CITY OF PORTLAND, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES of America; Federal Communications Commission, Respondents,
City and County of San Francisco; City of Arcadia; City of Bellevue; City of Brookhaven; City of Burien; City of Burlingame; City of Chicago; City of Culver City; City of Dubuque; City of Gig Harbor; City of Kirkland; City of Las Vegas; City of Lincoln; City of Monterey; City of Philadelphia; City of Piedmont; City of Plano; City of San Bruno; City of San Jacinto; City of San Jose; City of Santa Monica; City of Shafter; County of Los Angeles; Howard County; Michigan Municipal League; CTIA — The Wireless Association; Town of Fairfax; Town of Hillsborough, Intervenors.
American Electric Power Service Corporation; CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC; Duke Energy Corporation; Entergy Corporation; Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC; Southern Company; Tampa Electric Company; Virginia Electric and Power Company; Xcel Energy Services Inc., Petitioners,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,
Verizon; US Telecom—The Broadband Association, Respondents-Intervenors.
Sprint Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,
City of Bowie, Maryland; City of Eugene, Oregon; City of Huntsville, Alabama; City of Westminster, Maryland; County of Marin, California; City of Arcadia, California; Culver City, California; City of Bellevue, California; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona; County of Los Angeles, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of New York, New York, Intervenors.
Verizon Communications, Inc., Petitioner,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,
City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, California; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona; County of Los Angeles, California; Culver City, California; City of New York, New York; Town of Fairfax, California, Intervenors.
Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc., Petitioner,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,
City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, California; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona; County of Los Angeles, California; Culver City, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of New York, New York, Intervenors.
City of Seattle, Washington; City of Tacoma, Washington; King County, Washington; League of Oregon Cities; League of California Cities; League of Arizona Cities and Towns, Petitioners,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,
City of Bakersfield, California; City of Coconut Creek, Florida; City of Lacey, Washington; City of Olympia, Washington; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California; City of Tumwater, Washington; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance; Rainier Communications Commission; County of Thurston, Washington; City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona; County of Los Angeles, California; Culver City, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of New York, New York, Intervenors.
City of San Jose, California; City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; Culver City, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; County of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona, Petitioners,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,
CTIA — The Wireless Association; Competitive Carriers Association; Sprint Corporation; Verizon Communications, Inc.; City of New York, New York; Wireless Infrastructure Association, Intervenors.
City and County of San Francisco, Petitioner,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents.
City of Huntington Beach, Petitioner,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,
City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona; County of Los Angeles, California; Culver City, California; Town of Fairfax, California; City of New York, New York, Intervenors.
Montgomery County, Maryland, Petitioner,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents.
AT&T Services, Inc., Petitioner,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,
City of Baltimore, Maryland; City and County of San Francisco, California; Michigan Municipal League; City of Albuquerque, New Mexico; National League of Cities; City of Bakersfield, California; Town of Ocean City, Maryland; City of Brookhaven, Georgia; City of Coconut Creek, Florida; City of Dubuque, Iowa; City of Emeryville, California; City of Fresno, California; City of La Vista, Nebraska; City of Lacey, Washington; City of Medina, Washington; City of Olympia, Washington; City of Papillion, Nebraska; City of Plano, Texas; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California; City of Rockville, Maryland; City of San Bruno, California; City of Santa Monica, California; City of Sugarland, Texas; City of Tumwater, Washington; City of Westminster, Maryland; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance; Contra Costa County, California; County of Marin, California; International City/County Management Association; International Municipal Lawyers Association; League of Nebraska Municipalities; National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; Rainier Communications Commission; Thurston County, Washington; Town of Corte Madera, California; Town of Hillsborough, California; Town of Yarrow Point, Washington; City of Arcadia, California; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Burien, Washington; City of Burlingame, California; City of Culver City, California; City of Gig Harbor, Washington; City of Issaquah, Washington; City of Kirkland, Washington; City of Las Vegas, Nevada; City of Los Angeles, California; City of Monterey, California; City of Ontario, California; City of Piedmont, California; City of Portland, Oregon; City of San Jacinto, California; City of San Jose, California; City of Shafter, California; City of Yuma, Arizona; County of Los Angeles, California; Town of Fairfax, California, Intervenors.
