AT&T late last week offered proposal to FCC aimed at reducing CLEC access charges to level charged by incumbent LECs within year’s time. Plan is 2nd one proposed to agency, which is expected to act in 2-3 months to rein in CLEC prices that can be 14 times what ILECs charge long distance companies. AT&T has proposed that FCC immediately reduce originating and terminating access charges to 1.2 cents, which carrier said still would be twice what incumbent LECs charge, and then drop rates further over year. ALTS 2 months ago proposed another plan to reduce rates to 2.5 cents per min. on either end, which Assn. said would be 60% reduction from 4.27 cents CLECs now charge on average.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) signed agreement at meeting in Little Rock Fri. designed to streamline communications tower colocation reviews. Agreement was crafted by FCC, ACHP and National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. Pact eases review procedures for colocating antennas on existing towers under Sec. 106 of National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). State and tribal historic preservation officers had discussed procedural changes with communications industry following flood of new applications as result of recent growth in wireless communications towers. Wireless industry had sought changes as way to help relieve administrative backlogs that were delaying tower construction. Agreement is product of 7 months of industry and federal, state and tribal govt. negotiations. Under pact, most colocations on existing towers will be exempt from ACHP siting review procedures. Sec. 106 requires federal agencies to consider effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Agreement acknowledges that effect on historic properties of antenna colocations on towers is “likely to be minimal and not adverse.” FCC said Fri. that national agreement was designed to relieve “unnecessary administrative burdens” on agency licensees, tower companies, state historic preservation officers and Commission “while protecting the goals of the NHPA.” Agreement allows antenna to be mounted on tower built on or before March 16, 2001, unless it: (1) Will increase substantially in size, based on factors such as raising height by more than 10%. (2) Has been determined by FCC to have impact on one or more historic properties unless there’s “no adverse effect” finding. (3) Is under pending environmental review or FCC proceeding involving Sec. 106 compliance. Additional caveat includes cases where licensee or tower owner has received notification that FCC has received complaint about adverse effect. Colocation on towers constructed after March 16 also is covered with similar caveats. “This agreement provides for flexibility now for carriers and tower companies to move forward,” PCIA Senior Vp-Govt. Relations Robert Hoggarth said. “The fundamental advantage of this agreement is simply that it allows historical preservation officials to focus on the small percentage of towers that do have an impact.” FCC signed off on agreement last week after it had allowed additional time earlier this year for comments on draft from tribal representatives. “Tribal concerns need to be addressed in this process,” Hoggarth said. “The programmatic agreement is the beginning as opposed to the end,” he said, noting PCIA was meeting with representatives of southern and eastern tribes today (Mon.) to begin identifying model siting agreement. Still, FCC Comr. Tristani expressed concerns that agreement fell short of agency’s commitment to facilitate tribal consultation in agency regulatory processes. Commission received nearly 20 comments from tribal govts. on draft, she said. “The overwhelming majority told us our approach is not working,” Tristani said. “This response is prima facie evidence that our understanding of tribal consultation is misguided.”

In long-awaited move to free up more spectrum for advanced wireless services, FCC approved notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) Fri. that begins process of tapping Ch. 52-59 in 700 MHz band for auction. Lower channels in that band must be auctioned before Sept. 30, 2002, one year after Sept. 12 auction for Ch. 60- 69. Commission approved item, with Comr. Tristani dissenting in part on voluntary band-clearing proposals to help relocate incumbent broadcasters ahead of 2006 digital TV deadline. FCC didn’t address budget blueprint by President Bush that would delay several wireless auctions, including proposed move of Ch. 52-59 auction until 2006.

Group of companies that provide competitive transport services to CLECs asked FCC to rule that Sec. 224 of Telecom Act permits them to extend fiber to CLECs colocated in ILEC central offices. Coalition of Competitive Fiber Providers (CCFP) asked agency in petition Thurs. to rule that Sec. 224, which requires ILECs to provide access to duct, conduit or rights-of-way, applies to central office facilities. Patrick Donovan, attorney representing coalition, said petition was significant because it raised issue on Sec. 224 that hadn’t been addressed before and could make it easier for competitive fiber providers to serve CLECs. It also could solve CLEC-ILEC cross-connect issue pending as part of U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., remand of FCC’s colocation order. FCC is considering whether CLECs can cross-connect in ILEC central offices under Sec. 251 of Act. Petition provides additional basis -- Sec. 224 -- for FCC to make affirmative decision, Donovan said. Coalition is composed of American Fiber Systems, Fiber Technologies, Global Metro Networks, Telergy, Telseon Carrier Services. Petition said FCC’s definition of conduit and duct was broad enough to encompass all wiring distribution systems used in ILEC central offices.

