1. Reply Comments of Center for Media Education, et al., Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to America Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 98–146, October 10, 1998; Petition to Deny Consumers Union, et al., Joint Application of AT&T Corporation and Tele-Communications Inc. For Approval of Transfer of Control of Commission Licenses and Authorizations, Federal Communications Commission, CS Docket No. 98-178, October 28, 1998.
2. Consumer Federation of America, Texas Office of People’s Counsel, and Consumers Union, “Reply Comments,” before the Federal Communications Commission, In The Matter of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, Etc., CC Docket Nos. 98-147, 98–11, 98–26, 98–32, 98–78, 98–91, CCB/CPD Docket No. 98–15, RM 9244, October 18, 1998. Comments of CU, et al., Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, GEN Docket No. 00-185 (filed December 1, 2001); “Comments of Arizona Consumer Council, Center For Digital Democracy, Citizen Action of Illinois, Citizens Utility Board of Oregon, Consumer Action, The Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Democratic Processes Center, Florida Consumer Action Network, Illinois PIRG, Massachusetts Consumer Coalition, Media Access Project, New Jersey Citizen Action, Texas Consumer Association, Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, USAction,” In the Matter of Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities Universal Service Obligations of Broadband Providers Computer HI Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards And Requirements, Federal Communications Commission, CC Dockets Nos. 95-20, 98-10, May 3, 2002, (hereinafter Wireline Proceeding); Reply Comments, July 1, 2001; “Comments of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union,” In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning High Speed Access to the Internet over Cable and Other Facilities, Federal Communications Commission, GN Docket No. 96-262, December 12, 1999, January 12, 2000; “Comments of Texas Office of Consumer Counsel, Consumer Federation of America, In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities; Declaratory Ruling; Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Cable Facilities, Federal Communications Commission, GN Dockets Nos. 00-185, CS Dockets No. 02-52, March 15, 2002; “Comments and Reply Comments of The Consumer Federation of America, Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, Consumers Union, and Center For Digital Democracy,” In the Matter of Review of the Section 251 Unbundling, Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, Federal Communications Commission, CC Dockets Nos. 01–338, 96–98, 98–147, April 5, 2002; Reply Comments, July 1, 2002.
3. “Amicus Curiae Brief of Citizens’ Utility Board of Oregon, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Utility Consumer Action Network,” AT&T v. Portland, 216 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2000); “Opening Brief of Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union and Center for Digital Democracy,” Brand X Internet Service, et a., v. Federal Communications Commission, October 10, 2001.
4. United States v. AT&T and MediaOne, Amended Complaint, Case No. 1:00CV001176 (RCL) (D.C. Cir. May 26, 2000).
5. Boardwatch, various issues.