENT AND
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
United StsteB Senate VETERANS' AFFAIRS
August 9,2006

Chairman
445 12th Street SW
Please find enclosed a letter I have received from my constituent, Detective Timothy J.
Murphy of the Chicago Police Department, regarding the use of pre-paid cellular phones during
the commission of crimes.
I am troubled by the issues raised by Detective Murphy, and ask that you clarify the
Federal Communications Commission's policies on this matter in a letter addressed directly to
Detective Murphy, copying Joshua DuBois of my office.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
Enclosure
WASHINGTON OFFICE CHICAGOOFFICE SPRINGFIELDOFFICE MARION OFFICE QUADCITIES OFFICE

713 HARTSENATEOFFICEBUILDING 230 S. DEARBORN 607 EASTADAMS 701 NORTHCOURTSTREET 1911 5 2 AVENUE~ ~
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 SUITE3900 SUITE1520 MARION, IL 62959 MOLINE,IL 61265
OFFICE(202) 224-2854 CHICAGO,IL 60604 SPRINGFIELD, IL 62701 OFFICE(618) 997-2402 OFFICE(309) 7 3 6 1 2 1 7
FAX (202) 228-4260 OFFICE(312) 8863506 OFFICE(217) 492-5890 FAX (618) 997-2850 FAX (309) 7 3 6 1 2 3 3
FAX (312) 226-3514 FAX (217) 492-5099
Richard M. Oaley
Mayor
-
Department of Police City of Chicago
727 E. 11I*Street Chicago, Illinois 60653
Philip J. Cline
Superintendent of Police
AREA lW0 HOMICIDEI§EX UNIT
(312) 747-8271

Washington D.C. 20510 21 April 06
Dear Honorable Senator Obama;

I
I am writing seeking assistance with closing a loophole in the cellular telephone industry.
I am a Homicide Detective with the Chicago Police Department and one of the tools that we have utilized in many of our homicide
investigations as well as other parallel investigations up to and including narcotics investigations is the ability to request telephone
subscriber information by the use of court subpoena and court orders.
In the last several months many of my homicide investigations have been hindered due to the major obstruction that 'pre-pay" or
"pay as you go" cellular telephones that litter the market cause.
In the post "914" days I would have assumed that "pre-pay" or "pay as you go" cell phones would be required to have some type of
regulatory requirement.
Common Sense w u l d dictate that if the habitual offender or the first time offender can figure aut to walk into a cellular store or gas
station and tender the clerk an amount of money and request telephones and walk out what is preventing the terrorist from doing
the same exact thing.
In the last several homicide investigations that I have been involved in, there is at least two or three telephone calls that end up
being traced back to a "pay as you go" ar a "prepay" cellular telephone. In many of these cases the target telephone number is
possibly the offenclefstelephone but this asp@&of the investigation dead ends until another telephone number can be picked up
and tracked.
In several insbnes, our offender has called our homicide victim prior to the victim being killed. Due to the current situation involving
these "pay as you go" or "pre-pay" cell phones we are unable to obtain any subscriber information from the cellular telephone
companies other than to be advised that the phone # in quesaian is a "pre-pay" or "pay as you go" telephone.
I am seeking your assistance in introducing legislation to regulate this loophole. Thank-you for your assistance in this matter and I
look foward to hearing from you soon.
m
..
Emergency: 9-1-1 NOR-Emergency: (Within City limits) 3-1-1 Non-Emergency: (Outside City limits) 312-746-6000
TTY: 312-746-9715 E-mail: police@ci.chi.il.us Websitee:www.ci.chi.il.us/CAPS
~ .... .. . ~.. . .. ,.. c .. . -

October 3,2006
Detective Timothy J. Murphy

Department of Police - City of Chicago
727 E. 111th Street
Area Two Homicide/Sex Unit
Dear Detective Murphy:
This letter responds to your letter to Senator Barack Obama on April 2 1,2006 in
which you requested his assistance in introducing legislation to address “a loophole in the
cellular telephone industry’’ because cellular telephone companies do not maintain
detailed call records or subscriber information for subscribers using “pre-paid” or “pay-
as-you-go” cell phones. Senator Obama has asked that we provide you with some
clarification of the FCC’s policies on this matter.
The FCC’s authority in this area derives from section 222 of the Communications
Act, 47 U.S.C. 0 222, which creates a framework to govern telecommunications carriers’
use of information obtained by virtue of providing a telecommunications service. Section
222 imposes on all telecommunications carriers, including wireless carriers, a duty to
protect the privacy of customer proprietary network information (CPNI), including
calling information, and to comply with certain obligations and safeguards. For example,
section 222(c)( 1) provides, essentially, that where a carrier has received or obtained
CPNI as a result of the provision of a telecommunications service, that CPNI may only be
used in connection with the provision of the telecommunications service in question
unless the customer has given the carrier approval to use the CPNI more broadly.
Section 222 does not, however, obligate any telecommunications carrier, cellular
or otherwise, to maintain CPNI from its subscribers. Rather, if a telecommunications
carrier receives or obtains CPNI, that section only creates a duty to protect the privacy of
CPNI, subject to an exception for law enforcement.
In the pre-paid context, consumers typically purchase a handset and pay for a
fixed amount of minutes. When pre-paid customers have used up their minutes, they can
refill them with the use of a credit card or other means, but do not otherwise have an
ongoing billing relationship with the carrier. In this context, it is our understanding that
2.
wireless carriers typically do not receive or obtain detailed subscriber information from
pre-paid customers.
We hope that this information has been helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Catherine W. Seidel
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Enclosure
cc: Joshua DuBois

SPRINGFIELD OFFICE
PACSXMXtE T R A N S M I T T A L SHEET
TO. FROM
3 a A h m hW x
COMPANY DATP..
Lhtd S l n t t f i - V U x a
aq 1 0 7 106
FAX NUMABR TUTAL N O OF PAGES INCLUDING C0VP.R.
urtcm‘r $,OR REVYEW C3 PY,EASECOMMENT PLEASE REPLY PLEASE RECYCLE
607 EAST A D A M S SUIT0 1520 S P R I N G F I E L D , IL G 2 7 0 1

IJIiONE 217 492-50RP FAX 217 492-5077
09/07/2006 1 2 : 5 9 FAX 2 1 7 4 9 2 5 0 9 9 Sen. Obama @ 002
BARACK OBAMA COMMITTEES

ILLINOIS ' ENVIRONMENT AND
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
iited statu @enate VETERANS AFFAIRS
September 7,2006
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Federal. Communications Coinmiss n
Room 842453
Washington, District of Columbia : 554
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was I .eivedin my Springfield office fiom my constituent, Bob
Payne. Attached you will find his 1 :awhich gives a more accurate description and explanation
ofhis issues.
1would appreciate your looking int &ismatter at your earliest convenience. Please advise
Mikal Sutton-Vereen, who assists r in these matters, of your findings.
If you require any firth= assistanct r have additional questions, please do not hesitate to
contact Mikal at (21 7) 492-5089.
Thank you for your attention to thi: latter.
Sincerely,
Senator Barack O b k a
607 East Adams, Suite 1520

Springfield, Illinois 62701
WISIIIWCTOH~ Q I Q CMIaBo OFFICS SPMOFYLD OFFICE MAFIION OFFICE MOblm OFnCC

713 HART SENATE OFFICE 8UILOING 230 s.& A h m N 607 EAST ADAM5 701 NORTH COWFIT STUEn 1911 NOAV AVENUE
WA~~INOTON. DC 20610 SUITE 3900 SUITE 1620 MARION, IL 62850 MOUNE,IL 61265
O I : ~ C(202)
C 224-2854 CHICAGO, IL 60604 SVUINGFII:L~.
IL 62701 OFFICI! 1618) 997-2402 OFFICE (309)736-1217
FAX (202) 22W7.60 OFFICC(312) 0 8 6 3 6 0 6 OFFICE (217) 092-60e~ FAX l61BJ 897-2860 FAX(309) 7 3 6 1 233
FAX 1312) 8804514 FAX 1217) 492-5099
R E C E I V E D T I M E S E P , 7. ~
28PM PRINT T I M E SEP. 7. 2:30PM
09/07/2008 1 2 : 5 9 FAX 21749.25099 Sen.Obama @I003

OBAMA
SPRINGFIELD OFFICE
PRIVACY ACT RELEASE FORM
The provisions of Public Low 93-579 (Privacy Act of 1974) prohibit the disclosure of
informtion of a pcrsonal nature from the files of an individual without their consent.
Accordingly, I authorize the staffof Senator h a c k Obarna to access any and all of my
records that relate to the problem stated below.
Signature: Date:
To begin processing your case, please complete the following information:
Name: > d n
PlaceofWdfk:
Address: '
-
City: State: Zip:
Work Phone: Email Address:
- -_ .
Social Security-";N
m
rueb ection 8 No:
Alien Registration Number:
Branch S e r v i c e : 2 S ' -r
qL- 6 2,
FEIN No:
Rank:
- 6. ' L 4
. . , ,..
.._ .
09/07/2006 13:OO FAX 2 1 7 4 9 9 5 0 9 9 Sen.Obama 005
~‘..~ra,1. Communication Commissicn
LLLk5 1 2 t h st. so. Vlmt

Uasliin,yt on, 0. C .
Ladies Centl..
nn1e.n :
T h i s is a complaint about the CeLaFhclne company W X . After many calls
from 5 regresentative ,of MC!I I f i n a l l y switchnd s e r v i c e , tbay t o l d me of
-the wonderful d.cals and s e r v i c e t h e y would o f f e r . At first when I t o l d . then
i d i d n ’ t b p l i e v e Chat I wanted t o m i t c h they n a i d hre can give you a much

bcttTr &&, this happem.8 after I :.rent t o my f i l e and gave them NheL 1
l-&. paid t h e gast three b i l l s , t h e y were a l l i n t h e mid. t o h i g h 3 0 , ~Oh ~we
can do much hotter than that.1 realized that with a low h i l l lih Chat for both
long distance and l o c a l i t could not be 20 o r 30 d o l l a r s , so I question& tht.
The ansl-icr that I -thcn r e c e i v c d zf-ter I said 4-5-6-7- dollars, thqr zfie~ered
,with a ycs.
Ny F i r s t bill was f o r $60.79 and then 1 s t z r t e d l o a k i 1 1 ~t o change t h e second
h i l l ims f o r $ 6 5 6 2 . There. was to be no change over FFX 3,n t h e s e transactions. x

returned. t o ATScT.1 hava paid t h e f i m t ‘ b i l l t h a t fox t h c sane s e n i c e was $29.42,
A Supnlrvisor from MI when I c a l l e d and. complainnd Enid I can talct: $39. off r:ight
C
now, 1 questioned h m about h e r authorLty and here is 11~;lc words, T: can do wf;ctevn:c
1 k-+nt, can YOU b c l i e v s t h i s . 1 s t u d i e d Piarkcting and. I.rould havp said, 1:vm thr
Supervisor m d have the a u t h o r i t y t o make Che d e c i s i o n o r many other more educated
she
outs i d r ,
years
stay
Service
I. opcratpd my o f f i c e irc t h e way I l i v e t e l l It l i k e it is and sometimes that has
created probl.erns even wLt.h my own perty. 1 do not h a m one bad mark on my credit
and w v c r have,
09/07/2008 13:OO FAX 2174925099 Sen.Obama @lo06
\jha't p7ould 1 have done i.f they had t o l d me t h b service lmuld cost$60.
s a - d No and hung up.They ,sta,rt,cd 'by t c l l l n g me t h e y had t h i s service t o
o f f e r m d . I told them no a l l I wanted was l o n g clistancs and loca.1, No Fancier,
I h a w t r i e d numerous timfa and w a i t s d . and w a i t P C 1 I tried again -tod.ay and hung
up in disgust.
I Yeel t h a t t h e Supervisor should z l l o w t h e 339 as $ 1 agreed

~ and they never
said I had t o stay w i t h the company f o r any pe.rTod of' time.After she agreed
?,tvas then I received t h c swond month b i l l and we were back t o where we
started in other words it i ~ a sto be $60. plus from th..pn on.
The way ,l;hue8e:hone companies a m cixmchg thcra shoula be a - i ' o l l o ~up l e t , t c r
rsl-ntLng what the deal is m d t h e customF:r would have a reaaonbla t i n e t o
negate thc deal.
Thank you f o r your t i m e and I hope concern, my good friend because o f the deal.
I was t o get a l s o chanced over, your r i g h t h i s b i l l was a l s o $hO.plus.
cc , L i s a Madigan Att. Gen. , Ill.
S e n a t o r , Richard Tlllrbill
Senator &rack Obama

Rep. Tim Johnson, 13.1.
R
Georgetown, IL. 6risLt6
Fh. ( 2x7) 662-2187
4
R E C E I V E D TIME SEP. 7, 2:28FM P R I N T TIME S E F . 7 , 2:29PM
SEP 2 6 2006

Springfield, IL 62701
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Bob Payne, regarding a
service and billing dispute he is having with MCI, Inc. (MCI).
The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau has directed MCI to respond to the
Commission in writing concerning Mr. Payne’s complaint, which was previously submitted
directly to the Commission by Mr. Payne. Mr. Payne should receive a copy of the response
that the company submits to the Commission. He may obtain information regarding his
complaint by writing to the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Inquiries &
Complaints Division, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free 1-
888-225-5322. TTY users may call 1-888-835-5322. Mr. Payne should include the
complainant tracking number, 06-10246833, and the Congressional tracking number indicated
at the top of this letter to facilitate a prompt response to his inquiry.
We invite Mr. Payne to visit the Commission’s web site at http://www.fcc.gov for
information on telecommunications-related issues and to access the FCC rules and regulations.
We appreciate your inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Erica H. McMahon
CoMMlll€Es:
ILLlNOlS PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
united statu Senate VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, OC 20510
December 7,2006
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Room 8-C453
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was sent to Senator Obama's Chicago office from Gordon Skul.
On August 17,2006 OUT office received a letter from Mr. Michael Carowitz, Chief of Staff for
the Enforcement Bureau. According to Mr. Carowitz's letter, Mr. Skul's situation with the FCC
was still under review. Mr. Skul recently wrote to our office and asked us to inquire into whether
there is any update on his case. Mr. Skul's enclosed letter will better explain his current situation.
I assist the Senator on matters such as these, and 1 would greatly appreciate any help or
information you could offer as I work with Mr. Skul. I have enclosed a copy of the letter for your
reference.
contact me at 3 12-886-3506.
Sincerely,
Constituent Services Agent

--
12/07/06 16:05 FAX 312 886 3514
--
--- - @lo03
- . - A
The I-Ionorablc Barack Obama October 10.2006

230 South Dewborn
Siiire 2900
C~iicago:Tllinois 6060.4 . I , .' '
. I
.. . . .....
Dear Senator Obama:
Thanlc you for your lettcr of September 5 , 2006, which included a reply, dated August 17,2006, from Michael
C,arowitz, Chicfof Staff for the FCC Enforcement Bureau. Mr. Carowitz stated that, "Mr. Skul's reply to rhe
Bureau's letter was received on May 15,2006 and is currcnrly under review. Please be assured that w t Will inform
you ofrhe outcoine ofthis investigation." A copy ofthat reply is attached hereto. Apparcntly, as ofrhe date of This
letter. Ociober IO, 2006, there is no outcoine or [he FCC investigation o f thc inader that has been under rcview.
Meanwhile3 I have receivcd a letter, dated July 13,2006, from the licensce of W9BCL, Mr. Johl 1-1. Polzin. A
copy of his signed letter and a copy o f its envelope showing a postmark from Mr. Polzin's location. as well as copies
of FCC Special Counsel Hollingswonhs enfo,rcbment letters 10 Mr. Polzin and IO; me arc atxachedhereto. in his
lcrter to mc, Mr. Polzin states: "ln no way did I make any kind of a srarement to rhe FCC about you using my call."
TI~LIs, FCC Special Coimsel W.R. Hollingsworth's arbitrary and capricious enforcemenr letter to me notwithstanding.
the patently iinplnusible "indication" that 1 have been operating under Mr. Polzin's call sisn since 1985 is shown to
be uttcrly unreliable and Pilue. Significantly, Special Counsel Mollingswol?h made no efforl: whatsover to inquire of
Mr. Polzin what he acnrally meant by his odd and uttcrly implausible coinrnsnt about "having trouble" with
WB9BCL using my call since 1985. Actually, the notion that I have been operating under Mr. Polzin's call sign
since 1985 makes no sense wliatsocver for a number ofrsasons, indudins that for decades 1 have operated
exclusively on fi-crpencies which are 1'101 authorized under Mr. Polzin's Ciencral class amateur license, bur which are
authorized under my Exrra class amateur license. Nevcrrheless, Spccial Counsel Hollingsworlh has deemed Mr.
Folzin's odd and unzrly implausible comment prima facie evidence o f m y operation under Mr. Polzin's call since
I rcceived his ellforcement letter daled May 3,2006. I n nearly forty years since 1 have obrained
1 OS>: corise~~uzntly,
mi Amateur Radio license, ihcre has iicvcr been any credible. plausible, sensible or rational indication ihsr Ihave
opcrared undcr any unauthorized call sign.
FCC Special Cowiscl W.R. Hrsllingsworth's enforceincnt actions on h e basis of patently implausible and Fdsz
complaints can be likened to a medieval witch hunt. wllcre a patent lack of evidence didn't mairer and a palcnrly
implausible and false complaint from anyone was sufficient to iniriate perseciltion. Significantly. Special Counsel
Ifollingswoiths enforcement letter co MI-. Polzin, dated klsrch 28,2006, was based on a patently liivolous and
ahsttrd complaint tiom Amateur Radio licensee ofKC4Pc. A copy of this complaint is attached hereto. As one
exarnplc out of several of the frivolous and absurd nature ofthc complaint which launchcd Special Counsel
Hollingsworth's enforcement action against Mr. Polzin, and consequently ngainst me, is the fact thar, although lhc
complaint alleged "deliberate interference" -- no nicnrion whatsoever w a s made in the complaint that the complainant
was engagcd in an ongoing commilnication wirli any other station and rhus was attempting to receive 3 signal froin
some other station at the time he allegedly experienced "deliberate interference" duc to Mr. Polzin's transmissions.
Common sense strongly dictates that 3 complaint about interference to a non-existent signal is a totally frivolous and
absurd complaint. An additional indication of arbitwry and capricioLls nature of Special Counsel Hollingsworrh's
enforcement sclions i s thc fact that Mr. Polzin received an enforcement lcrter alleging "interference" due to his
operation on an amareur band whei-e Mr. Polzin has nor made any transmissions of any kind for more than ten yeus;!
Moreover, according to FCC regulations, Mr. Polzin's (ieneral class liccnse is not, a1 any rime, authorized for
transiiiissions of the kind that he allegedly made on that particular freqoency in the 20-nietcr amateur band, when he
allegedly "iiitedtrcd" with a non-exisling s i p . Yet, Special Counsel Hollingsworth in his enforccment letter to
Mr. Polzin nrade no mention whatsoever ofthat one and only iniplied violaton of an 'FCC regulation!
Based, on the a[30ve3it i s evidellt thal the I.:Kiniriares enforcemznt action against a radio umateur bascd On nothing
more than B frivolous, absurd, false and unsubstaiitiated complaint from another radio amaleur. Clearly,
enforcement action which is initiated without any plausihlc cviclence of 9 violation generally resdls in abuse, is
unethical: and clearly wrong. "His FCC iinposcs a liohiliry in the amount 01'$4000against a wdio amateur who does
not providc n tiniely responst to an FCC cnforcemunl letrer; sonic radio amalcuts have had rhis liability imposed on
them by the FCC. Sincc rhese enlirrcelnent latrers are somerimes h a d on nothing more than a patently implausible
and false complaint, a radio iimateur iievcr knows when an arbitrary and chpricious enrorcement M e r could arrive.
RECEIVED TIME DEC. 7 . 4 : 3 5 P M

