SpectrumTalk

TWENTY-ONE DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY COMMENTS
ON
WIRELESS INNOVATION AND INVESTMENT NOTICE OF INQUIRY

GN Docket No. 09-157
GN Docket No. 09-51

Revised Reply Comment Deadline: November 5, 2009

From an FCC PN:

On August 27, 2009, the Commission issued the Wireless Innovation and Investment Notice of
Inquiry (NOI),which provided that comments were due on September 28, 2009, and that reply comments
were due on October 12, 2009. On September 10, 2009, the Commission released the Public Noticein
this proceeding, extending the comment and reply comment deadlines to help ensure development of a
more complete record. The Commission established a new pleading cycle for the NOI, with comments
due on September 30, 2009 and replies due on October 15, 2009.

On October 2, 2009, CTIA –The Wireless Association (“CTIA”) and Public Knowledge filed a
joint request for a 21-day extension of the reply comment deadline “[to] enable interested parties to
review and evaluate the record submitted in the initial comment round.” CTIA and Public Knowledge
state that the current deadline for reply comments is just 15 days after the initial comments were filed,
that it coincides with filing deadlines in other pending Commission proceedings, and that extending the
due date for reply comments would serve the public interest by affording interested parties participating
in the proceedings a more feasible sequence of filing deadlines, thereby providing sufficient time to digest
the record and formulate meaningful responses on reply.

I suppose CTIA and Public Knowledge don't agree on much, so it was best to go along with their joint recommendation.

But I could also point out that while CTIA said on October 2 that it needed more time to file reply comments, it did have time to prepare for meetings with Chmn. Genachowski and Comm. Copps on the same day it filed.

FCC transparency would improve if large trade associations filed comments on time rather than rush to have secretive meetings not available to other parties in the same proceeding at the same time they claim they need filing extensions.