Advanced Communications said opposition by FCC Enforcement Bureau...
Advanced Communications said opposition by FCC Enforcement Bureau, EchoStar, GM and Hughes to Advanced’s petition to intervene in DBS case was based incorrectly on legal proceeding that didn’t address its concerns. Advanced said its petition to intervene and seek…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
continuance of 1995 order, which denied Advanced application for extension to construct, launch and operate DBS system, involved new evidence that Commission had based previous decision on “expectation of future auction revenues” and whether consideration of such expectations violated Communications Act. Opponents said decision U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., in 1996 dealt with issue, but Advanced quoted unpublished decision that said “we express no opinions as to whether the Commission was in fact barred from taking into account the expected impact on federal revenues.” Advanced also said new evidence on Commission decision was “tainted,” making 1995 order and court decisions “not controlling.”