Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [coldwarcomms] Eastern Shore Microwave sites (more)

Expand Messages
  • Paul Zawada
    ... This application (amongst a group of others) is a formality required by the impending acquisition of AT&T by SBC. Whenever a controlling interest in an
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On 7/4/05, David Lesher <wb8foz@...> wrote:
      > FINALLY {how DOES Albert find stuff in the FCC database so easily?}
      > found FCC file #2052521 talking about WAD25, 26, and more...
      >
      > They are bing tranferred from AT&T Communications of Maryland
      > to SBC...
      >
      > Huh?
      >

      This application (amongst a group of others) is a formality required
      by the impending acquisition of AT&T by SBC. Whenever a controlling
      interest in an FCC licensee is going to change, the licensee must
      apply to the Commission for permission to transfer control of the
      license. If such an acquisition takes place before the FCC gives
      their nod, the licensee can find themselves in a lot of (expensive)
      trouble. A lot of utilities seem have been tripped up by this in the
      last few years. See:

      http://www.fcc.gov/eb/factsheets/sec310d.html
      http://www.fcc.gov/eb/unauthtctl/

      Incidentally, after the transaction takes place, these licenses will
      (at least for near-term) remain in their respective AT&T affiliate
      names. The licensee is not changing; such an action would require an
      application for an "Assignment of Authorization," not a "Transfer of
      Control" such as this.

      --zawada
    • David Lesher
      ... Wow. Virtually any other acquisition issue can be avoided by just buying [here ATT] the corp. and leaving it in place running... Learn something every day.
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:

        > This application (amongst a group of others) is a formality required
        > by the impending acquisition of AT&T by SBC. Whenever a controlling
        > interest in an FCC licensee is going to change, the licensee must
        > apply to the Commission for permission to transfer control of the
        > license.

        Wow. Virtually any other acquisition issue can be avoided by just
        buying [here ATT] the corp. and leaving it in place running...

        Learn something every day.




        --
        A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@...
        & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
        Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
        is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
      • James Browne
        But why would the FCC do the exact opposite in regards to comm facilities? ... -- Jim Browne
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 5, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          But why would the FCC do the exact opposite in regards to comm facilities?

          On 7/5/05, David Lesher <wb8foz@...> wrote:
          > Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
          >
          > > This application (amongst a group of others) is a formality required
          > > by the impending acquisition of AT&T by SBC. Whenever a controlling
          > > interest in an FCC licensee is going to change, the licensee must
          > > apply to the Commission for permission to transfer control of the
          > > license.
          >
          > Wow. Virtually any other acquisition issue can be avoided by just
          > buying [here ATT] the corp. and leaving it in place running...
          >
          > Learn something every day.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --
          > A host is a host from coast to
          > coast.................wb8foz@...
          > & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
          > Unless the host (that isn't
          > close).........................pob 1433
          > is busy, hung or
          > dead....................................20915-1433
          >
          >
          > SPONSORED LINKS
          > Cold war Military Politics
          > ________________________________
          > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          >
          >
          > Visit your group "coldwarcomms" on the web.
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > coldwarcomms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > coldwarcomms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          > ________________________________
          >


          --
          Jim Browne
        • Paul Zawada
          The FCC doesn t want someone quitely buying companies to acquire licenses in an undetectable manner. They want to know who ultimately has control of a
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 6, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            The FCC doesn't want someone quitely buying companies to acquire
            licenses in an undetectable manner. They want to know who ultimately
            has control of a license.

            --zawada


            On 7/5/05, James Browne <jamesm.browne@...> wrote:
            > But why would the FCC do the exact opposite in regards to comm facilities?
            >
            > On 7/5/05, David Lesher <wb8foz@...> wrote:
            > > Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
            > >
            > > > This application (amongst a group of others) is a formality required
            > > > by the impending acquisition of AT&T by SBC. Whenever a controlling
            > > > interest in an FCC licensee is going to change, the licensee must
            > > > apply to the Commission for permission to transfer control of the
            > > > license.
            > >
            > > Wow. Virtually any other acquisition issue can be avoided by just
            > > buying [here ATT] the corp. and leaving it in place running...
            > >
          • James Browne
            That would make sense. Comm facilities are of far more concern than a donut shop. ... -- Jim Browne
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 6, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              That would make sense. Comm facilities are of far more concern than a
              donut shop.

              On 7/6/05, Paul Zawada <EngineerZ@...> wrote:
              > The FCC doesn't want someone quitely buying companies to acquire
              > licenses in an undetectable manner. They want to know who ultimately
              > has control of a license.
              >
              > --zawada
              >
              >
              > On 7/5/05, James Browne <jamesm.browne@...> wrote:
              > > But why would the FCC do the exact opposite in regards to comm facilities?
              > >
              > > On 7/5/05, David Lesher <wb8foz@...> wrote:
              > > > Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
              > > >
              > > > > This application (amongst a group of others) is a formality required
              > > > > by the impending acquisition of AT&T by SBC. Whenever a controlling
              > > > > interest in an FCC licensee is going to change, the licensee must
              > > > > apply to the Commission for permission to transfer control of the
              > > > > license.
              > > >
              > > > Wow. Virtually any other acquisition issue can be avoided by just
              > > > buying [here ATT] the corp. and leaving it in place running...
              > > >
              >
              > ________________________________
              > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
              >
              > Visit your group "coldwarcomms" on the web.
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > coldwarcomms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > coldwarcomms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              > ________________________________
              >


              --
              Jim Browne
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.