American Public Power Association, Petitioner,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,
City of Albuquerque, New Mexico; National League of Cities; City of Brookhaven, Georgia; City of Baltimore, Maryland; City of Dubuque, Iowa; Town of Ocean City, Maryland; City of Emeryville, California; Michigan Municipal League; Town of Hillsborough, California; City of La Vista, Nebraska; City of Medina, Washington; City of Papillion, Nebraska; City of Plano, Texas; City of Rockville, Maryland; City of San Bruno, California; City of Santa Monica, California; City of Sugarland, Texas; League of Nebraska Municipalities; National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; City of Bakersfield, California; City of Fresno, California; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California; City of Coconut Creek, Florida; City of Lacey, Washington; City of Olympia, Washington; City of Tumwater, Washington; Town of Yarrow Point, Washington; Thurston County, Washington; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance; Rainier Communications Commission; City and County of San Francisco, California; County of Marin, California; Contra Costa County, California; Town of Corte Madera, California; City of Westminster, Maryland, Intervenors.
City of Austin, Texas; City of Ann Arbor, Michigan; County of Anne Arundel, Maryland; City of Atlanta, Georgia; City of Boston, Massachusetts; City of Chicago, Illinois; Clark County, Nevada; City of College Park, Maryland; City of Dallas, Texas; District of Columbia; City of Gaithersburg, Maryland; Howard County, Maryland; City of Lincoln, Nebraska; Montgomery County, Maryland; City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; City of Omaha, Nebraska; City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; City of Rye, New York; City of Scarsdale, New York; City of Seat Pleasant, Maryland; City of Takoma Park, Maryland; Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues; Meridian Township, Michigan; Bloomfield Township, Michigan; Michigan Townships Association; Michigan Coalition To Protect Public Rights-of-way, Petitioners,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,
City of Albuquerque, New Mexico; National League of Cities; City of Brookhaven, Georgia; City of Baltimore, Maryland; City of Dubuque, Iowa; Town of Ocean City, Maryland; City of Emeryville, California; Michigan Municipal League; Town of Hillsborough, California; City of La Vista, Nebraska; City of Medina, Washington; City of Papillion, Nebraska; City of Plano, Texas; City of Rockville, Maryland; City of San Bruno, California; City of Santa Monica, California; City of Sugarland, Texas; League of Nebraska Municipalities; National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; City of Bakersfield, California; City of Fresno, California; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California; City of Coconut Creek, Florida; City of Lacey, Washington; City of Olympia, Washington; City of Tumwater, Washington; Town of Yarrow Point, Washington; Thurston County, Washington; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance; Rainier Communications Commission; City and County of San Francisco, California; County of Marin, California; Contra Costa County, California; Town of Corte Madera, California; City of Westminster, Maryland, Intervenors.
City of Eugene, Oregon; City of Huntsville, Alabama; City of Bowie, Maryland, Petitioners,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,
City of Albuquerque, New Mexico; National League of Cities; City of Brookhaven, Georgia; City of Baltimore, Maryland; City of Dubuque, Iowa; Town of Ocean City, Maryland; City of Emeryville, California; Michigan Municipal League; Town of Hillsborough, California; City of La Vista, Nebraska; City of Medina, Washington; City of Papillion, Nebraska; City of Plano, Texas; City of Rockville, Maryland; City of San Bruno, California; City of Santa Monica, California; City of Sugarland, Texas; League of Nebraska Municipalities; National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; City of Bakersfield, California; City of Fresno, California; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California; City of Coconut Creek, Florida; City of Lacey, Washington; City of Olympia, Washington; City of Tumwater, Washington; Town of Yarrow Point, Washington; Thurston County, Washington; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance; Rainier Communications Commission; City and County of San Francisco, California; County of Marin, California; Contra Costa County, California; Town of Corte Madera, California; City of Westminster, Maryland, Intervenors.