The Wireless Communications Assn. called on the FCC to rethink a key part of its order reallocating 2.5 GHz spectrum to spur growth of wireless broadband. WCA said for the order to accomplish its goals FCC must remove the Big LEO MSS satellite downlink allocation from the 2496- 2500 MHz band. Sprint and Nextel also filed petitions for reconsideration citing similar concerns. Meanwhile, Globalstar said it deserves a hearing, under Section 316 of the Communications Act, based on the extent of the impact to Globalstar’s system from all the sharing it will do in the S-band (2496-2500 MHz) and the L-band (1618.25- 1621.35 MHz).

An order on a National Programmatic Agreement (NPA) on wireless tower citing -- based on a late Aug. compromise proposal by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (CD Sept 7 p3) -- was nearly ready late Wed., sources said. “I hear it will be on the agenda,” said an attorney who represents carriers. “It’s going down to the wire,” a carrier source said. Even if it doesn’t make the agenda, both said it will likely be voted out by the Commission in days. At least 2 carrier groups were at the FCC Wed. for last-minute lobbying. A CTIA-led group met with Wireless Bureau staff. Members of the new Tower Policy Siting Alliance met with legal advisers to Comrs. Martin and Abernathy to discuss whether tower siting should be classified as an “undertaking” under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) before adopting rules for siting. The 2 commissioners had concerns about this issue, first raised by carriers. The alliance said the FCC should be able to approve the NPA without first addressing this issue. - HB

Senior Senate Judiciary Committee staffers, U.S. Copyright Office officials such as Assoc. Register Jule Sigall, and industry representatives including Sarah Deutsch and Kathy Zanowic of Verizon were meeting at our deadline Tues. regarding proposals to modify legislation targeting inducement of copyright infringement. A draft proposal by the Copyright Office circulated last week generated opposition among the high-tech and fair-use community (CD Sept 7 p6, Sept 3 p4). Critics have called it overbroad, with several groups instead urging consideration of a proposal CEA offered in Aug. (CD Aug 26 p7). Inducement language could be included with new authority for the Dept. of Justice in a broader copyright bill aimed at clearing Congress this year, according to Hill sources.

Senior Senate Judiciary Committee staffers, U.S. Copyright Office officials such as Assoc. Register Jule Sigall, and industry representatives including Sarah Deutsch and Kathy Zanowic of Verizon were meeting at our deadline Tues. regarding proposals to modify legislation targeting inducement of copyright infringement. A draft proposal by the Copyright Office circulated last week generated opposition among the high-tech and fair-use community (CED Sept 7 p4). Critics have called it overbroad, with several groups instead urging consideration of a proposal CEA offered in Aug. Inducement language could be included with new authority for the Dept. of Justice in a broader copyright bill aimed at clearing Congress this year, according to Hill sources.

Reauthorization of the Satellite Home View Improvement Act (SHVIA) was described by Hill sources as the only “must pass” legislation as Congress returns from its Aug. recess after Labor Day. But congressional action to raise broadcast indecency fines also seemed likely. SHVIA is winding through the House and Senate, and both bodies have passed indecency fine legislation. Other issues, such as VoIP and spectrum relocation, were considered in flux. The Senate could take up controversial copyright reform legislation. Hill staff and lobbyists caution, however, that a focus on intelligence reform in the wake of the 9/11 Commission could crowd out other legislative initiatives.

Following discussions last week with British Telecom (BT), some U.K. ISPs said they're hopeful they can resolve their dispute over BT’s decision to hike prices on some broadband office products. Last month, BT announced it would raise wholesale prices on some IPStream products -- packages sold to ISPs which then offer retail services to their customers. BT’s move anticipated a ruling by the Office of Communications (Ofcom) this month, which set a margin between DataStream products -- which allow large ISPs to buy local access from BT but provide connectivity to customers on the ISPs’ networks -- and IPStream. The price increase angered smaller ISPs, which feared it would drive them out of business (CD Aug 16 p4 or WID Aug 16 p3). Last Wed., members of the Internet Service Providers Assn. (ISPA) U.K. met with BT Wholesale Dir.-Products Bruce Stanford. ISPA told Stanford the higher charges -- up to 32% on some IPStream products -- and the fact they can be imposed on only 28 days’ notice “may mean ISPs will be forced to charge significantly more for their services, diminish service levels or even close.” Stanford “listen[ed] sympathetically” and agreed to another meeting later this month, the group said. But the U.K. Internet Federation (UKIF), a coalition of more than 70 small and medium-sized ISPs formed to fight BT’s price increases, remained unconvinced after a Fri. meeting with Stanford. BT has already raised prices by about 7% more than Ofcom’s regulation required, UKIF said; the telco said that can’t be immediately reversed because of another increase in broadband prices resulting from Ofcom’s recent proposals for LLU connection and rental pricing (WID Aug 27 p4 or CD Aug 27 p8)). But UKIF said Stanford agreed to look into adjustments to the broadband prices. UKIF said it’s encouraged by BT’s willingness to consider reducing prices but worried those adjustments might be offset some by Ofcom’s LLU ruling. “The trouble is BT will be treating these 2 adjustments together, which UKIF believes… does not guarantee a reduction in price for IPStream or DataStream products,” the group said. But UKIF said BT is considering the group’s proposal to modify its capacity- based charging model to a usage-based scheme, which could benefit smaller ISPs. UKIF is already lobbying members of Parliament and has set meetings next week with Ofcom and the Dept. of Trade & Industry. It’s also looking into the Ofcom appeals process, it said. BT is committed to reviewing the numbers but thinks it has little wiggle room for adjustment, a spokeswoman said. The margin between IPStream and DataStream prices must be acceptable to Ofcom at all levels, she said, so BT can make changes only if they comply with Ofcom’s margin-squeeze formula. Part of BT’s objective in meeting with ISPs is to explain why it acted as it did, and what it must do to comply with the regulations, she said. Even if adjustments are possible they won’t happen overnight, the spokeswoman said. “But we are talking” to ISPs and understand their position, she added.