Opinions that emerged from last week’s ITU policy forum on IP telephony in Geneva (CD March 9 p3) largely addressed earlier concerns raised by U.S. and others that outcome not be too prescriptive, said Richard Beaird, acting deputy asst. Secy. of State for international communications and information policy. “We were willing to talk about studies; we weren’t willing to talk about conclusions to studies that haven’t taken place yet,” he told us. ITU forums don’t generate regulatory decisions but produce opinions for member countries to consider. Meeting that ended Fri. generated 4 opinions covering IP telephony, including Opinion D that called for “essential studies” by ITU to facilitate introduction of IP telephony, including interoperability considerations of implementing newer networks alongside circuit- switched infrastructure. Earlier versions of Opinion D, proposed by Syria with backing of countries such as Lebanon and Somalia, called on ITU to ensure there was way to measure traffic across IP telephony networks and backward compatibility between public switched telephone networks (PSTN) and IP-based systems. Version approved at forum Fri. eased off language that stirred concerns by U.S. and allies such as Canada and U.K. “At the end of the day, the opinions have a better tone from our point of view,” Beaird told us. “We have a basis for going forward on a number of studies and workshops. It’s important to bring the developing world along in this area.” Proposal for backward-compatibility in earlier versions of Opinion D had aroused particular concern. “Backward” was eliminated from final version to end confusion about exactly what would have been covered, said Helen Domenici, policy analyst with FCC International Bureau’s Telecom Div. One interpretation of original wording would have been that backward compatibility imposed same obligations on IP networks as typically were obligations of PSTN, she said. “It could have meant requiring a whole raft of regulations on the network,” Domenici said. Other opinions address general implications of IP telephony for telecom policies of ITU members, including regulatory frameworks of developing countries. Another opinion calls for actions to assist ITU members “in adapting to the changes in the telecommunication environment due to the emergence of IP telephony,” including case studies and cooperative actions. While participants in forum wrestled with how to define IP telephony, opinions ultimately steered clear of locking in definition. “This is a work in progress,” FCC International Bureau Chief Donald Abelson said, citing evolving nature of technology. “It’s difficult to lock in a precise definition.” Eric Lee, public policy dir. for Commercial Internet eXchange Assn., said resolutions generally marked compromises among participants “that while satisfying no one, didn’t do any damage.” In particular, day-long information session March 6, held before start of 3-day forum, helped bring international regulators up to speed on technology. “People came out more knowledgeable, even if they didn’t have specific policy questions answered,” he said.

As expected, VoiceStream shareholders approved proposed merger agreements with Deutsche Telekom (DT) and DT and Powertel. In separate meeting, Powertel shareholders also approved transactions. Merger agreements still await approvals by FCC and Committee on Foreign Investment in U.S. Separately, VoiceStream and DT submitted ex parte filing to FCC rebutting some of foreign ownership concerns raised by ranking Senate Commerce Committee Democrat Hollings (S.C.) (CD March 8 p8). They cited Hollings’s argument that Sec. 310(a) of Communications Act should apply to merger. Companies said that section applies to radio licenses held directly by foreign govt., but doesn’t bar foreign govt. from obtaining indirect control over common carrier license. (German govt. now owns 59% of DT, but that level will be diluted after merger is completed). Sec. 310(b), which companies said should be applied to their merger, applies when foreign govt. owns interest of more than 25% of capital stock of corporation that controls U.S. subsidiary, filing said. “Indeed, the Commission could not have granted the merger applications filed by AirTouch and Vodafone, or British Telecom and MCI, if Senator Hollings’s interpretation of Sec. 310 were correct,” companies wrote.

