I suggest you read page 82 of the MO&O/R&O – under footnote 561, with regards to 47 C.F.R. 1.4 — which is the FCC ruling dealing specifically with the computation of time. Here, the FCC goes out of their way to point out that they are not required to publish the changes in the Federal Register — nor are the changes subject to the mandatory 30-day waiting period.

If you reaserch 47 C.F.R. 1.4 — you’ll learn how and when the FCC begins its computation of time, specifically when it is not published in the Federal Register. It begins with the public notice — which I will conceed was listed on the FCC website as 7/28/07… not my previous 7/25/08, which was the Friday before.

Now, as for your attacks on me — my reference on Yahoo to Hartlieb’s RICO case was just that. Hartlieb acknowledged publicaly that he was filing it (or had). I never stated either there (or here) that Hartlieb could or could not file an appeal to the FCC’s decision. Nor did I state at ANY point in time that he had not. Yes, I said he filed a lawsuit — but no, I never claimed that he could not or would not file an appeal to the FCC ruling. Don’t twist my words and make claims of things I never said.

My posting had one — and only one — point… that the closing date to filing an appeal was at the end of August. That time has passed… I never claimed that Hartieb hadn’t already done it. I did doubt whether any one would want to, because IMHO it is a money losing proposition — but I never said he (or anyone) didn’t.

P.S. – Lawyers are wrong more than you think… one piece of advice regarding working in the media (since your portraying your site as a news type of service) – never trust a single source. If they’re wrong, you’re the one that loses the credibility.

—–

If the party is wrong then so are the attorneys in the matter. I don’t know about the Federal register nor do I care, as I am not an attorney.
From what I saw on the yahoo board yesterday, you acknowledged a certain case in point. I believe you referred to it as a Rico case.

Now you post here that it cannot be. You are wrong and do not know the details but there is an appeal either being filed or already filed with a final submission date of 9/4.

You can continue to attack my posts but it will not change the fact that I have recieved information directly from a source involved in at least one case.

I’m afraid you are wrong. Period.

The Federal Register updates are posted on-line — the changes to the rules were not published in the FR. And as the FCC noted, they were not required to publish it. The rules became effective immediately upon adoption.

I’m sorry, but the party you talked to was wrong… they were likely poorly informed. The FCC information is indisputable. It’s taken directly from the MO&O/R&O… they were not required to publish the changes (and they have not been) I suggest you research the Federal Register update site: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/

Rule changes become effective immediately upon adoption. Appeals to new or changed rules must be filed prior to the effective date. If a rule (or change) is published, then it does not become effective until 30 days after publication. Parties appealing are given the 30 days to appeal. However if the rule is effective immediately upon adoption, then appeals are given 30 days from the adoption.

Release dates is and always has been irrelevant to the process.

—-

I have no questions…I spoke to one of the parties I mentioned in the article…9/4 is the final date.

I now believe the confusion is not unfounded. You could have had a Federal Register posting anytime before the 30 day default period expired. I see that as adding up to say 29 days to the process. Although that probably not practical it would be possible.