USTelecom Pres. Walter McCormick apparently is the highest paid communications association executive in Washington, according to the latest available Form 990 filings at the IRS. McCormick received a large increase in total compensation for calendar year 2004 - the year of all information in this article - to $1.87 million from $1.3 million in 2003 (CD Oct 17 p5). USTelecom reported revenue of $36.73 million in 2004, expenses of $33.67 million, with salaries totaling $4.89 million.

Digital content will provide “complete new business models” and “the flexibility to be creative” for content owners, carriers and others, but confusion over the “content lifecycle” -- standards, protection and operational issues -- is holding the market back, KPMG analysts said in a USTelecom Web presentation Tues. The clash between and within traditional players like telcos and music labels, and new entrants in hosting and delivery solutions, will be resolved over time, but many questions remain. “The rules of the analog world don’t apply anymore,” and some of the telecom stalwarts will leave the “ecosystem,” said Senior Mgr.-Risk & Advisory Services Trent Larson.

The FCC should deny USTelecom’s request for more time before applying CALEA requirements on broadband providers because there’s no reason for a delay, the DoJ told the Commission in an Jan. 19 opposition filing. USTelecom asked the FCC to reconsider a decision to give providers a year and a half from the effective date of the CALEA broadband order, saying carriers need more direction. However, DoJ responded: “No further delay is warranted, especially in light of the critical need for capabilities that will protect public safety and national security.” DoJ said industry, not the FCC, is responsible for determining how the requirements are implemented, in other words providing the direction sought by USTelecom. The CALEA law expects industry to take those steps through standard-setting, DoJ said, and in fact several standard- setting groups are working on the project.

USTelecom asked the FCC for a 2-month extension on a deadline to file for comments and an extra month for replies in a docket seeking advice on writing new rules covering distribution of universal service support to Qwest and other non-rural carriers. Comments otherwise are due Feb. 10, replies March 13, on a request for comments voted by the FCC in Dec. (CD Dec 12 p2). “The complexity of the subject matter, the procedural history of the issues (before the Commission and the courts), and the 10th Circuit’s mandate in this matter make clear that the ordinarily applicable time period for comments and replies will be insufficient for the generation of proper, substantive comments,” USTelecom said.

Major wireline and wireless carriers asked the FCC not to impose additional regulations on carriers on social issues -- including new rules protecting consumer records or covering truth in billing -- tied to a notice of proposed rulemaking the Commission voted out at the same time it approved an order in Aug. reclassifying wireline Internet access service as an “information service.”

Cities can’t deny wireless carriers permits for antennas only on esthetics and still obey Cal. and U.S. law, said the 9th U.S. Appeals Court, San Francisco, Tues. The court, in overruling a Cal. district court, said La Caada Flintridge, a wealthy L.A. suburb devoted to its tree-lined streets, had “overstepped its regulatory authority” in denying Sprint PCS permission to erect 2 wireless towers on the basis of a 2001 local ordinance setting esthetic guidelines for such towers. The court said any local denial must comport with state law; otherwise, it’s “invalid even before the application of the [Telecom Act’s] federal standards.” La Caada Flintridge said Sprint’s exercise of its right to build had comply with state and local law, but the court said Sprint could build, provided its towers complied with state or local law. Section 7901 of Cal. state code gives carriers “broad authority to construct telephone lines and other fixtures” unless the structures pose “extremely severe” aesthetic objections, which the court found Sprint’s antennas didn’t. USTelecom said the explosion of the wireless industry across the U.S. has “prompted debates” of a similar nature around the country.

USTelecom told the FCC it supported a universal service contributions plan that would assess fees on residential services based on “working telephone numbers and connections for broadband services.” The organization urged a slightly different fee plan for business services -- based on telephone numbers and “either bandwidth tier connections or interstate revenues.” USTelecom said in an ex parte filing last week that the contributions methodology should reflect changes in the market by broadening the base of contributions, shouldn’t “distort customer purchasing decisions” and should be easy to implement.

BellSouth’s request for a change in how carriers pay for local number portability and thousands-block number pooling makes a lot of sense, USTelecom said in comments filed Thurs. BellSouth sought a rulemaking to replace today’s system, in which carriers pay shared costs based on revenue. USTelecom said BellSouth argued “persuasively” that market changes justify funding system revisions. “The current allocation mechanism requires certain carriers to pay for costs that they do not cause,” USTelecom said: “In BellSouth’s case, for example, while the percentage of transactions that it has generated over the last three years has declined, its allocated portion of the shared LNP and pooling costs over the same period has more than quadrupled.”

Lobbying spending among telecom, cable and broadcast groups increased about 9% in the first half of 2005 compared with the same period in 2004, according to mid- year reports filed with the Secy. of the Senate. The reports examined for this article include only the internal spending reported by trade associations and companies. Most companies and trade associations supplement their internal resources with outside lobbying groups and law firms that have special expertise in topic areas for contracts ranging from $10,000 to $250,000 per filing period, which is 6 months.

Level 3 Communications opposed USTelecom’s petition for an FCC rulemaking to protect ILECs from high pole attachment and conduit rates (CD Dec 7 p7). Level 3, which is a conduit owner, told the FCC that Congress didn’t intend to include ILECs under the provisions of Sec. 224 of the Communications Act guaranteeing access to poles and conduit at prescribed rates. If the FCC agreed to USTelecom’s petition and set limits on what ILECs paid for access to conduit, conduit owners “would have very little incentive to grant access to ILECs” and could refuse to do so because “ILECs have no statutory right to access a utility’s conduit,” Level 3 said. Granting USTelecom’s petition “would actually harm competition,” Level 3 said in reply comments filed Dec. 19. AT&T and other ILECs supported the USTelecom petition. AT&T disputed arguments by electric utilities that ILECs have a significant bargaining position with pole owners so there’s no need for regulatory intervention: “Whenever possible the Commission should rely upon market forces and arms'-length negotiations between commercial entities [but] in rare instances… market forces break down and Commission intervention is required.” AT&T said “the parity that ILECs once enjoyed with electric utilities has long since disappeared and ILECs, as attaching entities, ought to have the same rights as any other carrier to invoke the Commission’s authority to resolve disputes where market forces do not operate effectively.” USTelecom also disputed opposition expressed by electric utilities during the first round of comments, saying the utilities made “weak and unpersuasive arguments.” USTelecom said statutory language doesn’t bar extension of Sec. 224 to ILECs and joint use agreements between electric utilities and ILECs “are irrelevant with respect to the requested rulemaking.”