The full FCC will rule soon on wireless local number portability (LNP) implementation issues, including Wireless Bureau guidance on which 5 carriers have sought Commission review, Wireless Bureau Chief John Muleta told reporters Tues. He stressed that the FCC was holding to a Nov. 24 LNP deadline, noting that Verizon and Verizon Wireless reached an LNP pact this week. “If there’s a will, there’s a way,” he said. “So that’s going to be the motto for LNP because carriers that are interested in doing it find ways of being able to do it.”

State and federal regulators called on power utilities aspiring to provide broadband-over-power line (BPL) services to come up with a voluntary code of conduct on potential regulatory issues such as emissions and affiliate transactions. Failure could mean disparate regulations in the states, they said Tues. at the United Power Line Council (UPLC) annual conference in Washington. Meanwhile, the FCC indicated its BPL inquiry would be completed in the first quarter of next year.

T-Mobile USA told the FCC this week it supported a suggestion by Sprint that the Dept. of Justice provide an opinion on the scope of a wireless carrier’s legal obligation to protect the privacy of customers in emergency situations. T-Mobile filed reply comments on a petition by public safety groups, including the Assn. of Public Safety Communications Officials, that argued for broader disclosure of customer situation in emergency situations. T-Mobile said it sympathized with the frustration public safety operators have in this area, but agreed with CTIA the FCC lacks authority to change such disclosure requirements because they're based on statutory mandates. These concerns “are better directed to Congress,” T-Mobile said. But T-Mobile said it backed DoJ providing an opinion on the legal obligations of carriers. T-Mobile said it also would support the FCC hosting a “legal summit” or information exchange to clarify the scope of the law and a carrier’s obligation to protect customer privacy. T-Mobile outlined its written emergency disclosure procedures. Its policy is to “positively identify” an emergency caller and obtain a written demand for disclosure on “official letterhead” prior to release of customer information. “When T-Mobile has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists where there’s immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person, whether that person is a T-Mobile subscriber, T-Mobile may disclose any subscriber information in its possession to emergency personnel, including the location of a particular phone or past billing records,” it said. While public safety petitioners had raised the question of whether property loss constitutes such an emergency, T-Mobile said it doesn’t place property loss in a category requiring the disclosure of certain customer information and will only release a customer’s name, address and phone number in response to a burglary or building fire report. The law doesn’t consider property loss to be an emergency requiring the release of more information, T-Mobile said. Public safety petitioners had also asked the FCC to rule that carriers must release caller location information to emergency dispatchers even if the customer proprietary network information requested was associated with a customer who was not the caller to 911. AT&T Wireless also cited concerns over the limited statutory scope for such disclosures. “Given that there is little ambiguity in either the statutory language or the congressional intent evidenced in the legislative history, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to grant petitioners’ request to expand the scope of the statutes,” AT&T Wireless said. Verizon Wireless said it backed DoJ providing guidance because the public safety petition seeks interpretation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which is a federal criminal statute. A DoJ pronouncement could take into account homeland security legislative changes that have altered the ECPA, Verizon Wireless said. “Unless and until the DoJ passes on these important legal questions, the FCC has no support for the position supported by public safety and should deny the petition,” Verizon Wireless said.

The FCC Wed. approved SBC’s request to offer long distance service in Mich. This was the company’s 3rd attempt to gain Sec. 271 approval for the state. Ameritech, before it merged with SBC, withdrew an application for Mich. in 1997 and SBC pulled out in April of this year after it appeared that the FCC was going to turn down the application because of questions about the adequacy of billing functions SBC offered to competitors.

Following tough questioning by panel of federal judges Tues., it was unclear whether Verizon would win or lose its battle to avoid identifying computer users suspected of copyright infringement.

The 8th U.S. Appeals Court, St. Louis, was assigned Tues. by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to hear appeals of the FCC’s Triennial UNE Review Order. This is the same appeals court that heard the first major Telecom Act challenge involving interconnection requirements.

After tough questioning by a panel of federal judges Tues., it was unclear whether Verizon would win or lose its battle to avoid identifying computer users suspected of copyright infringement. Verizon is fighting RIAA subpoenas seeking the identity of individuals on Verizon’s network who had participated in the unauthorized use of copyrighted material. Some observers said they initially thought Verizon’s chances were slim but, said Public Knowledge Pres. Gigi Sohn, the outcome now appeared to be “a toss-up.”

More than a year after it won de-reservation of its 2nd channel WQEX (Ch. 16), citing “severe financial distress,” the Pittsburgh public TV station WQED (Ch. 13) has yet to find a buyer, prompting critics to accuse it of “misrepresenting” facts to the FCC. When it petitioned the Commission, WQED said it wanted to sell the station to ShootingStar Inc. for $20 million. In its July 18, 2002, order, the FCC justified its decision to permit WQED to sell WQEX to a commercial entity, citing the station’s severe financial distress that would impair its ability to reduce debt and convert to digital. WQED CEO George Miles denied any wrongdoing and said the sale of WQEX was being held up because of market conditions.

Senate opponents of the FCC’s new media ownership rules called the Senate’s 55-40 vote Tues. to undo the controversial rules a victory, but those who support the FCC’s rules found the margin of victory smaller than they had feared and characterized the vote as a defeat for those who would nullify the FCC’s controversial new rules adopted on June 2. The House has no intention of taking up the measure, they said, and the vote wasn’t veto-proof (the President has pledged a veto) and also not likely to be filibuster-proof either.

The Senate tentatively is scheduled to debate the “legislative veto” of the FCC’s media ownership rules today (Thurs.) from 2-5 p.m., a spokesman for Sen. Dorgan (D-N.D.) said Wed. The Senate probably will vote on the measure Mon. at 5:30 p.m., the spokesman said. Dorgan, the sponsor of S.Res.-17, and Senate Majority Leader Frist (R-Tenn.) discussed the scheduling of the bill Tues. the Senate floor. The bill, filed under the Congressional Review Act, is treated as “privileged” by the Senate because 35 senators have signed a petition in support of it. The “resolution of disapproval” would prevent the FCC from implementing any of the controversial media ownership rules it approved June 2. Dorgan has said he doesn’t expect the House to address the bill, primarily because House leadership supports the FCC media rule changes. However, he said he expected the measure to add pressure on the House to adopt some restrictions on media ownership. As of Wed., there still was no schedule for the Senate to consider the Commerce Justice State (CJS) appropriations bill (S-1585). Like the House CJS bill, the Senate version included an amendment that would prevent the FCC from spending money to raise the broadcast ownership cap to 45% from 35% (CD Sept 8 p11).