12/07/06 16:06 FAX 312 886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
.--- -. ----.-.,- -' - @I004
This clearly ilnplies thflt in order to avoid the potential $4000 liabiliry that may be imposed by the FCC, radio
aniateurs, whether activc or inactive for years, before leaving on an oxtended trip or vacation need 10 register their
irinerary with rhe FCC in order to ensure h a t a timely rcspoiise IO an arbitrary and capricious enforcement letter can
be providsd. Also, the FCC employs an enforceinent lettcr to opcn a "case" against a radio aniateur; this
undoubtedly facilitates additional xbimty and capricious FCC enforcement action. Moreover, the FCC employs the
practice of rising wisubsrnntialed and possibly false complaints from radio amateurs as a rationale for rlot renewing
an amstzur's license. In addition, in a blatant disregard of a radio amateur's privacy, the FCC inakcs such arbitray,
capricious, aiid specioiis enforcement letters nvailahlc to the American Radio Relay Leagiie (ARRL), a national
asrociation for Amateur Radio, .for the purpose of posting such lcaers on the ARRL Web situ. The cnforcerntnr
letter from Special Counsel Hollingswo~th,which speciously implies that tlierc is an indication of my use oT Mr.
Polzin's call sign in violarion d a n FCC regul?lion, was posted on the ARRL Web site on June 2,2006. In addition
to a blatant violation of m y privacy, such world-wide specious Internet posting undoubtedly encourages additional
false complaints and ipso facto additional arbirraiy and capricious FCC enforceinenl action. Incidentally, the FCC
has its own Web sire where it posts enforcement actions which, unlike Special Counsel Hollingsworth's enforcement
actions, art:backed by some kind of plausible, substantiated evidence.
Thc enforcement lettcr 1 received from the FCC, case +EB-2006-2858, dated May 3,2006, was based solely on an
implausible comment made by MI-. John Polzin, which the FCC fiilsely interpreted as an indication that I have used
Mr. Polziii's call sign, W9BCL. As clearly shown by Mr. Polzin's letter to me, that indication is utterly unrdiable
and false. I therefore request that the FCC acknowledge the fact that it does not have a valid indication that 1 have
used MI-. Polzin's call sign, W9BCL. Also, since the case "EB-2006-2858''was opened by the FCC against me as a
result of that false indication, 1 requcst the closing of this case,
Sincercly,
Gordon N. Sku1
P.O. Box 521
Crete, 1L 60417
f i i C E I V E D TIME DEC. 7 . 4:35FM P R I N T TIME DEC. 7 . 4:36PM

-111-."-".------- I ---+- - "^ ~ I - ~ l_l _---___
I-x___ ~
EB-SED-CL
CN 060 1620

230 South Deaxbom
Suite 3900
Chicago, lliinois 6136U4
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your inquiry or June 27,2006. on behalf of Mr. Gordon Skul of
Crete, Illjnois. Mr. Skul, matcur 1-adiolicensee of call sign WB9BCL. contacted your
office concerning a leltcr he received froin thc star[ of the Cormnission's Enforcement
Bureau ("Bureau").
111Febiuuy 200G, the Bureau initiated an investigation into a complain1 of

interference on the 20 meter amateur band, allegedly caused by fxazsmissjons froin
amateur radio spation W9BCL. The licensee of WgBCL, MI.. John Polzin, responded to
the complaint alleging that Mr. Skul has been operating iinclel- his call sign W9BCL sincc
1985. 111order to fully jnvestiyate this matter, Mr. Riley T-.lollingsworth of thc Bureau
sent a letter dated May 3?2006 directly to Mr. Skul requesting that he review and fully
address the allegation that hc lias been operating under call sign W9BCL'. The
Coi-nmissionhas the authority to o.btaii3 il2formation from applicants and licensees about
tlze operation oftheir station and their qualif?colions to remain a license. 47 U.S.C. S
30!3(b).
?AT. Skul's reply to the Bureau's letter was received on Mzy 15, 2006 and is
curreiitly under review. Since this inancr i s stili ~mder'~:eview,
Mr. Skul's license, w7nich
does not expire until 20 12, remains in good standing wiih the Commission. While we
I understand Mr. Sltul's concer~~s, we can ,assure you that MY.Hollingsworth acted within
the scope of his cnfol-cement duties. Please be assured that we will in rom you of the
outcome of this investigation.
With regard to Mr. Slcul's concerns about the Bureau's lerter being published on
the Ainexican Radio Relay League's ( "AR,RL")websi tt, d l Burcmi Iettcrs to a.mateux
radio operators are routiiiely made ;.lvaila.ble to amateur radio organizations and other
interested paties that request liiem. 'lhc ARKL's website lists various ci?.forcement-
related letfcrs issued to a iwinber of amateur ixdio operators.
2
Thank you for your interest in this matter. If you require additional infomation
or assistance, please contact this office at (202) 41 8-7450.
Sincere1y\,
fiuu
Michael Carowik
... ._. . .... .. Chief of Staff

EZorcemei~B.urcau
RECEiVED TiME DEC. 7. 4:35PM PRINT TIME DEC. 7. 4:36FM

yl_-
- ~ --+-I .
- -.
"_y
I - -1 --- --- -~--- I_I_ ___-
. - ~ -
___x
16:05 FAX 312 8 8 6 3514 @I
- SENATOR BARACK OBAMA - 001
-- .- A - -

CHICAGO OFFICE
0 URGENT F O R REVIEW 0 PLEASF. COMMENT PLEASE REPLY PLEASE RECYCLE

I
NO'I'ESJCOMMENTS.
RECEIVED TIME DEC. 7. 4:35PM PRINT TIME DEC. 7. 4:36FM

~ - - I _ L _ _ x - r II -- ^Il_l "- - _"
.I" _I_x_ --_-_- __-
Fede r a1 Corn m u n i cat ion s Com m i ssi on
1

JAN 1 0 2006
EB-SED-CL
CN 0602826

230 South Dearborn
Suite 3900
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your follow-up inquiry of Decepber 7, 2006, on behalf of Mr. Gordon
Skul of Crete, Illinois. Mr. Skul, amateur radio licensee of call sign WB9BCL, contacted
your office for an update on the Enforcement Bureau's investigation of whether he has been
operating under call sign W9BCL.
We understand Mr. Skul's concerns in his recent correspondence sent to your office.
Mr. Riley Hollingsworth's letter dated May 3, 2006, to Mr. Skul was an inquiry requesting
that he address a complaint filed against him. The letter was not an enforcement action, but
only a means to investigate the allegations raised by the complaint. After reviewing all
correspondence related to this matter, the Bureau's staff does not contemplate any
enforcement action, and the case is now closed. We have sent a letter directly to Mr. Skul to
this effect.
With regard to Mr. Skul's continued concerns about the Bureau's letter being
published on the American Radio Relay League's ("ARRL") website, the ARRL's website
lists various investigation-related letters issued to a number of amateur radio operators. As
previously stated, Bureau letters to amateur radio operators are routinely made available to
amateur radio organizations and other interested parties that request them to encourage good
amateur practice. For example, self-policing by amateur radio operators helps to ensure that
stations are "operated in accordance with good engineering and good amateur practice." See
47 C.F.R. 5 97.101(a). We understand that, per Mr. Skul's request, the inquiry letter
pertaining to his license has been removed by ARRL from its website.
Thank you for your interest in this matter. If you require additional information or
assistance, please contact this office at (202) 41 8-7450.
Sincerely,
Michael Carowitz
Chief of Staff
Enforcement Bureau
BARACK OBAMA r? $1 ll--rFi
/L LINOIS ENVIRONMENT AND

PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Unitad %;tatas ,Senate VETERANS AFFAIRS
W A S H I N G T O N DC 20510-1306
December 18,2006

Chairman
Federal Communications Commis$ion
445 12th Street SW
Several of my constituents have expressed concerns about the entry of the al-Jazeera
International television station into the U.S. cable TV market. These concerns relate to the
prospect for this channel to incite violence or in other ways violate the laws and rules governing
television content that the FCC enforces.
Please inform me of the Commission’sposition on these concerns. I appreciate your

attention to this matter and thank you in advance for your prompt reply.
c+
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
March 2, 2007
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0700 175
The Honorable Bar& Obama

7 13 Hart Senate Ofice Building
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of several of your constituents regarding the
programming provided on AZ Jazeera,a nonbroadcast television network based in Qatar, that
may be available to consumers who subscribe to cable or satellite television service. I appreciate
the opportunity to respond.
As an initial matter, it should be noted that the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution
and federal statute generally limit the Commission’s authority to regulate the content of
television and radio programming. In general, programming decisions are made by the
television or radio station and are not approved or reviewed by the government. The few rules
the Commission has concerning the content of television programming have been tied to an
explicit and unambiguous statement in federal law. For example, federal law establishes
criminal penalties for the distribution of television programming that qualifies as “obscene” and
directs the Commission to establish rules to restrict the availability of “indecent” programming
on broadcast stations. In addition, the Commission does not have the authority to prevent a
television or radio station or network from airing biased, unpopular or offensive viewpoints in its
programming. The Commission also is not authorized to direct a programming distributor, such
as cable television operator or a satellite television carrier, in the selection or scheduling of
specific programming. As a general matter, decisions concerning what programming services to
offer, and on which tier to offer these services, are within the discretion of the programming
distributor.
In your correspondence, you indicate that your constituents are concerned that the
programming provided by AZ Jazeera “may incite violence or in other ways violate the laws and
rules governing television content.” As you may know, the U.S. Government has established
mechanisms to address concerns that persons or entities may be engaged in activities which
promote or support terrorism. For example, the U.S. Patriot Act authorizes the Secretary of
State, in consultation with or upon the request of the U.S. Attorney General, to place persons or
organizations on the “Terrorist Exclusion List.” Placement on this List could result in denial of
entry to the United States or the initiation of deportation proceedings. In addition, Executive
Order 13224 authorizes the U.S. Department of the Treasury to designate an organization a
“Specially Designated Global Terrorist” and block the assets of individuals and entities that
Page 2-The Honorable Bar& Obama
support, assist, or associate with the organization. Moreover, it is a criminal act for any person
to engage in financial transactions or to provide a material benefit to a person, organization, or
entity that has been placed on the lists compiled by the State or Treasury Departments.
The A2 Jmeera network does not appear to be on any list that would prohibit the
availability of the network within the United States. However, pursuant to the authority
discussed above, the State Department has prohibited the availability of certain foreign media
outlets to consumers within the United States. For example, the AZ-Manar TelevisionNetwurk,
which was established by Hezbollah, has been placed on the State Department’s “Terrorist
Exclusion List”, and the Treasury Department declared the network to be a “Specially
Designated Global Terrorist.” As a result, the AZ-Manur TelevisionNetwork cannot be available
in the United States, and its assets that are subject to U.S. jurisdiction have been seized.
Additional information regarding these matters is available on the State Department’s website
(http://www.state.aov/s/ct/list),and the website of the U.S. Treasury Department
(http://www.treas.nov/offices/enforcement/ofac). For your information and review, I also have
enclosed a copy of Executive Order 13224, as well material from the State and Treasury
Departments regarding the policies which govern individuals and organizations that have been
designated as terrorists or associates of terrorists.
I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of

hrther assistance.
Sincerely,
Chief, Ofiice of Communications and Industry Information

Media Bureau
Enclosures
United @tates: Senate
WASHINGTON, DC 2 0 5 10
Honorable Kevin Martin

Chairman
445 12th Street, S.W.
We are writing regarding the Federal Communications Commission's review of

the AT&T and BellSouth merger. We know that the process required cooperation and
concessions from all sides involved. And we commend you and your fcllow
Commissioners for reaching a conclusion that won concessions from the merging firms to
protect competition in the market for communications services.
We know that leaders from the Senate committees of jurisdiction, including

Senator Kohl and Senator Inouye, advocated many of those protections. Wisely included
among them, the agency compelled the companies to concede to the divestiture of
telecommunications facilities in the 2.5 GHz and 2.3 GHz spectrum within twelve
months of the closing date of the merger. Since the conclusion of that proceeding, House
Ways and Means Chairman Charles Range1 has written the agency to cncourage that the
spectrum divestiture proceedings allow for small and minority owned businesses to
participate in the bidding in a meaningful way.
As the players in the various markets for the delivery of communications services
and access to the Internet continue to respond to a changing market, it is up to the FCC to
constantly monitor and encourage a communications marketplace that leaves room for
the expression of a diversity of viewpoints. Within that context, the agency should
encourage diversity of ownership of the assets over which those viewpoints are delivered.
We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to working with the
agency on this and other matters as innovations continue to drive dramatic change in the
marketplace.
Sincerely,
4
&*
Richard J. Durbin
U.S. Senator U S . Senator
FEDE R A L C O M M U N I CAT I O N S C O M M 1 SS10N
WASHI NGTO N
OFFICE O F
T H E CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

332 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Dear Senator Durbin:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission’s review of the AT&T and
BellSouth merger, and the subsequent effect on competition in the telecommunications market.
In particular, you discuss spectrum that AT&T will be divesting, and its availability for small
and minority-owned businesses.
I appreciate your concerns in this regard and agree that we should work to encourage a
communications marketplace that leaves room for the expression of a diversity of viewpoints.
Reaching out to major telecommunications players, like AT&T, to enhance the opportunities for
smaller enterprises to participate is a helpful suggestion. Further opportunities for smaller and
minority-owned businesses may also be found in the additional spectrum that will become
available in 2009.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please feel free to contact me if I can be
of further assistance.
Sincerely,
/
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
F E D E R A LCOMMUNICATIONS COM M I S S I O N
W A S H I N GTO N
OFFICE O F
THE CHAIRMAN

Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission’s review of the AT&T and
BellSouth merger, and the subsequent effect on competition in the telecommunications market.
In particular, you discuss spectrum that AT&T will be divesting, and its availability for small
and minority-owned businesses.
I appreciate your concerns in this regard and agree that we should work to encourage a
communications marketplace that leaves room for the expression of a diversity of viewpoints.
Reaching out to major telecommunications players, like AT&T, to enhance the opportunities for
smaller enterprises to participate is a helpful suggestion. Further opportunities for smaller and
minority-owned businesses may also be found in the additional spectrum that will become
available in 2009.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please feel free to contact me if I can be
of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
WASHINGTON, DC 205 10
February 1,2007
The Honorablc Kevin J. Martin

Chairman
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, IIC 20554
Re: WC Docket No. 06-159, Petition of Neutral Tandem, Inc.
We are writing to inquire into the status of the Commission's consideration of the
above-referenced Petition, filed by Neutral Tandem, Inc., an Illinois-based provider of
tandem switching services, which is seeking interconnection with Verizon Wirclcss. We
understand that this matter has been pending at the Commission for some time. Thc
current Petition and the prior requests for mediation were filed with the FCC in May of
2004 and May of 2005 respectively.
We also have been provided copies of comments in support of Neutral Tandem's