FCC late Wed. announced it wanted to “update and refresh” its record on Computer 3 requirements for dominant carriers and asked for new comment on issues it raised in Jan. 1998 proposed rulemaking. Agency asked for comment on variety of issues such as “any developments in the ISP market since 1998 that the Commission should consider in reexamining the effectiveness of [Computer 3 and Open Network Architecture (ONA)] requirements.” Agency asked whether ISPs still relied on ONA framework to get DSL services from Bell companies. “If ISPs use means other than ONA to acquire DSL service, commenters should identify such alternatives and discuss whether they offer a more effective and efficient approach for obtaining required services,” FCC said. Agency also asked whether: (1) There was way to make any safeguards it adopted more “self-enforcing.” (2) Unbundling requirements for ILECs under Telecom Act would ease concerns expressed in 1994 by 9th U.S. Appeals Court, San Francisco, about effectiveness of nonstructural safeguards set up in earlier ONA proceeding. Agency said comments would be due 30 days after publication of notice in Federal Register, with replies due 15 days later.

U.S. Supreme Court agreed Mon. to enter long-brewing dispute over whether federal courts can review state PUC decisions that arise when they arbitrate interconnection disputes between competitors and ILECs. Although Telecom Act allows carriers to appeal PUC arbitration decisions to U.S. Dist. Courts, PUCs have questioned whether that violates 11th Amendment of Constitution, which gives states immunity from being sued in federal courts. Issue has found its way to several U.S. Appeals Courts, with most ruling that immunity issue didn’t apply. However, 4th U.S. Appeals Court, Richmond, ruled last month that there was immunity problem, indicating conflict among appeals courts. Until that decision, Supreme Court had refused to hear cases involving Telecom Act immunity issue. NARUC official said Supreme Court’s change of heart may be result of that conflicting 4th Circuit decision. High court will hear case brought by Ill. Commerce Commission -- Mathias v. WorldCom. High court said it would consider all 3 issues that states had raised in their various appeals: (1) Whether PUC’s enforcement of previously approved interconnection agreement was “reviewable by federal court.” (2) Whether PUC lost its immunity if it accepted “Congress’s invitation to participate in implementing a federal regulatory scheme” that included potential federal court review of its actions. (3) Whether so-called “ex parte Young exception” applies in arbitration cases.

In case closely watched by satellite TV industry, U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., quizzed lawyers on both sides Mon. over FCC rules that preempt landlords, building managers and homeowner groups from blocking renters from installing DBS dishes and other types of TV antennas. Hearing oral argument in case, panel of 3 judges particularly grilled attorneys for Building Owners & Managers Assn. International, which brought suit against govt.’s regulations for over-the-air reception devices (OTARD). While judges also questioned attorneys for FCC and DirecTV, they directed most of their attention to building owners and wondered aloud why they hadn’t taken complaints about OTARD rules and supporting statutes to other forums. They also asked why landlords didn’t simply raise their rents to cover cost of alleged “physical taking” of their property and interference with their contractual relationship with tenants.

Rep. Davis (R-Va.), chmn. of technology & Procurement Policy Subcommittee of House Govt. Reform Committee, sees hearings this year on progress of FTS program as “definite possibility,” spokesman said Fri. Davis, who has been critic of progress of FTS 2000 and 2001, would prefer to have hearings “sooner rather than later,” spokesman said. Davis met recently with General Services Administration (GSA) officials, including Acting Administrator Thurman Davis and GSA Federal Technology Service Comr. Sandra Bates. “The congressman expressed to GSA officials his concerns that the delays that have been encountered during the transition have jeopardized the program’s goals of ensuring the best service and the best price to government and to taxpayers,” spokesman said. Last year, Davis had raised concerns that FTS 2000 bridge contract was extended to Sprint and AT&T following failure by GSA to transition govt. agencies to new FTS 2001 agreement by self- imposed deadline of Dec. 6 (CD Dec 11 p6). WorldCom and Sprint hold combined $1.5 billion in contracts for FTS 2001. AT&T bridge contract extended FTS 2000 contract, under revised terms, for agencies that haven’t transitioned to new agreement. Qwest in Jan. filed agency-level protest with GSA over sole-source FTS 2000 interim contracts with Sprint and AT&T. In part, Qwest contended bridge contracts include rates that are on average 25% higher than those offered to agencies in fiscal 2000. As of Fri., decision hadn’t yet been handed down on Qwest protest, although one is expected shortly. When Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio was in Washington last week to speak at NARUC winter meeting, he met with GSA’s Davis to discuss FTS, sources said.