In bid to give national scope to historically local controversies, environmental groups are mounting campaign at FCC to compel more detailed environmental reviews of wireless towers. Friends of the Earth (FOE) and Forest Conservation Council have filed petitions to deny on near-weekly basis at Commission since late March, holding up final approval on 31 sites. Groups also want FCC to not approve future wireless towers until it conducts environmental assessment of its own antenna licensing program. Sudden influx of petitions -- on towers proposed by American Tower, Crown Castle, SBC and others -- appears to be new tactic by groups, which haven’t engaged in such national effort before, sources said. One FCC official said that in last 4 years, only handful of such petitions had been filed, with most centering on historic preservation issues. But recent petitions run much broader gamut, criticizing lack of detail from tower constructors on impacts ranging from migratory bird traffic to potential human health effects from radiofrequency (RF) emissions.

AT&T will raise its basic residential calling rates, effective July 1, but said rates remain lower on average than those of MCI and Sprint. AT&T’s new basic rates on direct-dialed state-to-state calls made from home are: 30 cents per min. (up from 29.5) on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; 25 cents per min. (up from 22.5) on weekdays from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.; and 16 cents per min. (up from 14.5) on weekends. SBC said AT&T’s rate increase “only underscores the need for more competition in the long distance industry and why regulators should act swiftly to allow SBC to offer long distance in its remaining 9 states.”

Real estate industry sources said Sen. Kohl (D-Wis.) has backed off from comments on “sweetheart deals” allegedly made by landlords and telcos that restrict access by potential competitors to multitenant dwellings. Kohl raised ire of property owners in Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee hearing (CD May 3 p1) when he questioned whether Congress should fine-tune Telecom Act to address issue of building access. Real estate interests said they met with Kohl staffers in wake of hearing, which Subcommittee Chmn. DeWine (R-O.) had held to assess progress of competition since passage of 1996 Act. Industry sources said staffers gave assurances that Kohl’s sole intention at hearing was to elicit input from telecom industry panelists on how Congress could protect residential and commercial tenants and remove stumbling block to competition. Kohl has no intention of introducing legislation to govern building access despite urging of CLEC and IXC executives for nationwide building access legislation, real estate sources said. They said legislative action was unnecessary because: (1) FCC regulations already prohibit exclusive contracts between landlords and carriers. (2) There’s no evidence of widespread restrictive contracts. Advocates say legislative remedy is needed to: (1) Preempt disparate state regulations. (2) Bolster FCC rules, which they said lacked sufficient enforcement mechanism to deter building owners from denying or delaying access to buildings. Kohl aide confirmed that staff met with real estate industry interests, but declined comment.

Canadian govt. outlined proposed changes in country’s Copyright Act that would entirely block or place “limitations and conditions” on Internet retransmission of TV signals by companies such as JumpTV.com, which wants same license as cable for retransmitting broadcast TV signals over Internet. In letter to coalition of broadcasters, producers and movie distributors, govt. said options for modifying compulsory retransmission licensing regime included only that: (1) Retransmission licensing regime could expressly exclude Internet. (2) Retransmission licensing regime could “require compliance with new limitations and conditions appropriate to the unique concerns raised by Internet- based retransmission.” May 21 letter from the Industry and Heritage depts., said govt. would release consultation paper “before this summer” on “whether persons engaged in the Internet- based retransmission of over-the-air TV or radio signals should be entitled to rely on the Copyright Act’s compulsory retransmission licence.” Letter showed that big media “can buy the laws in this country,” said JumpTV.com CEO Farrel Miller: “The federal government should be embarrassed to disseminate a letter which is clearly so one-sided, without any due process first.” Miller said that “if in fact the government has prejudged the issue, it raises substantial issues regarding fair due process… JumpTV has always represented that application of retransmission laws in Canada must be applied in a technology-neutral manner.”

In latest skirmish of long-running DTV must-carry battle, broadcasting and cable interests fought over FCC’s authority to impose dual-carriage rules on cable operators during nation’s digital transition. Trade groups representing both industries filed fresh set of comments at Commission late Fri., challenging each other’s earlier arguments for and against DTV must-carry requirements (CD April 27 p3). Commenters pitted First Amendment rights of cable operators against broadcasters’ claims to mandatory cable carriage, seeking to convince agency to revise its Jan. ruling that tentatively concluded against dual carriage but left open possibility of changing its mind.