Petition filed by the City of Chicago and Commissioner Ronald Lieberman of the Illinois
Commerce Commission, and by the New York Department of Public Service and the
City of New York. all focusing on the public interest benefits of tandem switch diversity
in the event of a natural disaster or other homeland security emergency. These findings
echo the conclusions in the FCC's rcport on Hurricane Katrina, which found the lack of
tandem redundancy to be a major factor in disrupting communications during the crisis.
Wc hope you will make it a priority to promptly consider the issues raised by
Neutral Tandem's Petition, and we would appreciate being advised as to the status of this
matter at your earliest opportunity.
-
Sincerely,
'
1
C%$?2e--
Barack Obama
1J.S. Senator U .S . Senator
Unittd ,$&tea @mate
WASHINGTON, DC 205 10
February 5,2007
The I Ionorable Kevin J. Martin

Chairman
445 12th Street, SW
Dear Chairman Martin,
Wc arc writing to ask that you hold a public hcaring in Chicago, Illinois as
the Fcdcral Communications Commission's (FCC) current review of its major
owncrship rules.
The FCC has to date held two important public hearings on this proceeding -1 onc
in Los Angeles, Calirornia and one in Nashville, Tennessee - and will soon be
i
considering locations for anothcr four public hearings. We believe Chicago is uniqu ly
positioncd to contribute to the debate because of its size, ethnic diversity (including argc
Latino and African American communities), multiple actors in the media marketpla e
ranging from small Spanish language daily newspapers to the Tribune Company, an the
city's position as a gateway to the Midwest.
The agency is tasked with reviewing its broadcast ownership rules to

whcthcr a change in the rules is in the public interest in light of compctition.
that the public interest standard compels as diverse a media marketplace in
and representation as possible in order to allow for the full expression of
i
We arc concerned that meaningful participation in the media marketplace is
becoming increasingly dependent on the kind of access to capital that only large me ia
conylomeratcs can generate. And a variety of communities from religious to ethnic o
political arc dccply concerned that they will not have the ability to express themselv s in
this new broadcast environment. In the case of minority ownership of broadcast out ets,
as Commissioner Copps has pointed out, there has been no improvement in the level of
minority ownership since 1998, even as the number of stations has increased by 12
percent. In fact, because of increased consolidation, the number of African-Americ
stations since 1998 has fallen 30 percent.
Our constituents are well aware that broadcast ownership rulcs directly implibate
core American values such as diversity, localism, representation, and a competitive
marketplace of ideas. We feel that the voices of Chicago's diverse communities shoild be
an integral part of your proceeding. We hope you will consider holding an FCC h e 4 n g
in our state.
Sincerely,
C'
Kichard
U.S. Senator
Barack Obama
U.S. Senator
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE O F
THE CHAIRMAN

332 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Dear Senator Durbin:
Thank you for your letter requesting that the Commission conduct a public hearing in
Chicago, Illinois, as part of its 2006 quadrennial review of the broadcast ownership regulations.
Public input is integral to this process. In addition to an extended 120-day comment

period, the Commission will hold half a dozen public hearings at various locations around the
country to involve the public more fully. We hope to hear from the public on a variety of issues,
including the impact of media on: localism, competition, diversity, media ownership, children's ~
and family-fhendly programming, religious programming, independent programming, campaign

and community event coverage, music and the creative arts, the growth of the internet, jobs and
the economy, advertisers, rural America, senior citizens, and the disabled community.
The Commission has held public hearings in Los Angeles, California, and Nashville,
Tennessee. Our third hearing was February 23,2007, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. At this time,
discussions are underway with my colleagues on the Commission to determine the timing and
location of the other public hearings. We will let you know about the time and place of the
hearings as we proceed.
I look forward to working with you and other Members of Congress as the Commission
reviews its broadcast media ownership rules and policies. Please do not hesitate to contact me if
I can of further assistance.
Sincqrely,
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
FEDERALC O M M U N I C A T IC
OONM
S MISSION
W A S H 1NGTON
OFFICE OF
THE C H A I R M A N

7 13 Hart Senate Office Building
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter requesting that the Commission conduct a public hearing in
Chicago, Illinois, as part of its 2006 quadrennial review of the broadcast ownership regulations.
Public input is integral to this process. In addition to an extended 120-day comment

period, the Commission will hold half a dozen public hearings at various locations around the
country to involve the public more fully. We hope to hear from the public on a variety of issues,
including the impact of media on: localism, competition, diversity, media ownership, children’s
and family-friendly programming, religious programming, independent programming, campaign
and community event coverage, music and the creative arts, the growth of the internet, jobs and
the economy, advertisers, rural America, senior citizens, and the disabled community.
The Commission has held public hearings in Los Angeles, California, and Nashville,
Tennessee. Our third hearing was February 23,2007, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. At this time,
discussions are underway with my colleagues on the Commission to determine the timing and
location of the other public hearings. We will let you know about the time and place of the
hearings as we proceed.
I look forward to working with you and other Members of Congress as the Commission
reviews its broadcast media ownership rules and policies. Please do not hesitate to contact me if
I can of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
--- @001/007
I
OBAMA
CHICAGO OFFICE
- - 02/13/07 16:54 FAX 312 886 3514 SENATOR BARaCK OBAMA. @l002/007
COMMITTEES:
ILLINOIS
PUBLIC WORKS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Wnited stata Senate VETERANS’ AFFAIRS
February 13,2007
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Room 8-C453
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received in my Chicago office from my constituent, Francis
Joseph Golla. Attached you will find his letter which gives a more accwate description and
explanation of his issues.
1would appreciate your looking into this matter at your earliest convenience. Please advise Ellen
Whelan-Wuest, who assists me in these matters, of your findings.
contact Ellen Whelaii-Wuest at 3 12-886-3506.
Sincerely,

W m T MO FmE Cncnao O r n u 6 . Y N C R L D OFFWE MA”O R l C E MOLINE

713 HARTSENATE OFFlCE BU~LOING 230 5 . DEAROOIW 807 EAST ADAME 701 NORW Coum SWEET M ~52ND
1911 AVENUE
~ ILIe1285
,
Wlc+IlNOTON, D t Zm1D SUlX 39ao SUITE 1820 OFEIU:
MARION.
(618)IL997-2402
62959 Owm 1309) 736-1217
OFFICE (202) 22A-2854 CltlcLIao, IL 80604 SHINOFIELD, lL 62701
OFFICE(217) 4Q2-6089 FAX (610) 997-2850 F a 1309) 736-1235
FAX 1202) 2 2 ~ 4 2 ~ 0 OFFICE (312) 8864608
F,w (2121 8 B M 5 1 4 FAX (2171 4924099
RECEIVED TIME F E E . 13. 5:22PM PRINT T I M E F E B . 13. 5:24PM

02/13/07 16:54 FAX 312 886 3514
__-_ -- -
SOClAL SERVICE FQ
0 2 / 0 6 / 2 0 0 7 06:11 PAX 773 8 6 9 8080
Prancis Joaeph Golla

Attorney at Lav
5156 5 . Metion Ave
Chicago, I1 6 0 6 3 8
1-7 73-585-53 59
February 6 , 2007
SenaLwr Barack Obma
Fax: 312-886-3514
bear Senator Obamr
I f a r m a l l y request the FCC formally declare ATLT in default o f

the Federal. requirentent that ATaT, in exchange for the r i g h t to
e c q u i r e Bell-South, provide "stend alone", low cost, OSL service.
Ahou : Jan. 1 0 ' 07 I asked ATdiT for their lnternet serviee: to
star : cm my next home phone bill 01/19/07. AT&T s a i d they would
" m a i l out" t b necessary software for the start $of 01/19/07
service- The sloftware arrived a week late: 01/26/07. There's
Ro Way A T W customers can l e g a l l y accese AT&T internet service
withlaut software: but the customer is billed for it before hand-
Yet, AT&* will: I.) not start to mall the aoftware before the
b i l l i n g begins; 2 . ) will send the software via "a elow boat from
Ckfnl%";and, 3 - ) vi11 bill for services ATLT knaws the customer
had K) u6e of, because ATaT had not yet mIVENiU2 the necessary
soft\?are. Such is sirnply nation vide, clase action, fraud-
ATlrnT's alleged internet aervlce ie, in fact, an orchestrated,
conslimer fraud. ATaT's practice of billing for internet service
AT&T knows the customer had no use of eoltatitutes the lawrongful
t a k i n g of consumer dollars vfa a criminal enterprise".
I am not even complaining abaut ATeT'e practice of "beck dating"
t h e 1,111 to include services never available is 2 0 0 6 : that's j u s t
thef-: via Interstate Comnerce. I need internet s@rvice. ATaT
offe:-s only a choice between: 1.) being billed for services ATdT
know; t h e customer never had access to; or, 2 . ) no Internet
s e r v ~ c sat a l l . AT&T will not mllow t h e customer to b i l l "People
Soft PC" internet service to *he cugkomr'6 AT&T bill. ATaT's
custcmer ia t o l d : 1.) submit to ATaT's fraud; orl 2 . ) go without
inte-net service. It'e the consummte definition cif an oxymoran
to clrll a Phone Co and not speaR to a human being. Call ATaT's
inte -net service: you'll connect to a -nu. T h e menu tells you
to p1m.h a #: you do so; then you're d i s c o m c t e d .
Sincerely yours,
,Eric I(mure8 :
C C : ;ATT&T: FCC / Rqtorney at L a w
RECEIVED T I M E FEE. 13, 5:22PM P R I N T T I M E FEE, 13, 5:24PM

I - - 1 1 1 1 - - - _ 1 1 - ~ . - ~
L - ~ ~L *~
~ - ~ ~ -
O2/13/07 1 6 ~ 5 5FAX 3 1 2 886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @ 004/007
. _-_____----.- -- ----- -
SOCIAL SERVICE FQ @0 0I3
02/06/2007 06:11 F A X 773 869 0080
Cheaper *high-speed
$mrm
FCC orelers AT&,
to unbundle DSL,
phone services
Internet coming
~ W G Q &M D k q ,
_-
JWGY 16,' 206i
U.S. telecommunications ia-
dudw. Tecentlv
ATtkT's acquisition of Bell-
South.' To get secure votes
I
from the FCC% twc,Democra-

tic members, AT&T am&,
teluctanily;t o offer thme DSL
says..
For years, Kbnmeban
notes, conrmmers had to pay
double, essentially, if they
wanted to buy a high-speed
broadband connection from
one carder and phone service
BY LESl I€ CAULN baFgaias. from another. He says that let
-- &T&Tisreuuiredtoroll0ut phone companies such as
Cheaper ht &-speed Inter- the $19.95 offer within one AT&" push broadband sales
net service is coming. year and the $10 rate within while presenring their core
Within a few months,. s 'm. months. Gene Kimmel- phone business, which still ac-
AT&" is ex]>ected to start man, public policy director of counts for the bulk of profit.
seuing f a n )is consumers Consumers Union, says he ex- While AT&T, for example,
$19.95 a mo;iIth for '.lnakea I1 pects AT&" to move faster. charges $4s for naked DSL, it
e%-----
DSL, meaninlr ou don't have
tobu any 01; er T&T serv-
ice, iicludi&i; phone, to get to
Under the terms of the FCC
agreement,
offer
AT&Tis required
naked DSL for $19.95
sells a bundle that includes
phone and DSL for just $28 a
month.
that rate. i n markets that are at least: 80 Cable ,TVcompanies do the
It current$, charges $45 for percent upgraded for broad- same thing. If purchased sep-
a stand-alone broadband sub- band. That describes many of arately, Time Warner charges
scription. AT&"% biggest markets, says $45 a month for its high-speed
AT&T ais!) is develo in Kimmelman, who helped ne- cable modem service and
--d&
$10 DSL for 1iew su scri
who also buj; AT&T-branded
gotiate the settlement.
Under the deal, ATBtT's
$49.95 for digital phone. A
bundle of both - plus TV
phone service cheap DSL productswillclock service - costs $99,.
AT&T plars to offer both in at 768 kilobits per second. Corncast's senrice is among
services for at least 30 ,While that's slower than the the priciest: It charges almost
rnonih. The clock starts as 1.5 to 3 megabits popular with $58 a month for stand-alone
soon as the m -.&a dant starts many U.S. consumers, "it's broadband.
of the 22 more than good enough" for ICimmelman, for one,thinks
Internet telephony, Kimrnel- AT&T's new DSL pricing will
bent local tlnone company, man says. help "discipline" broadband
which besidei Illinois include@ As such, he thinks the M n pricing. Once AT&T's $19.95
California, F1a rida and Texas. offers could help spur sales of rate for naked DSL is broadly
Why so cheap? Three Internet telephony acrose the available, other broadband
words: Fedel:4 Communica- United States. "This opens providers, including cable,
7
tions Commisr ;ion. the door for consumers" to 'W be hard-pressedt o keep
TheTCC, has broad- pick other local and long-dis- hiding behind a higher price,"
regulatory cc:ntrol over the tance providers," Kimmelman GanmttNms Service
FRANCIS W L L A Customer Sewlce: 1 BOO 28d-2747
5150 S MASON AVE Text Phone (In): 1 800 833-3232
CHICAGO 1L BdB38-la02
Internet Address; www.atC.com
previous balance ......................................................... ..0.67 For collect calls just dial

-
Payment receivsd Jan 12 Thank you .......................... -84.20 down the center I800
- Credit balance as of January 18 ..............................
-583.53 C-AL-L-A-T-T.
ATBT Local Services .................................... p 4 ...........62.55
AT&T Long Distance Ssrvlccs........................ p G,., .........:. 3.62 / I /
d T & T lntemet Access Services ...................... p 7............-1.45
Current charges .......................................................
567.82
6,
. $6 -
Credit Balance
Please do not sand payment. You hew a credlt balanoe.
~~
Never Mail Another Check to Pay Your AT&T 8111.

e- Benefitnews
Sign up for AT&T Online
Fur the ultimate canvenlence, enroll In AT&T Autamatlc Bill Billing and you won? get
Payment (ABP) and have your luture payments automrrtically another paper bill! To sign
deducted horn your enclosed check. To enroll, check the bo% up just visit
and sign on the line an the back of the remi#arnceaoupan, and w.alt.com/online
return vrith your payment. Or sign up for online billlng lo fevlew
and pay your bill each month by logging onto your ATbT Onllne
Billing account at ht@ip:/lwww.ett.wm/remitdoc
Conhues on back
@
1
please write your customer ID on your check or money order
at&t
made payable to AT&T. 00 not send cash. Do not staple thls
porfion to your payment. Thank you.
FRANCIS GOLIA
i Credft Balance 415.91 -
Dec 20 Jan 19,2097
RECEIVED TIME FEE. 13. 5:22PM PRINT T I M E FEE. 13. 5:24PM

@ I
006/007
@005
Customer Service: 1 800 268-2747 Dec 20 -Jan 18,2007

Text Phone (TW): j 800 839-3232
Internet Address; HMmr.atl.com
Cuetomer ID: 773 284-7891
Page 3 of 8
at&
W
Why more customers are choosing onllne bllllngl
Slrnply visit ~Up;//~.customersenrlce,a~.com io manage or set up your
onllne accaunt, An onllne account puts you in charge 7 x 241 Just log in to
check your order status, view, prlnt end pay your bill online, look up a
number you don't recognhe, sort your calls and mare. And if you sign up
for Automatic Bill Payment, you cen forget about late peyments and the
cost of stamps!
. Your current products and aervicea
Changes since your laet statement
Continues on back @
RECEIVED TIME FEE. 13, 5:22PM

I __I_
"_
02'13/07 16:55 FAX 312 886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
__---,- ___ ,_.,-. __-. _._-- -.-.-- -- -FQ-.------ @007/007
e
~
SOCIAL SERVXCE @ID O 6

02/06/2007 06:12 FAX 773 860 6080
Customer Service: 1 800 266-2747 Dee 20 - Jan 19,2007'

, .
text Phone (m):
I 800 833-3232
Intern& Address: Www.rtt.com
Cusfomer ID:773 280-7091
Page 7 of 8
at&t
AT&T provides stete-to-state and mternatlonal consumer calling W M C ~ S (and in

some instances, in-date and local senrlces) under the AT&T Consumer Services
Agreement, The Agreement explains each of our rights and responslbifHles related to
these sewlces, including billing and peyment. I[ you have not yet recelved a copy of
the Agreement, you can access it at http:/)www.attcom/serviceguide/homeor call us
at 1 988 2884099 to request a COPY. Also, please note if you want to contact AThT
regarding dirputes under the Agreement, the address has changed to PO Box
598022, Orlando, FL 328594022
Paying by check authorltee ATaT to send the inlomatlon fromyour check

. electronically to your bank for payment. Your account will be debked in the imOUnt
of your check and the transadon wlll appear on your bank statement. Your origlnal
check will be destroyed once processed, and you will not receive your cancelled
check back, If we cannot post the tr'8flSEcttOh electronically, you authorize us to
present an image copy of your check for payment. If you have further questions
regarding thls process, or ifyou do not wlsh to padcipate bn ATLT's check
conversion program please call 1 800 201-2367.
From time to Umr. we develop new offers and make priclng changes thk you may
want to know more about. We've set up a special web site to help you get the most
aut of your ATBT services-please vlsit us online a\ h t t p : / W . a t t c o ~ o m ~
Dec 20 -Jan 19.2007

ATRT WorlanetQDSewlee_.._ ,,......_._. .,..__........__...
.,......_. ..._.__.....
..___......
._.,.,.
1.45 ~
n a t a l AT&T internet kcesa Services ,,..................-...................,..............

