Patents for the Surface-conduction Emission Display (SED) developed by Canon and Toshiba (CED April 14 p6) detail how the flat panel TVs are made, and their main claim to fame: About 1/3 the power consumption of plasma display panels (PDP), 1/2 that of CRTs and LCDs, and with no need for backlighting. No performance specs are available yet.

Uncertainty of FCC rules were blamed at Tues. morning panel on ownership for the fact that many station transactions aren’t being made in today’s climate. “The deals of basically ground to a halt,” said Lin TV’s Gregory Schmidt. Mass Media Bureau Chief Kenneth Ferree and others cited a case pending in the U.S. Appeals Court, Philadelphia, which held 8-hour oral argument (scheduled for 4 hours) on many ownership issues and appeals Feb. 11 (CD Feb 12 p8) as a reason for uncertainty and delay. Ferree refused to predict how the court will rule on that case -- or what the FCC might do on other ownership issues pending the court’s decision -- but he said the Commission “probably” will await a court decision on several issues, though “the staff work is on- going.” Attorney Donald Verrilli, who represented NAB in the case, responded “that depends” when asked if broadcasters would go for an en banc rehearing following court decision or go direct to Supreme Court. Ferree took issue with the suggestion the FCC is delaying action on revising cable ownership rules. “I don’t call it delay, I call it work,” he said on attempts to define rules covering cable system ownership and program providers. Citing the FCC’s new definition of a radio market, Clear Channel’s Andrew Levin said the largest owner of radio stations was “obviously disappointed that radio was the only medium reregulated” by the Commission. He said “it just makes no sense” that a licensee is permitted to own as many radio stations in Memphis as in N.Y.C. -- TN

The FCC opened a rulemaking to improve its Form 477 local competition and broadband data gathering program. It proposed to extend the program for 5 years beyond its March 2005 sunset and collect more granular data from broadband service providers. Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, replies 60 days after publication.

An investigation into the mysterious disappearance of Akai’s assets apparently has been closed after a settlement was reached between court-appointed liquidators and the company’s principal, Hong Kong tycoon James Ting, who had done a 3-year disappearing act of his own. The settlement lets Ting walk free from any current or future litigation, the South China Morning Post reported based on confidential documents it uncovered in the course of litigation involving Ting and another of his firms, Semi-Tech, in the U.S. The agreement between Ting and the liquidator, RSM Nelson Wheeler, absolves Ting from liability for the $1 billion owed to creditors when his flagship company, Akai Holdings, folded in 2000, leaving behind Hong Kong’s largest-ever corporate loss of $1.72 billion. It owed creditors more than $1 billion when a High Court in Hong Kong ordered Akai into liquidation in Aug. 2000. At the time, Hong Kong financial authorities raised questions about alleged asset-stripping and the “de facto surrender” of the CE company to Hong Kong-based Grande Group. Earlier, in May 2002, the liquidator advised creditors not to expect much of a pay-out, as Akai was an empty shell. Ting vanished from Hong Kong in late 2000, and no information about his whereabouts was made public, although documents discovered by the Hong Kong newspaper suggest the liquidators and possibly others were in touch with Ting or his lawyers. He re-emerged in Hong Kong last May. Under the reported agreement, RSM Nelson Wheeler will forgo any claims or legal action against Ting if he withdraws his opposition to a sale of Akai’s stock-market listing shell, worth about $1.5 million. According to the report, the deal was struck in Dec. 2002 on the eve of a sale of Akai’s listing shell to Hong Kong clothing retailer Hang Ten Group. Ting, through 2 companies registered in the British Virgin Islands, tried to block the sale by voting his nearly 110 million Akai shares by proxy against the listing proposal. Then, he agreed to drop his opposition for a promise that the liquidators wouldn’t sue or “otherwise pursue any claims” against him. According to the U.S. court document, the liquidators also agreed to drop any further investigations that might lead to legal proceedings against Ting. As a result of the agreement and sale of Akai’s listing shell, creditors and the liquidator got $1.5 million in cash and 2.1 billion Hang Ten shares -- worth about a penny each at the time. Akai shareholders got 300 million Hang Ten shares and Ting was awarded $80,000 for legal costs, the newspaper said. RSM Nelson Wheeler declined comment on the paper’s questions, citing a confidentiality agreement whereby only the parties involved and Akai’s committee of inspection could view the details -- barring a court order. That might be a possibility, as the Akai debacle remains an unquiet grave for Hong Kong’s financial community and regulatory authorities. The latter were not aware of the deal between the liquidator and Ting. “We need to look at this. There are certain checks we have to do,” Official Receiver Eamonn O'Connell told the newspaper. David Webb, a corporate governance activist in Hong Kong, said: “The settlement is being reached for what appears to be a small amount of benefit to shareholders against a huge potential claim against Mr Ting. One has to wonder whether the liquidators had a financial interest in the back-door listing proceeding.”