Cal. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) signed a 911 bill imposing fines up to $200 on persons who knowingly call 911 other than to report an emergency. Penalties range from an official warning on a first offense up to a $200 fine per call for chronic offenders. Meanwhile, the legislature sent the governor an act (SB-1488) that would direct the Cal. PUC to reexamine its confidentiality practices to ensure that they're not getting in the way of meaningful public participation and “open decision making.” PUC policy holds that filings are confidential unless they're specifically required to be public record, and prohibits PUC employees from divulging confidential information. The bill cited committee reports that an increasing amount of information is edited by the PUC before it goes public, raising questions about whether its processes are fair and open.

NTCA is concerned the House Commerce Committee will vote on VoIP legislation by the end of the session, raising the possibility of passage at the last minute as an amendment to an appropriations bill, an official told the news media Mon. “The Commerce Committee is considering voting on some type of VoIP legislation this Congress,” NTCA Govt. Affairs Representative Brian O'Hara said. Chances of such language being tacked onto a appropriations measure are fairly high with most of the appropriations bills still pending, he said. O'Hara said NTCA considers VoIP legislation premature, especially since House Commerce Committee Chmn. Barton (R-Tex.) “has stated his intent to reopen the Telecom Act next year.” “We don’t think a narrowly focused single technology bill should be addressed, period -- not even next year,” he said. Too many other key issues need attention such as universal service and intercarrier compensation, O'Hara said. Two VoIP bills are vying for House passage -- HR- 4129 sponsored by Rep. Pickering (R-Miss.) and HR-4757 sponsored by Reps. Stearns (R-Fla.) and Boucher (D-Va.). Meanwhile, NTCA Govt. Affairs Vp Shirley Bloomfield said if there’s a rewrite, NTCA’s wish list would include: (1) Network compensation for rural carriers. (2) Universal service, including portability. (3) Access to spectrum by small, rural carriers. Bloomfield said NTCA is “still working with our membership” to determine what they would like in a rewrite but “smart regulation” is the theme: “People in the industry talk a lot about deregulation. We'd like to see smart regulation instead. Things that matter in a high cost market such as access and universal service happen under a regulatory scheme. Regulation is not the all-encompassing evil here.”

Senate Judiciary leaders disagreed with an MPAA characterization of their work on broadcast flag, they told the FCC. In a Aug. 3 letter to FCC Chmn. Powell, Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee Chmn. DeWine (R-O.) and ranking Democrat Kohl (D-Wis.) said the subcommittee didn’t “decline to act,” but instead determined the FCC had its review of broadcast flag well in hand. Writing on behalf of MPAA, attorney Bruce Boyden said the FCC shouldn’t delay or deny approvals of broadcast flag technologies based on “claimed anticompetitive effects of non-assert provisions.” The letter was written for 3 open proceedings the FCC has on broadcast flag. “We believe that when licenses grant any ‘necessary’ or ‘essential’ rights to licensees to practice the technology’s specification, it is reasonable and hardly anticompetitive to seek to reduce transaction costs, clear blocking positions, and avoid costly infringement litigation by having adopters agree not to assert any ‘necessary’ claims they hold within the scope of the specification against any other participants in the system,” the letter said. The letter then said the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee examined the issues and “declined to act.” But DeWine and Kohl said that shouldn’t be interpreted as a formal position by the subcommittee. “Rather the Subcommittee, while considering the positions of all sides, explored this issue with the staff of the Federal Communications Commission and determined that the FCC staff had a solid grasp of the competitive implications raised by the proposed licenses,” the DeWine and Kohl letter said.

Senate Judiciary leaders disagreed with an MPAA characterization of their work on broadcast flag, they told the FCC. In a Aug. 3 letter to FCC Chmn. Powell, Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee Chmn. DeWine (R-O.) and ranking Democrat Kohl (D-Wis.) said the subcommittee didn’t “decline to act,” but instead determined the FCC had its review of broadcast flag well in hand. Writing on behalf of MPAA, attorney Bruce Boyden said the FCC shouldn’t delay or deny approvals of broadcast flag technologies based on “claimed anticompetitive effects of non-assert provisions.” The letter was written for 3 open proceedings the FCC has on broadcast flag. “We believe that when licenses grant any ‘necessary’ or ‘essential’ rights to licensees to practice the technology’s specification, it is reasonable and hardly anticompetitive to seek to reduce transaction costs, clear blocking positions, and avoid costly infringement litigation by having adopters agree not to assert any ‘necessary’ claims they hold within the scope of the specification against any other participants in the system,” the letter said. The letter then said the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee examined the issues and “declined to act.” But DeWine and Kohl said that shouldn’t be interpreted as a formal position by the subcommittee. “Rather the Subcommittee, while considering the positions of all sides, explored this issue with the staff of the Federal Communications Commission and determined that the FCC staff had a solid grasp of the competitive implications raised by the proposed licenses,” the DeWine and Kohl letter said.