$1.65
Aceauntnumbq PlO733WOTQ
-c
For questions about your WarldnrtQPinternet servlce, Pledss-CAl1 800 400-1447.
Tslcphone No. Ssnrlcs Pmv)dec As of o?ce

773 284-7891 Looel AT&T Jan 1B, 2007
Local td AT&T Jan 19,2067
Long &tame ATAT Jan 19,2007
ATaT Jan 19,2007
Local AT&T Jan 19,2007
Long dletence AT&T Jan 18,2007
Continues on back @
RECEIVED TIME FEB. 13. 5:22PM PRINT TIME FEB. 13. 5:24PM
-- --- - --"-- -....---- - -11_- . llI_-"~-.-LIIxIII
- ^ -
. - ----__I ----- -
m
MAR 1 2 2007

230 South Dearborn, Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Francis Joseph Golla,
regarding the difficulties he is experiencing with services provided by AT&T.
your inquiry. We have forwarded the concerns and issues raised by Mr. Golla to AT&T and
directed the company to respond to the complaint within 30 days. We also directed the
company to send Mr . Golla a copy of the response that the company submits to the
Commission. Mr. Golla can obtain information about the status of his complaint by writing to
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Inquiries & Complaints
Division, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling toll free 1-888-225-
5322. TTY users may call 1-888-835-5322. Mr. Golla should include the complainant
tracking number, 07-B0268304, and the Congressional tracking number indicated at the top of
this letter to facilitate a prompt response to his inquiry.
We invite Mr. Golla to visit the Commission’s web site at litrp:. I N i+

1%.fcc.gcn for
information on telecommunications-related issues and to access the FCC rules and regulations.
We appreciate your inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions.
Erica H. McMahon
#I-----
3/07/07 17:17 FAX 312 886 3514 SENATOR
-- - -. .-- BARACK OBAMA @l001/003
UNITED STAT€S SENATOR BARACK OBAMA

CHICAGO OFFICE
COMPANY-
-
..- - - NUMBER:
FAX . - TOTALNO. OP PAGES INCLUDING COVEK:
2-02
PHONE NUMHEK-
- q-rg - 2 S O b 3
ST?NDEK'SREFERENCC NUMBER:
31 2.886.3506
0 URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW 0 PLBASG COMMENT PLEASE REPT-Y 0 PLEASF. RECYCLE

~
NOTES/ COMMENTS:
r
230 SOU'1'1-l D E A R D O R N S U I T E 3 3 0 0 C H I C A G O , 1L 60604
P H O N E 3 1 2 886-350G F A X 3 1 2 8 8 6 - 3 5 1 4
-
R E C E I V E D T I M E MAR. 7. 5:44PM P R I N T T I M E MAR. 7. 5:45PM
-- _
l
-
ll
.
) ---,-~-"-.- -_LII_
03/01/07 1 7 : 1 7 FAX 3 1 2 886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @002/003
-__- - -. --.-- - -.
COMMIITEES:
BARACK OBAMA
ILLINOIS HEALTH, EDUCATION,LABOR AND PENSIONS
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTALAFFAIRS
anited %tats%enate FOREIGN RELATIONS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 VETERANS' AFFAl RS

March 7,2007
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Room S-C453
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received in my Chicago office fiom my constituent, Mr. Scott
Punke, Mayor of the city of Eureka. Attached you will. find his letter which gives a more
accurate description and explanation of his issues. I would appreciate your perspective on the
FCC's role in mediating the matter described henin.
Please contact Jema Pilat of my staff for further information at 3 12-886-3506 or via email at
j emaqifat@obama,senate.gov.
Sincerely,

W#mmcmN OFFICC CmcbGOoFRa O#WCE WlAROr OWreE MOLMEOFRCC

713 HART SENATE OPnC€ aUlLDlNG s.
230 OEnRBORN 807 b 5 T ADIMB 701 NORWCOURTSTRGCT 1911 52No AVENUP
WASWINGTON. DC 20510 SUITE moo SUITE 1620 MARION, 1L 62959 MOLINE, IL 61265
OFFICE 1202) 224-2Ed CHICAGO.IL 8oBod SPRINQHELU. 1L 82701 OFFICE (618) 887-2402 OFFICE (309) 73g1217
Fax (202) 228426D OFFICI! (312) 886-3506 O m c 1217)
~ 692-5W9 FAX (818) 997-2850 Fn*. 1308) 7 3 6 1 2 3
FAX (312) -3616 FAX (2171 492-5098
R E C E I V E D TIME MAR. 7. 5:44PM PRINT T I M E MAR. 7 . 5:45PM

03/07/07 17:17 FAX 312 886 3514
, -. -. - -.. -. Sl3-"TOR
- ---.--BARACK OBAMA @003/003
I
1 2 / 2 0 / 2 0 0 8 12:42 FAX 2174925080 Sen.Obama Qao2/ooz
CITY O f EUREKA
126 N. MAIN ST. PHONE 467-21 1 3
EUREKA, ILLINOIS 61 530
Dcccmber 18,2006
Senator Barrack Ob-

Senate Office Buil-
Dear Senator B m c k Obam:
Icc: Mdaconr-Slncl=ii- RctraPslPis;sionConsent DirplLte

,.
We are writing to seek your asd&ca wilh regard to a Serious matte of local c m o e m arising aut of
federal telecommunicationslaws and regulations.We ref= specifically to the ongoing
"retnnsmissiian canscnt"dispute between Mediacorn and Sinclair that threatens to leave m y of
your and our constituents without ~ t c e s sto amtam local network-affiliatedbroadcast stations
beginning January 6,2007,.
We are sure neither you nor we want to atart the New Year with the disruption to cable custonlers that
will bc caused if Sinclair carrieril through on i&threat to deny Mediacorn the right to providc i t s
customers with these channels - channels that provide populnr progaming such as the BCS National
championshipcollege football game (schedulcd for 3 a n w 8) and the Super Bowl (scheduled for
February 4). .
hs you may h o w , Madiacom fihd a compleint with the FCC userting that Sinclair has not been
negotiating ia good faith aB rcquired by law. In partioular, Mcdiacom has argued that Sinclair is singling
- -
out their company and its c u s t o ~ r s by demanding an measanably high price fix permission to carry
its stations. W Gdo not think it is fair for those of us served by small or mid-sized cablc companies in
smaller and malmarkets to be discriminated againat by broadcasters seekhg higher cash compensation
than they charge in other markets.
Mediaom has asked the FCC to order Sinolair to stop it5 discriminatory ractics and allow Mediacorn
to continue to off=- stations to custcmes mdl d& dqutc is resolved. W e mdcrstand ~ AinLthe
intcrinx Mediaoom has put Eve diffkrmt proposals on thc table in an effort to resolve tha dispute.
Thcrrfore. we urPe you to contact thc 'FCC and askit to:

.take all las&l actionlo mevent Sinclab- beim d m j -
,prevant disctiminatorv un'cing that oreiudiccg communitieslike ours: and
, order mandatdnt arbitration so a third oar^ apreed upon bv Both Mediacorn and Sinclair can
determine the aonrowiate comcnsation.
gz0Q
We believe this would help resolve the dispute before the deadline anives and stations are removed from
d our co hents'cable lincup. Thank you for your assistance in this important matter
Scott Punkc, Mayor
RECEIVED TIME MAR. 7. 5:44PM P R I N T TIME MAR. 7. 5:45PM

March 20,2007
INREPLY REFER TO:

CN-0700448

230 South Dearborn
Suite 3900
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, The Honorable Scott Punke,
Mayor of the City of Eureka, Illinois. Mayor Punke contacted your office regarding the
Emergency Retransmission Consent Complaint and Requestfor Order Permitting Interim
Carriage and Request for Expedited Treatment (LLComplaint’y that was filed with the
Commission by Mediacom Corporation (“Mediacom”) concerning the carriage of local broadcast
television stations owned and operated by the Sinclair Broadcast Group (“Sinclair”) on several
cable television systems operated by Mediacom. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
On January 4,2007, the Commission’s Media Bureau issued a decision which addressed
the issues raised in the Complaint. Although the Bureau’s decision determined that Sinclair had
not breached its duty to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith, the Bureau urged the
parties to enter into binding arbitration either through the Media Bureau or the American
Arbitration Association. While the parties did not submit to arbitration, on February 2, 2007,
Sinclair and Mediacom announced that they had entered into a multi-year retransmission consent
agreement. Thus, the Sinclair stations currently are available on Mediacom’s systems pursuant
. to the February 2 agreement.
I hope this information is helpfbl, and please do not hesitate to contact me if I

can be of fbrther assistance.
:incerely,
Chief, Ofice of Communications and Industry Information

Media Bureau
@I
001

CHICAGO OFFICE
e#
FAX NLImF.R: ‘1’01‘N NO. OF PAGES I N C L U D ~ N GCOVEX:
&LlRG&2d’r &OR REVIEW PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLEASE REPLY PLLASP XJXYCLE
230 S O U T I 4 D E A R B O R N S U I T E 3 9 0 0 C H I C A G O , IL 6 0 6 0 4
P H O N E 3 1 2 886-3506 FAX 3 1 2 8 8 6 - 3 5 1 4
R E C E I V E D T I M E MAR. 20. 12:3SPM P R I N T T I M E MAR. 20. 12:40PM

~
03/20/07 .11:39 FAX 312 886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @ 002
comMITTEE6:
BARACK OBAMA
ILLINOIS HEALTH. EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
HOMELAND SECURllY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
United states senate FOREIGN RELATIONS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 VETERANS' AFFAIRS
March 16,2007
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received in my Chicago officefiom my constituent, Mr.

Thomas Travis. Attached you will find his letter which gives a more accurate description and
explanation of his issues.
I would appreciate your looking into this mattcr at your earliest convenience. Please apprise
Jenna Pilat, who assists me in these matters, of your findings.
contact Jenna at 3 12.886.3506 or by email at jennaqilat@obma.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
CC: BO/jp
03/20/07 11:39 FAX 312 8 6 6 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @0I 0 3
03/02/2007 12:37
-. - -
FAX 2174925099 Sen.Obama
.-
1.
=.. -* -. .
-- . --
... .
RECEIVED T I M E MAR. 20. 1 2 : 3 8 P M P R I N T T I M E MAR. 20. 12:39PM

- I__I___L^___II__x.._..-__x_ - I- - _-
I
11-11 ~
03/20/07 11:40 FAX 312 8 8 6 3514 SENATOR BARACK, OBAMA @lo04
My name and address is;

Thomas W. Travis
1246 N 223d Lane
Payson. lL62360
217-6564091
ttravis@adarns.net
I live in a rural area near Payson Illinois not serviced by cable television, We are also located
-
about 20 miles from the nearest reception area of ABC. Simply put we are in a non-serviced
area for ABC.
I was a customer of Direct N from 1999 to 2005. During that time I was given Long Distant
-
Network for NBC CBS - FOX and ABC. Those rights were removed and I was forced to
contact my Congressman who was able to prove I should be Grandfatheredthose privileges. 1
soon began receiving the ABC broadcast again.
I later moved 10 miles down the road and once more lost Long Distant Networks. The reason
- -
given was I had moved. I didn't move from one viewing area to another Ijust moved 10 miles
down the road. I switched from Direct TV to Dish Network at that time to be able to receive "local"
television for NBC & CBS. I was still denied a waiver for KTVO. After about a month of phone
-
calls emails etc I fegained a ABC long Distant Network waiver. I only requested ABC long
distant networks as ,I was finally granted a waiver.
-- .. .. . .
, . - -. . - _- . ._ -
._ . .
Effective Dec la 2006 - as decided by our Judicial System - I once more lost those rights. A
Judge in Florida made the decision to punish Dish Network and make them disconnect all Long
Distant Network customers. A very heavy tine might have been punishment but the loss of signal
to customers that can not receive these channels any other way is no punishment to the provider
- only to the customers.
-
Since I do not live wjthin any ABC affiliate broadcast area I am (according to the FCC ruling) a
non-serviced custor6er. The closest ABC afflliate is K W O in Kirksville Missouri which is owned
by Barrington Broadcaast Inc. in Hoffman €sates, II. I live about 20-25 mile outside of their
broadcast area as sliown below on a map provided by the FCC. For this reason please help -
me prove no waiver-k required in my case. ..
According to the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and ReauthorizationAct of 2004 - I qualify as
an unserved household. I am also requesting a signal strength test from K W O to prove this.
RECEIVED TIME -MAR, 20, 1 2 : 3 8 P M PRINT TIME MAR, 20, 1 2 : 3 9 F M

03/20/07 ii:40 FAX 312 aw 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @ 005
Quoted from the FCC ruling
Unserved Households
If the installation of an outdoor over-the-air rooftop antenna does not provide the local broadcast
lV stations you desire, you may qualify as an "unserved household." If you qualify as an
"unserved household," you may be eligible to receive "distant signals." or stations that originate
outside of your local television market.
The term "unserved household" means a household or subscriber that:
cannot receive, through the use of a conventional, stationary, outdoor rooftop antenna,
an over-the-air network signal of Grade B intensity as defined by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC);
has a satellite dish that is permanently attached to a recreational vehicle or a commercial
truck; or
0 is subject to a waiver granted by the television network station.
Using a computer model, your satellite company can tell you if you are predicted to be
"unserved." If you are not predicted to be unserved, you may ask your satellite company to
request a waiver on your behalf.
As with local signals, your satellite company determines whether to provide distant signals to
eligible subscribers and which distant signals will be offered. Satellite companies also may charge
an additional fee to local subscribers for these distant signals.
The 2004 SHVERA statute changed distant signal eligibility in some circumstances.
If you received distant signals as of December 8, 2004, because you lived in an unserved
household, you may also receive local stations if the satellite company is currently
offering them in your DMA or introduces new local-into-local service in the future.
However, if you did not receive or try to receive distant signals as of December 8, 2004,
you are not eligible for distant service if local channels are offered, (You may be able to
geta waiveraf She "no-distant-where-l_qc,alI".r~quiremen~ from the local,television . .
stations: check with your satellite company to see if this is possible.)
0 Alternatively, you may be receiving distant analog signals because you are a
"grandfathered subscriber." Check with your satellite company to determine whether you
are grandfathered and what distant and local signals you may receive.
0 You may be receiving distant analog signals because you received a waiver from one or
more television stations that are predicted to serve your household. If you have such a
waiver, you may continue to receive distant analog signals and you also may subscribe to
local-into-local service.
I f you do qualify as an "unserved household," you are eligible to receive no more than two distant
network-affiliatedsignals per day for each lV network.
If your household is predicted to be "served," you may be able to get a waiver from the television
stations that are predicted to serve your household over-the-air. Ask your satellite company to
request a waiver from the television station on your behalf.
I have made repeated calls to Barrington Broadcastingwith no response. I have emailed K N O

and received responses denying a waiver even though I do not receive their signal.
I am asking someone to help me attract the attention of the proper people to resolve this issue
before it becomes a legal matter.
Thank you
RECEIVED TIME . MAR. 20, 12:38PM PRINT T I M E MAR. 20. 1 2 : 3 9 P M

l . l I ~ _1.-__1- c1 ~ C l .L"lq_l(_x
- ~ __(_____...
l.-_l __-
l__"
March 22,2007
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0’700540