General Accounting Office (GAO) confirmed in report Tues. that there wasn’t yet enough collected research to establish link between radiofrequency (RF) emissions from cellphones and adverse health effects. But report, requested by Sen. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Rep. Markey (D-Mass.), also said lack of research results meant health effects couldn’t necessarily be ruled out. GAO outlined series of recommendations, ranging from how Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and FCC could make more safety information available to consumers to how FCC could revamp its specific absorption rate testing guidance. Markey, ranking Democrat on House Telecom Subcommittee, also stressed need for changes in cooperative R&D agreement between FDA and CTIA to ensure that trade group follows FDA recommendations on specific research proposals. “In no way should the FDA’s independent medical judgment be compromised,” he said at news conference.

U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wharf Holdings violated federal securities law when it reneged on its oral pledge to grant stock option in its Hong Kong cable system to United International Holdings in 1992. In unanimous decision issued Mon., Supreme Court held that Wharf executives offered United option to acquire 10% of cable system’s stock in return for various services but never intended to carry out that promise. Upholding 2 lower court rulings, high court held that Sec. 10b of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 covered transaction, despite Wharf’s claims that law didn’t cover oral contracts and that decision favoring United would prompt other federal securities suits against it. In original case, jury awarded $67 million in compensatory damages and $58.5 million in punitive damages to United, Colo.-based cable operator that helped Wharf bid for Hong Kong system and raise $66 million in financing for it. Tenth U.S. Appeals Court, Denver, then upheld jury award but Supreme Court agreed to review case.

It’s “too simplistic” to question whether FCC Chmn. Powell supports telecom competition just because he also advocates deregulation where appropriate, he said in interview with Communications Daily. “Of course we favor competition,” he said. “The policy of the entire country is to favor competition.” What has been misunderstood is more “subtle” question of when intervention is right and when it isn’t, he said. Powell said he didn’t believe in jumping too quickly into new regulations or keeping old ones that no longer are necessary. Telecom Act requires FCC to review regulations periodically and determine whether they still are appropriate, so this isn’t new concept, he said: “There are appropriate places for regulation, but they should be carefully scrutinized and one should be hesitant to interfere with those operations without clear and demonstrable reasons for doing so.”

Senate Commerce Committee members are meeting separately with FCC nominees Michael Powell, Kathleen Abernathy, Kevin Martin and Michael Copps in preparation for May 17 confirmation hearing, Senate staffers said. Members Tues. (May 15) and today scheduled informal gatherings “to get to know” candidates and in advance of hearing express views on communications issues that would be tackled under nominees’ tenure at Commission, according to several staffers. “It’s standard procedure to meet in advance” of confirmation hearing, committee spokeswoman said. She wouldn’t rule out possible advance meetings between Chmn. McCain (R-Ariz.) and nominees, but wasn’t aware of specific questions that he intended to address. E-rate and rural network deployment will be focus of questions by committee members, other Senate staffers said.

U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., questioned Tues. how costs of Enhanced 911 upgrades that rural and other wireless carriers pass on to customers are any different from public safety costs faced by other industries such as automakers and airlines. U.S. Cellular Corp., Corr Wireless Communications and Rural Cellular Assn. challenged 1999 FCC decision to eliminate cost-recovery mechanism for carriers as precondition to their obligation to furnish E911 caller location services. Commission lifted that requirement as it related to commercial carriers based on concerns that difficulties with putting state cost recovery legislation into effect were dramatically slowing E911 rollouts. Challenge by rural carriers centered on concerns that compared to larger carriers with urban customer bases, they must spread such costs over smaller subscriber base covering larger areas. But Judges David Tatel and Merrick Garland pressed U.S. Cellular attorney Thomas Van Wazer on how public safety costs and mandates at issue in this case were different from similar requirements imposed on other industries that also must pass on costs to customers. “Don’t auto makers pass that along?” Tatel asked. “Couldn’t Ford say we're not going to install any seatbelts because they are very expensive?”