230 South Dearborn
Suite 3900
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas W. Travis of
Payson, Illinois, regarding the availability of satellite-delivered broadcast television stations from
his satellite television carrier, Dish Network. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
As you may know, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (“SHVIA”)
authorized satellite television carriers to retransmit local television broadcast signals to
consumers residing in the local markets of those stations (“local-into-local service”). Under
SHVIA, satellite carriers are authorized to provide the signal of a local television broadcast
station to consumers who reside in the local station’s Designated Market Area (“DMA”) as
defined by Nielsen Media Research, Inc. (“Nielsen”). Nielsen assigns each county in the United
States to one of the 210 DMAs based on audience surveys and viewership levels. It is important
to note that the Commission does not establish the boundaries of DMAs, nor does the
Commission decide what markets a satellite carrier serves with local broadcast signals. Rather,
SHVIA permits satellite carriers to choose which markets they will serve with local television
signals. However, a satellite carrier electing to serve a local market with one or more local
broadcast signals generally is required to carry all qualified local broadcast stations in that
market that request carriage (the so-called “carry one, carry all” provision). The SHVIA also
requires that satellite television carriers utilize the DMA boundaries established by Nielsen to
determine the television stations that should be included in the carrier’s local programming
package, as well as to determine the consumers who are eligible to subscribe to local-into-local
service in a particular market.
Based on the information provided in his correspondence, Mr. Travis resides in Payson,
Illinois, which is located in Adams County. Nielsen Media Research has assigned Adams
County to the Quincy-Hannibal DMA. Thus, a satellite television carrier is authorized to provide
Mr. Travis, as well as other residents of Adams County, with the local television broadcast
stations located in the Quincy-Hannibal DMA. According to information on the Dish Network
website, the company currently serves the Quincy-Hannibal DMA with local broadcast signals,
but the local programming package does not include an affiliate of the ABC Network.
Therefore, Mr. Travis is interested in receiving the signal of a “distant” (Le., a station that
originates outside a consumer’s Designated Market Area or DMA) ABC station. However, Mr.
Travis’s ability to receive a “distant” ABC station was affected by an injunction resulting from
litigation concerning the provision of distant network signals to Dish Network subscribers.
Federal law authorizes satellite television carriers to retransmit distant network stations to
consumers. However, in general, only those satellite subscribers residing in “unserved
households” are authorized to receive distant network service. Pursuant to federal law, an
“unserved household generally is defined as one that cannot receive, through the use of a
conventional, stationary outdoor rooftop antenna, a signal of Grade B intensity fi-om a primary
network station.
Previously, the ABC, CBS, NBC,and Fox television broadcast networks, as well as their
respective affiliates associations, filed a civil action in the U. S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida alleging that EchoStar Communications Corporation, the parent company of
Dish Network, was providing distant network programming services to subscribers who were not
eligible to receive distant network signals because, among other things, the subscribers did not
satisfy the statutory criteria for “unserved household.” After evaluating the pleadings and
arguments of the parties, the U. S. District Court ruled in favor of the broadcasters and issued a
judgment which, among other things, directed EchoStar to cease providing distant network
programming to ineligible subscribers. EchoStar filed an appeal of the District Court’s
determination in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Subsequently, the U.S.
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Florida court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined
to review the matter. Therefore, the U.S. District Court issued a permanent injunction which,
effective December 1, 2006, prohibits EchoStar from providing distant network signals to
subscribers.
The EchoStar litigation does not involve a Commission ruling, nor did the Commission
initiate or participate in the judicial proceedings. It also should be noted that this court case does
not affect the provision of local television broadcast stations to Dish Network subscribers. Thus,
Dish Network may continue to offer “local-into-local” service in areas where the company has
elected to do so. For additional information concerning the required changes to Dish Network
service, Mr. Travis may visit the website of the National Association of Broadcasters
(http://www.nab.orF/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Press Releases I &CONTENTI D=6232&TEM
PLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay .cfm).
I understand that National Programming Service (‘“PS”) is offering distant network

signals to eligible Dish Network subscribers using facilities that N P S is leasing from Dish
Network. N P S has indicated that eligible Dish Network subscribers would not need to obtain
new or additional equipment to receive distant network signals. Because the signal of a local
station that is affiliated with the ABC Network is not available from Dish Network, the
company’s subscribers who reside in the Quincy-Hannibal DMA may be eligible to receive a
“distant” ABC station from NPS if the consumer’s household is determined to be “unserved,” as
described above. Mi-. Travis may wish to contact N P S to determine whether he satisfies the
eligibility criteria to receive distant network signals. N P S may be contacted by telephone at

1-877-444-4388.
The SHVIA also established procedures for waiver requests and on-site signal intensity
tests for those subscribers that are denied the retransmission of a distant analog network signal
(z.e. predicted by a computer model to be served over-the-air by a local broadcast station). A
satellite subscriber may seek a waiver by submitting a request, through the subscriber’s satellite
carrier or distributor, to each local network station that the computer model predicts to deliver a
Grade B or better signal to the subscriber’s location.
Pursuant to federal law, if a waiver request is denied, a subscriber who resides in a DMA
where their satellite company does not offer the signal of a local station affiliated with a network
may make a request to the satellite carrier or distributor that an on-site signal test be pedormed
to verify the subscriber’s inability to receive at least a Grade B signal of the local television
station that denied the waiver request. However, a satellite television carrier may refhe to
engage in the testing process. If so, consumers who reside in a television market where their
satellite company does not offer the signal of a local network affiliate may arrange to have the
test performed, at the consumer’s expense and in accordance with Commission regulations, by a
tester that has been approved by the satellite carrier and by the local network affiliate that denied
the waiver request. Federal law also requires that the tester provide written notice to the satellite
carrier and the affected local network affiliate at least five business days prior to the perfbrmance
of the signal strength test. The results of the signal test shall be determinative as to whether a
Grade B or better signal of one or more of the local broadcast television stations is received at
the consumer’s household.
Mr. Travis also indicates that his distant network service previously was interrupted when
he changed his satellite television provider, and when he moved to a different residence.
Pursuant to the SHVIA, satellite television consumers who receive distant network signals
generally may be required to obtain new waivers if the consumer changes satellite television
carriers, or the type of equipment that is used to receive service, or the address at which distant
network service is received.
Finally, for your review and to provide Mr. Travis additional information, I have
enclosed an Information Sheet that discusses the availability of satellite-delivered television
broadcast signals. I hope this information is helpful, and please do not hesitate to contact me if I
can be of hrther assistance.
Sincerely,
Chief, Ofice of Communications and Industry Information

Media Bureau
Enclosure
-.
2/23/07 .- 312 886
18:59 FAX .--.- 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @I
001
UNITED STATES SENATOR BARACK O B A M A ,

CHICAGO OFFICE
URGENT Ffi REVlEW PLEASE COMMEN-I‘ a PT.EASE REPLY PLEASO RECYCLF.
-
2 3 0 S O U T H D E A R D O R N S U I T E 3 9 0 0 C H I C A G O , 1L 6 0 6 0 4
P H O N E 3 1 2 886-3506 F A X 3 1 2 8 8 6 - 3 5 1 6
. .
RECEIVED TIME F E E . 23. 7:27PM (PRINT TIME F E B , 23. 7:28PM

-
I _
----- I _
- . I . -
02/23/07 18:59 FAX-.-. 312 886 3514 SENATOR BARACK OBAMA @I
002
COMMITEEI:
BARACK OBAMA
ILLINOIS HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
GOVERNMENTALAFFAIRS
FOREIGN RELATIONS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 VETERANS AFFAIRS
February 9,2007
Ms. Diane Atkinson

445 TweIfth Street, SW
Room 8-C453
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received in my Chicago office fkom my constituent, Mr.
William C. Mitze, Mayor of the city of Monticello. Attached you will find his letter which gives
a more accurate description and explanation of his issues. I would appreciate your perspective on
the FCC’s role in mediating the matter described herein.
Please contact Jenna Pilat of my staff for m e r information at 312-886-3506 or via email at
jennagilat @obama.senate.gov .
Sincerely,

WAEMINOTDNOCFICC CMlCMO O=lCC P ~ L D O F A C E Maasrr OmCE MauNeoFRcE

713 HARTScuI\TE OFFICE BUILDING 230 S, DCAIWORN Bo7 E*er ADAMI 701 NORTH COURTSTREET 191 1 62ND AVENUE
WASHINOTON, DC 20510 SUITE 380(1 S V m 1520 MARION, I1 62959 MOLINE.I161265
OFFICE (2021 224-4854 CHICAGO, IL 60604 SNUNOFIELO. IL 82701 O W U (8181897-2602 OFFEE (SOW7361217
FN( (20212 2 ~ 2 a 0 OFFICE(3121 8863506 ORICE (217) 492-5089 F&X (618) 997-UW FAX(3091 736-1233
Fax (3121686-3514 FAX(2171 482-6088
RECEIVED TIME FEE, 23. 7:27PM PRINT T I M E FEB. 23, 7:28PM

----_
I
_“--”-I _I- - x -
I(x ~ _^_-___-l~l_l_l--~___X.-l--
02/23/07
-__. . . .-
18:59 FAX 312 8 8 6 3 5 1 4 . SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
@I
003
Re: Mediacom-SinclairRetransmission Consent Dispute
We are Writing to seek your assistance with regard to a serious matter of local concern arising out of
federal teleccxynunjcations laws and regulations. W e refer specifically to the ongoing "rctransmission
consent" dispute between Mediacom and Sinclair that threatens to leave many of your and our
constitucnts without access to certain local network-affiliated broadcast stations beginning January 6,
2007.
We are sure neither you nor we want to start the New Year with the disruption to cable customers that
will be caused if SUrclair carries through on its threat to deny Mediacom the right to provide its customers 8
with these channels - channels that provide popular programming such as the BCS National
Championship college football game (scheduled for January 8) and the Super Bowl (scheduled for
February 4).
As you may know, Mediacorn filed a complaint with the FCC asserting that Sinclair has not been
ncgotiathg in good faith as required by law. In particular. Mediacorn has argued that Sinclair is singling
out their company - and its customas - by demanding an unreasonably high price for permission to carry
its stations. We do not think it i s fair for those of us served by small or mid-sized cable companies in
smaller and rural markets to be discriminated against by broadcasters seeking higher cash compensation
than they charge in other marketss.
Mediacorn has asked the FCC to order Sinclair to stop its discriminatory tactjcs and allow Mediacom to
continue to ofier these stations to customers until this dispute is molved. W e understand that in the
interim, Medincorn has put fivedifferent proposals OD the table in an effort to resolve the hspute.
Therefore, we urge you to contact the FCC and ask jt to;
. take all lawful action to prevent Sinclair stations frombehe denied to local customers;
prevent discriminatorv uricing that ureiudices communities like ours: and
order mandatow arbitrahon so a third ~ a r t ameed
v w o n by both Mediacorn and Sinclair can'
determine the amropriate compensation.
We believe this would help resolve the dispute before the deadline arrives and stations arc removed from ,
your and out constituents' cable line-up. Thank you for your assistance in this important matter.
Sincerely,
March 22,2007
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0700545

230 South Dearborn
Suite 3900
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, The Honorable William C. Mitze,
Mayor of the City of Monticello, Illinois. Mayor Mitze contacted your office regarding the
Emergency Retransmission Consent Complaint and Requestfor Order Permitting Interim
Carriage and Requestfor Expedited Treatment tomp plaint'^ that was filed with the
Commission by Mediacom Corporation (“Mediacorn”) concerning the carriage of local broadcast
television stations owned and operated by the Sinclair Broadcast Group (“Sinclair”) on several
cable television systems operated by Mediacom. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
On January 4, 2007, the Commission’s Media Bureau issued a decision which addressed
the issues raised in the complaint. Although the Bureau’s decision determined that Sinclair had
not breached its duty to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith, the Bureau urged the
parties to enter into binding arbitration either through the Media Bureau or the American
Arbitration Association. While the parties did not submit to arbitration, on February 2, 2007,
Sinclair and Mediacom announced that they had entered into a multi-year retransmission consent
agreement. Thus, the Sinclair stations currently are available on Mediacom’s systems pursuant
to the February 2 agreement.
I hope this information is helpful, and please do not hesitate to contact me if I

can be of hrther assistance.
Sincerely,

Media Bureau
COMM u N ICATIONS COMMISSION
FEDERAL
WASHINGTON
OFFICE O F
T H E CHAIRMAN
June 18,2007
Dear Representative:
As you are aware, our nation is in the process of transitioning over-the-air

television broadcasts from an analog format to an all-digital format, with February 17,
2009 as the statutory date for the transition of full power U.S. broadcast stations to be
complete. In addition to facilitating the DTV transition through policy-making
proceedings, the Commission has been working with the industry, consumer groups, and
other governmental agencies to ensure that consumers are prepared.
As part of our consumer education outreach, we have developed several consumer

publications that we have been disseminating to various groups, including a DTV Fact
Sheet with frequently asked questions, A DTV Information Booklet that gives a
comprehensive explanation of what the DTV transition entails and what consumers
should do to be prepared, and a DTV Buyer’s Guide for consumers who are considering
purchasing a new TV. I am attaching copies of these and some other materials for your
reference, and ask that you make these available to your constituents and to the media in
your district. These, as well as other consumer publications and information on the DTV
transition can be accessed, downloaded, and printed, in both English and Spanish,
through the official DTV website, www.dtv.aov. I encourage you to add a link to
www.dtv.nov to your Congressional website. You may also find some of the information
available in the outreach toolkit, www.dtv.gov/outreach.html, useful to include in
correspondence to your constituents.
I look forward to working with you to ensure that consumers are prepared for the
completion of the DTV transition, and I welcome any questions or suggestions you or
your staff may have. Please do not hesitate to contact me or the Commission’s
Legislative Affairs Office Director, Kevin Washington, at 202-41 8-1900.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Enclosures
ILLINOIS
HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
Wnited State5 Senate GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

FOREIGN RELATIONS
June 5,2007
The Honorable Kevin J. Martin, Chairman

445 1 2 ' ~Street, S.W.
RE: Illinois Application to the FCC for Rural Health Care Pilot Program; WC Docket No. 02-60
I am writing in support of the Illinois Rural HealthNet Consortium application for

funding from the FCC's Rural Health Care Pilot Program.
Too often those in rural communities do not have the access to necessary medical
services in a timely matter. Despite the fact that one-fourth of the population in the
United States live in rural areas, only about 10% of the nation's doctors practice in rural
areas.
The proposal for the Illinois rural HealthNet Consortium will help public and non-
profit health care providers build state and region-wide broadband networks dedicated to
the provision of advanced health care services to rural areas. It will greatly expand the
broadband capacity within rural Illinois by connecting more than 85 health care locations
in with at least 100 Megabits of service, making use of existing resources as well as
creating new broadband infrastructure. With these increases in broadband access, rural
hospital networks and clinics will be able to offer increased medical access to emergency
services, remote diagnostics, and medical specialists.
I commend the FCC for creatino add

statewide groups to design and implement ne
care to rural areas, and appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the proposal for the
Illinois Rural HealthNet Consortium, which will measurably improve access to health
care in rural Illinois.
Sincerely,
n
1
I
Barack Obama
Barack Obama
WASHINGTONOFFICE 1, .i CHICAGOOFFICE SPRINGFIELD OFFICE MARION OFFICE MOLINE OFFICE

713 HARTSENATEOFFICEBUILDING I (
230 S DEARBORN 607 EASTADAMS 701 NORTHCOURTSTREET 1911 ~ ~ N D A V E N U E
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 SUITE3900 SUITE1520 MARION,IL 62959 MOLINE,IL 61265
OFFICE(202) 224-2854 CHICAGO, IL 60604 SPRINGFIELD,IL 62701 OFFICE(618) 997-2402 OFFICE(309) 7361217
FAX (202)2284260 OFFICE(312)8 8 6 3 5 0 6 OFFICE(217)492-5089 FAX(618) 997-2850 FAX(309)73E-1233
FAX (312)8 8 6 3 5 1 4 FAX (217)492-5099
FEDERAL u N I C A T I O N S COMMISSION
COMM
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN

Washington, DC 205 10
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter supporting the Illinois Rural HealthNet Consortium application
for participation in the Commission’s Rural Health Care Pilot Program. In an Order released
November 19,2007, the Commission approved Illinois Rural HealthNet Consortium application
for support up to $21,063,528.
The Commission dedicated over $4 17 million for the construction of 69 statewide or

regional broadband telehealth networks in 42 states and three U.S. territories which will support
the connection of more than 6,000 public and non-profit health care providers nationwide. The
Commission established this program to fund up to 85 percent of the costs associated with the
construction of state or regional broadband networks to connect multiple public and non-profit
health care providers. I was pleased when the Commission launched this program, noting the
opportunities it could create for stimulating innovative telehealth and, in particular, telemedicine
services to rural and underserved areas of the country where the need for such services is most
acute.
Through the Commission’s Rural Healthcare Pilot Program, I am hoping to establish the
basic building blocks of a digitally connected health system - regional and state-wide broadband
networks, all connected to a national backbone. I look forward to learning from this pilot
program how we can ensure that all Americans, including those in the most remote areas of the
country, receive first-rate medical care.
Thank you for your interest in this important matter. Please let me know if I can be of
any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Kevi; J. Martin
Chairman
July 26,2007

Chairman
445 12th Street, SW
We are writing regarding a Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service

recommendation to place a cap on federal high-cost support to wireless carriers. Our
understanding is that the cap would freeze support to each state at 2006 levels. In light of
the fact that this proposal would put Illinois at a disadvantage, we urge you to reject this
recommendation and consider other approaches to managing the growth of the Fund.
The concept that all Americans should have access to telecommunications

services is at the root of the universal service program. Accepting rural inequality of
access to wireless telecommunications services runs counter to that spirit and would place
those communities at a competitive disadvantage. We understand that the pressures and
demands on thc Fund are growing. But rather than a cap, we should be studying and
implementing comprehensive reforms that ensure our nation’s rural areas have access to a
universal and modem telecommunicationsnetwork that includes wireless and broadband
services.
We are particularly concerned that the proposed cap would disproportionately

impact Illinois, which received only $2000 in support to wireless carriers in 2006. As a
result, our rural areas could see no new wireless infrastructure investment in its rural
areas while other states continue to see new investments. While our citizens contribute
more than a quarter billion dollars each year to the Fund, we withdraw only a quarter of
those funds back. This is an unacceptable situation given that Illinois has substantial
rural areas that require investment.
Accordingly, we urge you to reject this cap and figure out a more equitable
approach to managing the growth of the Fund that doesn’t disadvantage rural
communities in our state.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator United States Senator
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE O F
T H E CHAIRMAN

Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter regarding the proposedcap on high-cost universal service
support to competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), which was recommended by
the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board). It is essential that we take
actions that preserve and advance the benefits of the universal service program.
The United States and the Commission have a long history and tradition of ensuring that
rural areas of the country are connected and have similar opportunities for communications as
other areas. I believe our universal service program must continue to promote investment in
rural America’s infrastructure and ensure access to telecommunications services that are
comparable to those available in urban areas today, as well as provide a platform for delivery of
advanced services.
Changes in technology and increases in the number of carriers that receive universal
service support, however, have placed significant pressure on the stability of the Fund. A large
and rapidly growing portion of the high-cost support program is now devoted to supporting
multiple competitors to serve areas in which costs are prohibitively expensive for even one
carrier. These additional networks in high-cost areas don’t receive support based on their own
costs, but rather on the costs of the incumbent provider, even if their costs of providing service
are lower. In addition to recommending an interim cap, the Joint Board has recognized the
problems of maintaining this identical support rule.
I am supportive of several means of comprehensive reform for the universal service

program. I have circulated among my colleagues at the Commission an Order that adopts the
recommendation of the Joint Board to place an interim cap on the amount of high-cost support
available to competitive ETCs. I have also circulated a Notice of Proposed Rulemalung that
would require that high-cost support be based on a carrier’s own costs in the same way that rural
phone companies’ support is based. I’m supportive of both measures as a means to contain the
growth of universal service in order to preserve and advance the benefits of the fund and protect
the ability of people in rural areas to continue to be connected.
I continue to believe the long-term answer for reform of high-cost universal service
support is to move to a reverse auction methodology. I believe that reverse auctions could
provide a technologically and competitively neutral means of controlling the current growth in
the fund and ensuring a move to most efficient technologies over time. Accordingly, I have also
circulated among my colleagues a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to use reverse auctions to
distribute universal service support.
Thank you for your interest in this important matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me
if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Chairman
FEDERAL u N ICATIONS
COMM COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE O F
T H E CHAIRMAN

Dear Senator D ~ r b i n ~
Thank you for your letter regarding the proposed cap on high-cost universal service
support to competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), which was recommended by
the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board). It is essential that we take
actions that pre;m;e and advance the kx~zfitsof the 7mi.sersal service program.
The United States and the Commission have a long history and tradition of ensuring that
rural areas of the country are connected and have similar opportunities for communications as
other areas. I believe our universal service program must continue to promote investment in
rural America9s infrastructure and ensure access to telecommunications services that are
comparable to those available in urban areas today, as well as provide a platform for delivery of
advanced services.
Changes in technology and increases in the number of carriers that receive universal
service support. however, have piaced significant pressure on the stability of the Fund. A large
and rapidly growing portir,n of the high-cost support program is now devoted to supporting
multiple competitors to serve areas in which costs are prohibitively expensive for even one
carrier. These additional networks in high-cost areas don't receive support based on their own
costs, but rather on the costs of the incumbent provider, even if their costs of providing service
are lower. In addition to recommending an interim cap, the Joint Board has recognized the
problems of maintaining this identical support rule.
I a m supportwe of several means of comprenensive reform for the universal service

program. I have circulated among my colleagues at the Commission an Order that adopts the
recommendation of 'the Joint Board t'o'placetan4nterim cap on the amount of high-cost support
available to competitive ETCs. I have also circulated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
would require that high-cost support be based on a carrier's own costs in the same way that rural
phone companies' support is based. I'm supportive of both measures as a means to contain the
growth of universal service in order to preserve and advance the benefits of the fund and protect
the ability of people in rural areas to continue to be connected.
I continue to believe the long-term answer f m refem of high-cost universal service;

support is to move to a reverse auction methodology. I believe that reverse auctions could
provide a technologically and competitively neutral means of controlling the current growth in
Page 2-The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
the fund and ensuring a move to most efficient technologies over time. Accordingly, I have also
circulated among my colleagues a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to use reverse auctions to
distribute universal service support.
Thank you for your interest in this important matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me
if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Kevinff Martin
Chairman
COMMITEES:
BARACK OBAMA
ILLINOIS HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
Wnited States Senate

FORElG N RE LATlO NS
August 20,2007
Ms. Diane Atkinson

Dear Ms. Atkinson:
The enclosed correspondence was received in my Springfield office from my constituent, Lynn
Frasco, Manager, Menard Electric Cooperative. Attached you will find her letter which gives a
more accurate description and explanation of her issues.
Mikal Sutton-Vereen, who assists me in these matters, of your findings.
contact Mikal at (217) 492-5089.
Sincerely,


WASHINGTONOFFICE CHICAGOOFFICE SPRINGFIELDOFFICE MARION OFFICE MOLINE OFFICE

713 HARTSENATEOFFICEBUILDING 230 S. DEARBORN 607 EASTADAMS 701 NORTHCOURTSTREET 1911 52NDAVENUE
WASHINGTON. DC 20510 SUITE3900 SUITE1520 MARION,IL 62959 MOLINE,IL 61265
OFFICE(2021 224-2854 CHICAGO,IL 60604 SPRINGFIELD, IL 62701 OFFICE(618) 997-2402 OFFICE(309) 7361217
FAX(202) 2284260 OFFICE(312) 8863506 OFFICE(217) 492-5089 FAX (618) 997-2850 FAX (309) 7 3 6 1 2 3 3
FAX (312) 8863514 FAX (217) 492-5099
Menard Electric Cooperative
14300 State Highway 97
P.O. Box 200
Petersbui e, IL 62675-0200
Telephoni: (217) 632-7746 FAX: (217) 632-2578
(800) 872-1203 www.menard.com
August 14,2007
Mikal Sutton-Vereen
Constituent Services Agent
607 East Adams Str., Suite 1520
Springfield IL 62701
Dear Mr. Sutton-Vereen:
It is my understanding that our attorney Charles K. Smith has previously written you
with regard to the radio interference problem involving the Cooperative and
Cooperative employees. It is also my understanding that you have advised that,
pursuant to Public Law 93-579 (Privacy Act of 1974) you are precluded from doing
anything with regard to this matter unless you are contacted directly by Menard
Electric.
Please consider this as direct contact on behalf of the Cooperative and we would ask
that you respond to our Attorney's earlier correspondence which is attached, and
provide any assistance possible in this matter. Thank you.
wynn Frasco
Manager
LF/rs
Encl.
A Touchstone Energy"Cooperative
&*
CHARLES K. SMITH
AT LAW
ATTORNEY
420 South Promenade Street Other%ffce Location
Post Office Box 592 113 East Douglas Street
Havana, Illinois 62644 E-Mail Address: charlesmith@casscomm.com Petersburg, IL 62675
Telephone: 3091543-3387 Telephone: 2171632-7750
Facsinlile: 3091543-3888 Facsimile: 2 171632-2532
kimsmith@casscomm.com
July 19,2007
Honorable Senator Barack O’Bama

607 East Adams
RE: Menard Electric / Radio Interference
Dear Sir:
I am General Counsel for Menard Electric Cooperative, an electric cooperative. Menard

Electric is based in Petersburg, Illinois, but serves its members in the following Counties: Cass,
Logan, Mason, Menard, Morgan, Sangamon and Tazewell. For some time now, Menard has
been having problems with its radio system and its ability to communicate with Cooperative
employees in the field. The problems relate to voice radio interference, overlapping
conversations, and total interference coming from a license given to the Carlinville Area
Hospital, the Macoupin County Rescue Squad and a private entity called the Ambulance Service
of Taylorville. It is of great concern to the Cooperative in that if the Cooperative cannot
adequately communicate with its employees. It cannot provide the proper service to its members
and there is also concern about the danger to the Cooperative employees because of the inability
to communicate with Cooperative Headquarters.
This matter was referred to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in May,
2006. There have been several conference calls among the interested parties with regard to this
matter. The contact people at the FCC have been Tracy Simmons and Riley Hollingsworth.
The last e,mail I received indicated that our case was still pending and was being
reviewed by Terry Fishel in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. That e-mail came from
Tracy Simmons of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission. It is my understanding also that the matter has now also been referred to the
Chicago Field Office.
This matter has now been pending since before May, 2006, and there has been no
resolution and we have not heard anything further fiom the Federal Communication
Commission. This past week there were several incidents where Menard Electric Headquarters
Honorable Senator Barack O’Bama
July 19, 2007
Page 2
could not communicate at all with its employees in the field because of the radio interference.
This is putting the employees
at risk and is also affecting the ability of the Cooperative to adequately serve its members.
I would appreciate any assistance that you can give the Cooperative in expediting this
matter and getting the FCC to come to a decision with regard to resolving this radio interference
problem. I am enclosing some of my earlier correspondence with regard to this issue and various
e-mails. Thank you for your consideration.
&&&
Sin rely yours,
Charles K
Y Smith
CKWgm
Encls.
K. SMITH
CHARLES
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Other Office Location:
113 East Douglas Street P.O. Box 592
Petersburg, Illinois 62675 E-Mail Address: kimsmith@gcctv.com Havana, IL 62644
Facsimile: 2171632-2532 Facsimile: 3091543-3888
August 24, 2005
Enterprise Wireless Alliance

8484 Westpark Drive, Suite 630
McLean, VA 22 102
Re: Voice Radio Interference
LadiedGentlenien:
Please be advised that I represent Menard Electric Cooperative. Menard Electric has
been experiencing voice radio interference, including overlapping conversations and cutting off
of communications when the employees have been using their voice radios. Menard is an
electric cooperative engaged in the transmission and distribution of electrical energy for use by
members of the cooperative organization, all as defined in 90.63 Power Radio Service, FCC
Rules and Regulations. The voice radio is used for communication betweedwith employees at
the Cooperative headquarters and the Cooperative electrical linemen. The voice radio system is
an integral part of the Cooperative’s communication system. The ability of the Cooperative to
communicate with its lineman throughout its service area is essential for the maintenance, repair
and operation of the Cooperative electrical system. This communication system is also
important to insure the safety of the Cooperative linemen in their performance of their duties.
Cooperative employees have, for some time now, been hearing traffic in the voice radio
system, which greatly interferes with the ability to communicate over the system. The
Cooperative’s call sign is KBG372, with a station class of IG, Emission Designator 20KOF3E
and the frequency of 158.205. The service provider contact is Wireless USA. The transmitter
address is Route 123, !h mile east of the Petersburg city limits, Petersburg, Illinois, with
coordinates of 40-00-50.2N/89-49- 15.4W. The Equipment Manufacturer is Motorola. The Tone
Guardsquelch is 85.4.
Menard was issued a license in 1976 to operate on the 158.205 mhz frequency and has
operated on such frequency since said time period to the present time. Menard employees have
done some investigating and the Licensee causing the interference is the Carlinville Area
Hospital, 1001 East Morgan, Carlinville, IL 62626. It appears that the Hospital was given a
license and authorization to operate on the 158.205 mhz frequency also. The service provider is
Geo Comm, Inc., 13517 Larkin Drive, Minnetonka, MN 55305. The call sign for the hospital is
WPWB994. The Emmission Designator is 20KOF3E. The Hospital was issued its license in
2003.
August 24,2005
Page 2
From an examination of the FCC Rules and Regulations, Part 90, 90.35
Industrial/Business Pool, such designates what activities are eligible to hold authorizations in the
Industrial/Business Pool. A review of the Industrial/Business Pool frequency table indicates that
such frequency is for IP/Petroleum Coordinators and IW/Power Coordinators. Such frequency,
as set forth on said frequency table does not allow persons or entities engaged in the operation of
hospitals, clinics, medical associations or ambulances to hold authorizations in said 158.205
frequency.
Subpart B, 90.15 Scope, refers to the Public Safety Radio Pool and covers the licensing
of activities related to medical services and rescue operations. Section 90.20, Public Safety Pool,
sets forth those who are eligible to hold authorizations in the Public Safety Pool and listed
therein are hospital establishments, ambulance companies and rescue operations.
It appears that the granting of the license to the Carlinville Area Hospital to operate under
frequency 158.205 was in error.
I would ask that you review this matter at your earliest convenience. As previously
stated, this interference is causing reoccurring problems with the Cooperative being able to
communicate with its lineman and other employees. Your prompt attention in this matter would
be appreciated.
CharleF K. Smith
CKS/mg
cc: Menard Electric Cooperative
CHARLES K. SMITH
ATTORNEYAT LAW
420 South Promenade Street Other Office Location
Post Office Box 592 113 East Douglas Street
Havana, Illinois 62644 E-Mail Address: kimsmith@casscomm.com Petersburg, IL 62675
Facsimile: 309/543-3888 Facsimile: 21 71632-2532
kimsmith@gcctv.com
May 5,2006
Ms. Robin Landis

Executive Assistant to
Mark E. Crosby/President and CEO
8484 Westpark Drive, Suite 630
McLean, VA 22 102
RE: Menard Electric Cooperative - Radio Interference
Dear Ms. Landis:
As you know, I e-mailed you an Interference Complaint some time ago. I contacted
Carlinville Area Hospital and had a lengthy conversation with the Administrator of the Hospital,
Ken Reid. He is relatively new to the Hospital, so he has no direct knowledge of what occurred
with regard to the License Application in 2003. Information we obtained indicates that a license
was issued to licensee, Carlinville Area Hospital under 90.35 Hospital and Ambulance
Operations to operate on the 158.205 MHZ frequency. The Administrator advised that the
Hospital is no longer at all involved in the use of this frequency. He advised that when the
Hospital applied and obtained this license, it was used by the Hospital for its ambulance service.
The Hospital no longer operates the ambulance service, as it is now operated by a private entity.
This frequency is also being used apparently County wide for 9 1 1 purposes by the Macoupin
County Sheriffs Office and by the Macoupin County Rescue Squad. He advised that the County
has approximately 10 towers throughout Macoupin County that relay the frequency around for
use by the police and rescue squad within the County. This is also being used by this private
entity called the Ambulance Service of Taylorville related to ambulance service.
It still appears to me that under the FCC Rules and Regulations Part 90.35
IndustrialBusiness Pool, activities allowed and eligible under this frequency are IP/Petroleum
Coordinators and Tw Power Coordinators. A review of 90.35 and the list of the activities
available to a licensee under this section, 90.35 under the industrialhusiness pool frequency table
for 158.205, such only lists IPPetroleum Coordinator IWE'ower Coordinator. T h s does show
eligibility/activities being operation of a commercial activity, the operation of educational
philanthropic, ecclesiastical, institutions, clergy activities or operations of hospitals, clinics or
medical associations. The industrial business pool frequency lists petroleum coordinator,
Ms. Robin Landis
May 5,2006
Page 2
power coordinator, railroad coordinator, automobile and emergency coordinator. The frequency
is no longer being used by the hospital and as it was being used by the hospital in the context of
its ambulance facility only, it appears such should never have been granted to the Hospital under
the 90.35 section. They are not eligible under that section. Please examine 90.15 called the
Public Safety Radio Pool. It appears that category of activities includes medical services and
rescue operations. 90.20 Public Safety Pool Eligibility Requirements. The eligible activities
would seem to be among the eligible activities relating to transmission of communications
essential to official activities of the licensee, including a government institution authorized by
law to provide its own police protection and other entities engaged in basic or advanced life
support services, medical services, mental entities for providing mental services
communications, and other organizations engaged in the delivery or rendition of medical services
to the public, other establishments that offer services, facilities, and beds for use beyond 24
hours, ambulance companies and rescue operations. It is clear that initially when the hospital
applied, and even now, they would only have been eligible under 90.20 Public Safety Pool and
not 90.35. What do you suggest we do from here? Please advise within the next fourteen (14)
days. Thank you.
CKS/gm
cc: Doug Pettit
Ken Reid, Carlinville Area Hospital
VIA FACSIMILE
Page 1 of 2
Charles K Smith Attorney at Law
From: "James Rechner" <jrechner@menard .corn>

To : "'Tracy Simmons"' <Tracy.Simmons@fcc.gov>
cc: "'Aaron Bishop"' <aaronb@macoupincountyonline.net>;"'Ginder, Chris - GTSi"' <cginder@globaltechsys.com>;
<ReyFreeman@cs.com>; <rfreeman@isd.net>; "'Doug Pettit"' <dpettit@menard.com>; <esmith@cahcare.com>;
<kreid@cahcare.com>; "'Robert Harness"' <Robert.Harness@fcc.gov>; "'Riley Hollingsworth"'
<Riley.Hollingsworth@fcc.gov>; <kimsmith@gcctv.com>
Sent: 09/05/2006 12:12 PM
Subject: RE: Macoupin E911/Menard Electric Interference
Mr. Simmons
I have spoken with Mr. Aaron Bishop of Macoupin County and Mr. Jeff Tankersley of D A Solutions about running additional tests
yet this week to determine the signal strength at our tower site of the Macoupin County broadcasts from each of their three tower
sites. I will know the exact time of these tests later today, but it presently looks like Mr. Tankersley and Mr. Bishop will both be will
be available on Friday morning. After we run these tests I will inform you of the results.
Jim Rechner
-----Original Message-----
From: Tracy Simmons [maiIto:Tracy.Simmons@fcc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:36 PM
To: James Rechner; Kim Smith
Cc: Aaron Bishop; Ginder, Chris - GTSi; ReyFreeman@cs.com; rfreeman@isd.net; Doug Pettit; esmith@cahcare.com;
kreid@cahcare.com; Robert Harness; Riley Hollingsworth
Subject: RE: Macoupin E91l/Menard Electric Interference
Corrected Mr. Smith's email to kimsmith@acctv.com.
*** Non-Public: For Internal Use Only ***
From: Tracy Simmons

Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:44 AM
To: 'James Rechner'; 'Kim Smith'
Cc: 'Aaron Bishop'; 'Ginder, Chris - GTSi'; 'ReyFreeman@cs.com'; 'rfreeman@isd.net'; 'Doug Pettit';
'esmith@cahcare.com'; 'kreid@cahcare.com'; Robert Harness; Riley Hollingsworth
All parties must be included in any communications to the FCC.
Mr. Rechner, do you want to do another test with Macoupin County? I would recommend another test to verify your test
equipment functioned properly and to test with multiple signals from Macoupin County. Let me know when this can be
arranged.
I don't see a need for the FCC field office to be involved at this time but I have included Robert Harness from our Chicago
Field Office in case his services are required in the future. Please include Mr. Harness in any future emails to me.
Tracy Simmons, Associate Chief for Licensing


Page 2 o f 2
From: James Rechner [maiIto:jrechner@menard.com]

Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 6:11 PM
To: Tracy Simmons
When we did the tests on August 14, 2006 with our radio service present at the tower, our radio service
representative informed us that he did not think his equipment was working properly and did not see any
significant level of interference above the background noise. We asked him about another test and he did not
believe they had another piece of equipment that was as sensitive as the one he had used. For that reason we
did not schedule any further testing. Our attorney, Kim Smith was under the impression that you were going to do
some testing at our site and was trying to reach you to confirm this earlier in the week. However, as we
experienced in the first round of tests, when our portable radios broadcast from our northern territory and
Macoupin County broadcasts simultaneously from any of the three towers tested, it totally overrides our signal.
We were hoping that this would indicate that something needs to be done to prevent this interference even though
the tests at the tower were inconclusive.
From: Tracy Simmons [mailto:Tracy.Simmons@fcc.gov]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 1 1 : O l AM
To: Aaron Bishop; Ginder, Chris - GTSi; ReyFreeman@cs.com; rfreeman@isd.net; Doug Pettit; Jim Rechner; Kim
Smith; esmith@cahcare.com; kreid@cahcare.com
Cc: Riley Hollingsworth
Mr. Bishop and Mr. Rechner, please provide a status on the results of the tests you performed.
From: Aaron Bishop [mailto:aaronb@macoupincountyonline.net]

Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:40 PM
To: Tracy Simmons; 'Ginder, Chris - GTSi'; ReyFreeman@cs.com; rfreeman@isd.net; 'Doug Pettit'; 'Jim Rechner';
'Kim Smith'; esmith@cahcare.com; kreid@cahcare.com
August 7, 2006 sometime between 1:30pm - 2:OOpm Jim Rechner and myself did test counts using the Virden
and Palmyra sites and it also caused interference similar test we ran from the main tower. Now, just waiting to
hear from them on when their radio service will be available for the other testing.

To: Ginder, Chris - GTSi; Aaron Bishop; ReyFreeman@cs.com; rfreeman@isd.net; Doug Pettit; Jim Rechner; Kim
Smith; esmith@cahcare.com; kreid@cahcare.com
Subject: Macoupin E911/Menard Electric Interference
Based upon our discussion last Friday, 1 would like a status on the testing between Macoupin County and Menard
Electric. I believe signal measurements were going to be taken at Menard Electric's receiver.

Page 1 of 1
From: "Aaron Bishop" <aaronb@macoupincountyonline.net>

To : "'Chris Ginder"' <cginder@globaltechsys.com>; "'Doug Pettit"' <dpettit@menard.com>; "'Ed Smith"'
<esmith@cahcare.com>; "'Jim Rechner"' <jrechner@menard.com>; "'Ken Reid "' ckreid@cahcare.com>; "'Kim
Smith"' <kimsmith@gcctv.com>; "'Rey Freeman"' <ReyFreeman@cs.com>; "'Robert Harness "'
<Robert.Harness@fcc.gov>; "'Tracy Simmon"' <tgsimmon@fcc.gov>
Sent: 09/08/2006 6:28 AM
Subject: FCC Application
I apologize for the delay of getting the paperwork to you. We are also in the process of updating our Staunton and Shipman sites
to transmit and receive and I think they are trying to get everything together at once to submit. I spoke with Phil, GTSI, on
Wednesday at the Illinois Emergency Management Conference in Springfield and he said they are to forward it to him that day but
I did not see anything from him when I got back into office on Thursday.
Aaron Bishop
Administrator
Macoupin County 9-1-1
Page 1 o f 2
From: "James Rechner" <jrechner@menard.com>

To : "'Tracy Simmons"' <Tracy.Simmons@fcc.gov>
cc: "'Aaron Bishop"' <aaronb@macoupincountyonline.net>;"'Ginder, Chris - GTSi"' <cginder@globaltechsys.com>;
<ReyFreeman@cs.com>; <rfreeman@isd.net>; "'Doug Pettit"' <dpettit@menard.com>; <esmith@cahcare.com>;
<kreid@cahcare.com>; "'Robert Harness"' <Robert.Harness@fcc.gov>; "'Riley Hollingsworth"'
<Riley.Hollingsworth@fcc.gov>; <kimsmith@gcctv.com>
Sent: 09/08/2006 1:29 PM
Subject: FW: Radio update
Below is an email from Doug Pettit with Menard Electric concerning the results of the radio testing this morning. As you can see
from the power levels the signal from two of the Macoupin County towers strongly overrides our radio signal from our mobiles and
the signal from the third tower, although not as strong, also is of a magnitude to interfere with our signal. We will await your
decision and directives.
Jim Rechner
From: Doug Pettit [mailto:dpettit@menard.com]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 11:25 AM
To : 'James Rech ner'
Cc: Ifrasco@menard.com; tentwist@menard.com
Subject: Radio update
Jim,
On the morning of September 8, 2006, at approximately 9:30 AM, radio tests were conducted between Macoupin County EMS,
(Aaron Bishop), and Menard Electric Cooperative. Jeff Tankersley assisted at the Menard Electric Cooperative location by
providing a calibrated Spectrum Analyzer. The tests were run as follows:
1. The Menard Electric Cooperative repeater was taken off the air.
2. The repeater antenna was then connected directly to the spectrum analyzer, and the analyzer was tuned to 158.205 MHz.
3. A noise floor of approximately -100 dB was observed with no communications in process.
4. While in contact with Aaron Bishop, (Macoupin County), radio test counts were performed from three tower sites, being
controlled by Macoupin County. Results are as follows:
a. Virden location -90 dB
b. Palmyra location -75 dB
c. Carlinville location -76 dB
Tests were run multiple times, with the same results. Both the Palmyra location and the Carlinville location resulted in
full quieting of the squelch, and full audio signal, while the Virden location resulted in intelligent audio mixed with
noise.
5. Macoupin County was then thanked and released from testing.

6. Phone contact was made to one of our area servicemen in the field. Dwaine Heyen, while in the village of Bath, Illinois, was
instructed to give a test count from his truck. We observed a signal level of -90 dB from his location. This test was run
twice, with the same results.
7. The repeater was placed back into normal service.
Conclusion:
It is my conclusion that the signal levels that we are receiving from the Palmyra location and the Carlinville location are of
significant power to cause interference to our radio system during all times when joint communications are in progress. The Virden
location signal level is of enough power to cause interference to us during communications from mobiles which are not in close
proximity to our tower site.
I will be at your disposal to discuss this issue in further detail if and when you deem it appropriate.
09/08/06
--- -----II_ I-.I
-"x I -.~--- ^_-I - - - - ~ ~ --
~ . - . --
Page 1 of 2
From: "Tracy Simmons" <Tracy.Simmons@fcc.gov>

To: "James Rechner" <jrechner@menard.com>; "Kim Smith" <kimsmith@gcctv.com>
cc: "Aaron Bishop" <aaronb@macoupincountyonline.net>; "Ginder, Chris - GTSi" <cginder@globaltechsys.com>;
<ReyFreeman@cs.com>; crfreeman@isd.net>; "Doug Pettit" <dpettit@menard.com>; <esmith@cahcare.com>;
<kreid@cahcare.com>; "Robert Harness" <Robert.Harness@fcc.gov>; "Riley Hollingsworth"
<Riley.Hollingsworth@fcc.gov>
Sent: 09/05/2006 11:36 AM
Corrected Mr. Smith's email to kirnsmith@acctv.cgm.
From: Tracy Simmons

Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:44 AM
To: 'James Rechner'; 'Kim Smith'
Cc: 'Aaron Bishop'; 'Ginder, Chris - GTSi'; 'ReyFreeman@cs.com'; 'rfreeman@isd.net'; 'Doug Pettit'; 'esmith@cahcare.com';
'kreid@cahcare.com'; Robert Harness; Riley Hollingsworth
All parties must be included in any communications to the FCC.
Mr. Rechner, do you want to do another test with Macoupin County? I would recommend another test to verify your test
equipment functioned properly and to test with multiple signals from Macoupin County. Let me know when this can be arranged.
I don't see a need for the FCC field office to be involved at this time but I have included Robert Harness from our Chicago Field
Office in case his services are required in the future. Please include Mr. Harness in any future emails to me.

From: James Rechner [mailto:jrechner@menard.com]

Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 6:11 PM
To: Tracy Simmons
When we did the tests on August 14, 2006 with our radio service present at the tower, our radio service representative
informed us that he did not think his equipment was working properly and did not see any significant level of interference
above the background noise. We asked him about another test and he did not believe they had another piece of
equipment that was as sensitive as the one he had used. For that reason we did not schedule any further testing. Our
attorney, Kim Smith was under the impression that you were going to do some testing at our site and was trying to reach
you to confirm this earlier in the week. However, as we experienced in the first round of tests, when our portable radios
broadcast from our northern territory and Macoupin County broadcasts simultaneously from any of the three towers
tested, it totally overrides our signal. We were hoping that this would indicate that something needs to be done to prevent
this interference even though the tests at the tower were inconclusive.
Page 2 of 2
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 1 1 : O l AM
To: Aaron Bishop; Ginder, Chris - GTSi; ReyFreeman@cs.com; rfreeman@isd.net; Doug Pettit; Jim Rechner; Kim Smith;
esmith@cahcare.com; kreid@cahcare.Com
Mr. Bishop and Mr. Rechner, please provide a status on the results of the tests you performed.
From: Aaron Bishop [mailto:aaronb@macoupincountyonline.net]

To: Tracy Simmons; 'Ginder, Chris - GTSi'; ReyFreeman@cs.com; rfreeman@isd.net; 'Doug Pettit'; 'Jim Rechner'; 'Kim
Smith'; esmith@cahcare.com; kreid@cahcare.com
August 7, 2006 sometime between 1:30pm - 2:OOpm Jim Rechner and myself did test counts using the Virden and
Palmyra sites and it also caused interference similar test we ran from the main tower. Now, just waiting to hear from them
on when their radio service will be available for the other testing.

To: Ginder, Chris - GTSi; Aaron Bishop; ReyFreeman@cs.com; rfreeman@isd.net; Doug Pettit; Jim Rechner; Kim Smith;
esmith @cahcare.corn; kreid@cahcare,com
Subject: Macoupin E911/Menard Electric Interference
Based upon our discussion last Friday, I would like a status on the testing between Macoupin County and Menard
Electric. I believe signal measurements were going to be taken at Menard Electric's receiver.

September 4,2007
In Reply Refer to:

070 1807

Attn: Mikal Sutton-Vereen
Dear Senator Ubama:
Thank you for your August 20,2007 inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Lynn Frasco,
Manager of Menard Electric Cooperative (Menard) in Petersburg, Iliinois. Mr. Frasco also
encloses correspondence from Charles K.Smith, General Counsel for Menard. Menard
complains of interference on frequency 158.205 MIiz to its radio communications system
licensed under call sign KBG372.
Menard has identified the source of the interference as stations licensed to Carlinville
Area Hospital (Carlinville) under calf signs WPWB994, WPYJ341, and WPYJ344. (We also
note that Carlinvilie last year obtained another license on that channel under call sign WQFV384,
but operation pursuant to that license does not appear to have commenced.) Although
Cornmission siaff has communicated with Carlinville and Menard previously regarding this
matter, the scope and extent of Carlinville's use of the shared frequency remains unclear.
Information included in Mr. Smith's correspondence has prompted us to inquire further into
Carlinville's operations, so that we can reach the most appropriate solution to this matter. We
currently are awaiting Carlinville's response to our inquiry, a copy of which is enclosed. We are
hopefill that the informatioil we obtain from Carlinville will allow us to resolve Menard's
concerns.
hope this information is responsive to your inquiry.
Scot Stone
Deputy Chief, Mobility Division
Wireless TelecommunicationsBureau
enclosure
1270 Fairfield Road
Gettysburg, PA 17325-7245
Facsimile (717) 338-2689
In Reply Refer To:
MD-602
August 20,2007
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Carlinville Area Hospital

1001 E Morgan
Carlinville, IL 62626
Dear Licensee:
The Commission has been advised that the operation on frequency 158.205 MHz of
stations licensed to Carlinville Area Hospital (Carlinville) under call signs WPWB994,
WPYJ341, WPYJ344 and WQFV384 is causing co-channel interference to Menard
Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Menard), which is licensed under call sign KBG372.
Applications filed for the Carlinville licenses indicate that the IndustrialfSusiness Pool
spectrum authorized by those licenses would be used under Rule 90.35 for “Hospital and
Ambulance Operations?’or under 90.35(a)(4) by the Hospital “to coordinate daily non
emergency hospital activities.’’ Information obtained by the Commission, however,
indicates that the spectrum authorized by the licenses is being used for other than such
activities, and that Carlinville in fact may not be using the frequencies for the operation
of its hospital.
In order to determine whether the operations under the Carlinville licenses comply with
the eligibility provisions under Rule 90.35(a)(4), the general operating requirements
under Rule 90.403, and the permissible communication criteria under Rule 90.405, you
are hereby directed, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, to provide the information requested below within 30 days of the date of this
letter.
(1 ) Please explain in detail how Carlinville Area Hospital uses the spectrum
authorized under its aforementioned licenses.
(2) Does Carlinville allow use of its licenses by other individuals, organizations,
businesses, and entities and for other purposes? If so, please identify those
individuals, organizations, businesses and entities by name, address and contact
number and the purposes for which they use spectrum licensed to Carlinville.
(3) Please identify the constructionloperational status of each of the facilities (use the
license site description) authorized to Carlinville under the aforementioned
licenses and the total number of mobile units operational on 158.205 MHz.
(4) Please advise when Carlinviile was first made aware that Menard believed that
Carlinville was causing interference to Memrd’s operations on 158.205 MHz.
( 5 ) Please explain what actions Carlinvile has taken to identie the source of its
interference to Menard and its findings.
(6) Please detail what actions Carlinvik has taken to resolve any interference to
Menard on 158.205 MHz. Such detail should include both technical and non-
technical considerations.
(7) Has Carlinville contacted/worked with any Commission certified frequency
coordinators as a means of finding resolution to the interference with Menard? If
so, please provide details of those contacts.
(8) Has Carlinville considered changing frequency to resolve the interference with
Menard? If so, when did such consideration take place, what efforts were
undertaken to determine the availability of spectrum that would provide for such
change, and with whom did Carlinville work in determining what spectrum would
be available?
Questions regarding this matter may be directed to me by emdl at Terrv.Fishel,~fcc.crov

or by phone at (717) 338-2602.
Ass te Chief, Mobility Division

Wigess Telecommunications Bureau
cc: Charles K Smith, attorney

FEDE R A L COM M u N I CATI o Ns COM M I ss I o N
WASHI NGTON
OFFICE O F
T H E CHAIRMAN
October 15, 2007
Dear Senator:
As you know, federal law requires that all h11-power television broadcast stations
switch fiom broadcasting over-the-air in analog format to digital format by February 17,
2009. We would like to offer to send FCC staff to local forums to discuss the upcoming
transition. At your request, we will make Commission staff available to participate in
and make a DTV presentation at any local town hall meetings or other outreach events
you may have for your constituents.
Commission staff is able to assist you in informing your constituents of the details
of the DTV transition at any time. We can aid in answering questions regarding what the
DTV transition means for consumers, how they need to prepare, and what resources are
available to them. In June, you received a Digital TV information packet outlining the
FCC’s consumer outreach program to help alert consumers and the general public to the
DTV transition. I am again attaching a Commission publication on the basic facts about
the transition. For other Commission publications and consumer alerts, you may refer to
www .dtv.gov.
I look forward to working with you to minimize the burden that this upcoming
transition could pose to consumers and maximize their ability to enjoy the exciting
benefits of digital television. As always, I welcome any questions or suggestions you or
your staff may have. For more information or to schedule a presentation by Commission
staff in conjunction with your state event, please contact the Commission’s Legislative
Affairs Office at (202) 418-1900.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
Enclosure
FEDE R A L C o M M uN I CAT ION s C o M M I s s I oN
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
October 15,2007
Dear Representative:
As you know, federal law requires that all hll-power television broadcast stations
switch fiom broadcasting over-the-air in analog format to digital format by February 17,
2009. We would like to offer to send FCC staff to local forums to discuss the upcoming
transition. At your request, we will make Commission staff available to participate in
and make a DTV presentation at any local town hall meetings or other outreach events
you may have for your constituents.
Commission staff is able to assist you in informing your constituents of the details
of the DTV transition at any time. We can aid in answering questions regarding what the
DTV transition means for consumers, how they need to prepare, and what resources are
available to them. In June, you received a Digital TV information packet outlining the
FCC’s consumer outreach program to help alert consumers and the general public to the
DTV transition. I am again attaching a Commission publication on the basic facts about
the transition. For other Commission publications and consumer alerts, you may refer to
www.dtv.gov.
I look forward to working with you to minimize the burden that this upcoming
transition could pose to consumers and maximize their ability to enjoy the exciting
benefits of digital television. As always, I welcome any questions or suggestions you or
your staff may have. For more information or to schedule a presentation by Commission
staff in conjunction with your district event, please contact the Commission’s Legislative
Affairs Office at (202) 418-1900.
Sincerely,
Kevin j.Martin
Chairman
Enclosure
ILLINOIS
Wnited Stam Senate

FOREIGN RELATIONS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 VETERANS‘ AFFAIRS
October 22, 2007
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
445 12th Street SW
I am writing regarding your proposal to move forward aggressively with modifications to

existing media ownership rules. According to press accounts, you intend to present specific
changes to existing rules in November with a Commission vote on that proposal - whatever it
may be - on December 18,2007. I believe both the proposed timeline and process are
irresponsible.
Minority owned and operated newspapers and radio stations play a critical role in the
African American and Latino communities and bring minority issues to the forefront of our
national discussion. However, the Commission has failed to further the goals of diversity in the
media and promote localism, and as a result, it is in no position to justify allowing for increased
consolidation of the market. Moreover, 30 days of public review of a specific proposed change
is insufficient to assess the effect that change would have on the media marketplace or the
rationale on which any such proposal is based.
While the FCC did commission two studies on minority ownership in the round of 10
studies it ordered at the beginning of 2007, both suffered from the same problem - inadequate
data from which to make determinations on the status of minority media ownership or the causes
for that status and ways to increase representation.
It is time to put together an independent panel, as Commissioner Adelstein has

recommended, to issue a specific proposal for furthering the goal of diversity in media
ownership. I object to the agency moving forward to allow greater consolidation in the media
market without first fully understanding how that would limit opportunities for minority, small
business, and women owned firms.
I also object to the Commission’s propensity to vet proposals through leaks to the press
and lobbyists. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in September 2007
titled, “The FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure Equal Access to Rulemaking Information.” In
that report, GAO found that: “Situations where some, but not all, stakeholders know what the
FCC is considering for an upcoming vote undermine fairness and transparency of the process and
constitute a violation of the FCC’s rules.’’ The report went on to state: “This imbalance of
infohation is not the intended result of the Communications Act and it runs contrary to the
WASHINGTONOFFICE CHICAGOOFFICE SPRINGFIELD OFFICE MARION OFFICE MOLINE OFFICE

713 HARTSENATEOFFICEBUILDING 230 S. DEARBORN 607 EASTADAMS 701 NORTHCOURTSTREET 1911 52NDAVENUE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 SUITE3900 SUITE1520 MARION,IL 62959 MOLINE.IL 61265
OFFICE(202) 224-2854 CHICAGO,IL 60604 SPRINGFIELD, IL 62701 OFFICE(618) 997-2402 OFFICE(309) 7 3 6 1 2 1 7
FAX (202) 22&4260 OFFICE(312) 8863506 OFFICE(217) 492-5089 FAX (618) 997-2850 FAX (309) 7361233
FAX(312) 8863514 FAX (217) 492-5099
principles of transparency and equal opportunity for participation established by law and to the
FCC’s own rules that govern rulemaking.”
In the wake of that report, I find it disturbing that, according to the New York Times, the
Commission is considering repealing the newspaper and television cross ownership rules. It is
unclear what your intent is on the rest of the media ownership regulations. Repealing the cross
ownership rules and retaining the rest of our existing regulations is not a proposal that has been
put out for public comment; the proper process for vetting it is not in closed door meetings with
lobbyists or in selective leaks to the New York Times.
Although such a proposal may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public
have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound
policy. And the Commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public
discourse and debate.
This is not the first time I have communicated with the agency on this matter. Senator
Kerry and I wrote to you on July 20,2006, stating that the Commission needed to address and
complete a proceeding on issues of minority and small business media ownership before taking
up the wider media ownership rules. Our request echoed an amendment adopted by the Senate
Commerce Committee in June 2006. And last month, at an FCC hearing on media ownership
held in Chicago, I requested that the FCC put out any specific changes that would be voted on in
a new notice of proposed rulemaking so that the American people have an opportunity to review
it.
In closing, I ask you to reconsider your proposed timeline, put out any specific change to
the rules for public comment and review, move to establish an independent panel on minority
and small business media ownership, and complete a proceeding on the responsibilities that
broadcasters have to the communities in which they operate.
m
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
COMM u N ICATIONS COMMISSION
FEDERAL
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
T H E CHAIRMAN

Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your letter expressing support for increased minority media ownership. I
share your concerns regarding the under-representation of minorities and women in the media.
The Commission currently has in front of it for consideration a Report and Order (Order)
to adopt several initiatives for increasing participation in the broadcasting industry by new
entrants and small businesses, including minorities and women. Many of the initiatives in this
item come from the specific recommendations of the Diversity Committee. The Order, among
other things, would revise the Commission’s rules governing broadcast construction permits, so
that designated entities will have more time to construct their broadcast facilities. In addition, the
Order would revise the Commission equity/debt-plus-attribution rule, waiving it, subject to
certain conditions, when doing so would assist designated entities in acquiring a broadcast
station, retaining an existing station, or building out a construction permit. The Order would
address recent constitutional concerns with the Commission’s Distress Sale Policy, permitting a
licensee whose license has been designated for revocation hearing to assign its license to a
designated entity at a price substantially below its fair market value. The order would also:
adopt a rule barring race or gender discrimination in broadcast transactions; implement a zero-
tolerance policy for ownership fraud; impose a requirement that broadcasters seeking license
renewal to certify that their advertising sales contracts do not discriminate on the basis of race or
gender; increase Commission efforts to encourage local and regional banks to participate in
SBA-guaranteed loan programs; give priority status to entities financing or incubating an eligible
entity if it files for a duopoly simultaneously with a non-eligible entity in a market that can only
support one additional duopoly; consider requests to extend divestiture deadlines in mergers in
which applicants have actively solicited bids for divested properties from eligible entities;
convene an “access-to-capital” conference; create a guidebook on diversity; and tentatively
conclude that the Commission should revise its data-collection form and efforts, to increase the
accuracy of the data collected, and commit to commencing annual longitudinal studies of
minority and female ownership once the relevant form has been revised.
The current review of the Commission’s media ownership rules has taken place over the
course of nearly eighteen months. In addition to establishing an extended 120-day period for the
submission of comments, the Commission has held six public hearings around the country and
conducted 10 studies. Moreover, during the period established for public comment on the media
ownership rules, broadcast localism, and diversity initiatives has been extended on a number of
occasions. We have listened to and recorded thousands of oral comments and have received
166,570 comments to date.
In addition, I took the unprecedented step of publicly releasing a proposed revision to the
newspaperbroadcast cross-ownership rule, the only rule that I propose to change, two weeks
before I officially circulated the proposed order on media ownership to my fellow
commissioners. I am comfortable that we will be able to evaluate any additional comments we
receive on this rule before the proposed December 18, 2007 vote.
As for the 10 economic studies we commissioned, we assembled eminently qualified, top

academics and practitioners to author the studies and chose study topics that examined a range of
issues impacting diversity, competition, and localism, all with the input of my fellow
Commissioners. More importantly, however, the Commission exerted no control over the study
designs or the authors’ conclusions. Furthermore, we have put the studies out for peer review
and public comment and made all the underlying data available to the public.
I have also completed and circulated among my fellow commissioners a Report and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on broadcast localism and an Order adopting several initiatives
designed to increase participation in the broadcasting industry by new entrants and small
businesses, including minority- and women-owned businesses, as discussed above. Adoption of
these items, along with the Low Power FM rule adopted last month, will ensure a more
competitive and diverse media marketplace.
I look forward to working with you and other Members of Senate as the Commission
continues its important work to promote minority ownership and participation in the media.
I appreciate your interest in this very important matter. Please let me know if you have
further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
JOHN KERRY COMMITTEES:
MASSACHUSETS COMMERCE, SCIENCE,
AND TRANSPORTATION
FINANCE
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SMALL BUSINESS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2102
2682
December 14,2007

Chairman
445 12th Street SW
Your testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on December 13,2007

restates your intention to move forward aggressively with a proposal that would relax
media ownership rules with respect to the NewspaperIBroadcast Cross-Ownership Rule.
We reiterate our call from July of last year and in various forums over the last two
months for you to delay this vote for a period of time sufficient for the Commission to
examine the status of minority and women media ownership in the United States, and to
establish a policy to effectively address the need to promote greater diversity in media
markets.
With respect to this issue, the intent of the Senate Commerce Committee was
made clear with its decision to unanimously report S. 2332, the Media Ownership Act of
2007. Section 2 of this bill would require the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to establish and convene an independent panel to make recommendations for
specific rules to increase the representation of women and minorities in the ownership of
broadcast media. The bill further states that the FCC must act on the panel's
recommendations before voting on any changes to its broadcast and newspaper
ownership rules.
We recognize the widespread animosity aimed at the direction of the Commission

regarding Tuesday's scheduled vote. We understand that for a variety of reasons you are
being asked to postpone the vote to permit more time for the Commission to fully
understand how a relaxation in the Cross-Ownership Rule will impact other important
issues such as localism. It is our hope that the sum of these objections will convince you
to delay this vote until a time following the Commission's consideration of other pressing
matters. Specifically, we believe that moving forward with this change will have a direct
and detrimental impact on the state of media diversity. Should you decide to move
forward with this vote against the expressed bipartisan, bicameral intent of Congress, we
will approach Appropriations Committee Chairman Byrd with a request that funds be
denied for the implementation of this rule.
w w : hltpJlwr~v.sonaw.gov/-tarry/
PRINTED O N RECYCLED PAPER

The Honorable Kevin Mai-tin
December 14,2007
Page 2
Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any questions regarding this
request, please do not hesitate to contact either of us at any time.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
ILLINOIS
Wnited State8 Senate

FOREIGN RELATIONS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 VETERANS AFFAIRS
February 11,2008

Diane Atkinson
Congressional Liaison
445 Twelfth Street, SW Room 8-C445
Washmgton, DC 20554
Dear Mrs. Atkinson,
My constituent, Steve Miller, contacted my office concerning an issue with the Federal
Communications Commission. Enclosed you will find information surrounding his concern.
Your assistance in addressing this matter is greatly appreciated. Jamia Porter, one of my staff
members, is in contact with Mr. Miller and will apprise him of your findings. If you have any
questions surrounding k s matter or require further information, please contact Jamia at (2 17)
492-5089.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
607 East Adams St.

Suite 1520
(217) 492-5089
.,.
..
.. ,
..
:..
.i ,
.
. ... ' . ...
c
~ . :
'
WASHINGTONOFFICE CHICAGOOFFICE SPRINGFIELDOFFICE MARION

OFFICE MOLINE OFFICE
713 HARTSENATEOFFICEBUILDING 230 S. DEARBORN 607 EASTADAMS 701 NORTHCOURTSTREET 1911 52 AVENUE
~ ~
WASHINGTON,DC 20510 Sui~~3900 SUITE 1520 MARION,IL 62959 MOLINE,IL 61265
OFFICE(202)224-2854 CHICAGO,IL 60604 SPRINGFIELD,IL 62701 OFFICE(618)997-2402 OFFICE(309)736-1217
FAX (202)228-4260 OFFICE(312)886-3506 OFFICE(217)492-5089 FAX (618)997-2850 FAX (309)736-1233
FAX (312)886-3514 FAX (217)492-5099
Casework Tracking Sheet
Tracking # 7236-DC
for Government
235 N Lincoln Promoted From Correspondence

Batavia, IL 60510
Kane County
finalization takes 180 days but with tribune company tempory waviers its way past manipulating the stock
market via fear and i as a small stock holder cant afford this. It should be crimminal not either having
response or not posting why they didnt finish.
More on topic, email i sent others

FCCis holding up tribune from closing its $34/share deal with Zell as the FCC is preventing tribune from
getting temporary waivers (no different then ones that already exists) it needs to have newspaper and tv
stations within same market. Instead they hold tribune hostage to politics!!!!!!
Can you help resolve this? I am a ?small time? shareholder of tribune and would like to get same deal
that McCaskey?s family got on selling stock, aka Zell $34 deal????? I am fearful if fcc lingers on by not
granting temporary waivers then tribune deal will get ?called off? and I will loose more $$$ then I already
have in the stock market collapse (ps some of us are counting on the stock market for retirement)
Please get FCC to grant tribune temporary waivers while the politics is played out!!!!!!!
p.s. I think this is real stupid as the FCC should get off the back of industry. Newspaper and local media
need economies of scale to have the best reporters in field to report the news ? they are under pressure
from internet providers stealing local ad revenues (real estate, jobs, etc) Let them cross own in all
markets only regulate if few years down the road we find big issues which I doubt (note Google doesn?t
report fairly as they steal news - should we regulate them)
InterTrac Tracksheet 01 1 0211112008

March 20, 2008
IN REPLY REFER TO:

CN-0800344

607 East Adams Street
Suite 1520
Dear Senator Obama:
Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Steve Miller of Batavia,
Illinois, concerning applications that were filed with the Federal Communications Commission
regarding the transfer of control of Tribune Company and its licensee subsidiaries. I appreciate
the opportunity to respond.
As Mr. Miller discusses in his correspondence, applications were filed with the
Commission requesting that control of Tribune Company and its licensee subsidiaries be
transferred from the existing shareholders to Sam Zell, The Tribune Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, and EGI-TRB, LLC. The applications also requested, among other things, that the
Commission grant indefinite waivers of its newspaper/ broadcast ownership requirements in
certain markets. A joint petition to deny the applications and the waiver requests was filed by
the United Church of Christ and the Media Alliance, and comments were submitted by several
other entities.
M e r evaluating the record compiled in the proceeding, on November 30, 2007, the
Commission adopted aMemorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 07-21 1) which authorized the
transfer of control to Sam Zell, The Tribune Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and EGI-TRB,
LLC. The Order also generally denied the request for indefinite waivers of the
newspaperhroadcast ownership requirements, but granted time-limited waivers under certain
circumstances. In the Chicago market, however, the Commission granted a permanent waiver of
the newspaperhroadcast ownership rule. For your review and to provide Mr. Miller additional
information, I have enclosed a copy of the Commission’s Memorandum Opinion and Order.
I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of

further assistance.
Sincerely,
t2z*MY
Media Bureau
Enclosure

CREW: Federal Communications Commission: Regarding McCain, Clinton and Obama: Obama

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CREW: Federal Communications Commission: Regarding McCain, Clinton and Obama: Obama

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BARACK OBAMA COMMITTEES:

Wnited State8 Senate VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

Mr. Dennis Dorsey

Dear Mr. Dorsey:

It is my understanding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) currently

like the Chicago Lighthouse.

The Honorable Barack Obama

Re: Contracting with Chicago Lighthouse

Dear Senator Obama:

Wnited State5 Senate VETERANS' AFFAIRS

Dear Ms. Atkinson:

The enclosed correspondence was received by my Chicago office from my constituent,

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

From: Enjoy Training Ltd

1 Date : 5/19/2005 Time: 7:42 PM page(s) : 3 I/

FCC Complaint Division:

I a m sending copies of this to my senators, Durbin and O b a m a .

* Even as he stood by his criticism of a Houston Chronicle editorial,

* March 1, 2005: O'Reilly used a February 28 State Department report on

The Honorable Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama:

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of

United StsteB Senate 16 VETERANS' AFFAIRS

Chairman Kevin J. Martin

Dear Chairman Martin:

Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from my constituent Paul Davidson

I hope you will take these views into close consideration.

Thanks very much,

The Honorable Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama:

Ms. Diane Atkinson

Dear Ms. Atkinson:

Office of U.S. Senator Barack Obama

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

230 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 3900

TELEPHONE (312) 943-0063

April 25, 2005

The Hon. Barack Obama

I am writing to you because I am of the victim of an abuse by RCN

For several years my condominium association has had a contract with

On April 6, 2005, an RCN representative came to my condo unit and

payments beyond my agreement. The RCN representative assured me

On April 8, 2005, RCN returned because of an installation mistake they

On April 11, 2005, I received a telephone call from a person identifying

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

/BARBARA HIRSCH PEKOW

Encls. 3 consisting of two service records and one bill.

To pay your bill on-line, obtain account

RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF BARBARA PEKOW

AV 01 0 0 1 126 32012 B 5 A**5DGT

PAYMENT OPTIONSAND PAYMENT LOCATIONS

IMPORTANT CUSTOMER INFORMATION Website: www.rcn.com

Send Correspondence to:

DST W943-2 (3/05) 11

Balance from last bill $12.89

xc;{* Connect to something more..

PAYMENT OPTIONSAND PAYMENTLOCATIONS

IMPORTANT CUSTOMER INFORMATION Website: www.rcn.com

Send Correspondence to:

TAXES, FEES AND SURCHARGES

C i Entertainment Tax E0.73

Current RCN charges $79.08