The FCC International Bureau denied Intelsat’s request to defer notification of certain Loral customers of Intelsat’s “additional services” restriction. The FCC authorized Intelsat’s purchase of certain assets from Loral Feb. 11, but conditioned the authorization with special temporary authority (STA) for “additional services” (DTH, DBS, Ka- or V-band services) due to an ORBIT Act restriction. The FCC said Intelsat would have to notify those customers within 30 days of the acquisition’s completion that it could only provide “additional services” up to 180 days, at which time the company would have to terminate the services until completing its IPO. The notification deadline was Fri. Intelsat argued the delay would serve public interest, rather than causing confusion, conflicting with the bureau’s reason for granting the STA and disrupting the customer base and anticipated revenue. The bureau said Intelsat also claimed “the issues raised on review have created legal uncertainty regarding the duration of Intelsat’s authority to provide additional services,” and notification should be delayed at least until the Commission resolved legal challenges. The bureau said it wasn’t convinced. While Intelsat said the bureau granted the STA for continuity of service, the bureau said the STA was meant to provide customers “an orderly transition” and “adequate time in which to consider alternative service providers.” Disclosure of the information will allow customers to “make informed decisions as to the need to transition… to avoid disruption in service to their customers,” the Bureau said. If Intelsat wants to alert customers that there are challenges against the order and that the STA ruling could change, it may do so, the bureau said, but Intelsat must also tell customers its STA currently ends Sept. 13. The bureau said its order did give Intelsat the option of delaying the completion of the transaction until it conducted its IPO. A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would extend the company’s IPO deadline to June 30, 2006 (CD April 13 p8).

The FCC Thurs. issued a notice of inquiry, rather than launching a rulemaking, on protecting in-band on-channel (IBOC) digital radio content from home copying or redistribution over the Internet. The Commission also unanimously agreed to launch a full rulemaking on IBOC technical issues and what types of IBOC services can be offered. An inquiry is typically a step further from a final decision than a rulemaking.

The FCC Thurs. issued a notice of inquiry, rather than launching a rulemaking, on protecting in-band on-channel (IBOC) digital radio content from home copying or redistribution over the Internet. The Commission also unanimously agreed to launch a full rulemaking on IBOC technical issues and what types of IBOC services can be offered. An inquiry is typically a step further from a final decision than a rulemaking.

The Ohio PUC took the unusual step of publishing a point-by-point rebuttal to criticisms by the Competition Ohio group about the PUC’s decision last month to grant SBC an interim 18% increase in its unbundled network element (UNE) rates. The PUC said it acted because Competition Ohio “has been misleading Ohio’s telephone consumers” about who they are and engaging in “scare tactics to enlist consumers” in fighting any SBC UNE increase. The PUC said Competition Ohio “isn’t a consumer advocacy group” but is funded by AT&T and other CLECs. The PUC disputed claims about the UNE increase causing spiraling local rates, saying there have been no retail local rate changes attributable to UNE rate changes, and that SBC in any event can’t raise basic local rates because of its price cap plan. The PUC also said it stayed the interim increase until it decided on pending petitions for reconsideration so those rates currently aren’t in effect. The PUC said the UNE increase won’t destroy local competition. It will reduce CLECs’ profit margins, the PUC acknowledged, but not to an extent that would force CLECs out of the market. The PUC said the group ignored the fact that CLECs have about a 20% share of Ohio’s local markets, and said the group misleadingly attributed perfectly proper SBC retail rate changes for optional and discretionary services to increased UNE rate levels. The PUC also said SBC isn’t gouging CLECs to fatten its bottom line, like Competition Ohio alleged, but is claiming a need to recover costs incurred in the course of serving CLECs. The PUC also said there’s no reason to believe the group’s claims that every CLEC will be forced to raise local rates because of UNE rate increases. Some may raise rates, the PUC said, but others may not.

The FCC unanimously adopted rule changes on the collection of claims owed to the U.S. govt., raising the maximum dollar amount of claims that can be compromised or suspended by the Commission. The agency said the updated rules reflected changes in the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) of 1996 and rules adopted by the Departments. of Justice and Treasury, “adjusted to take into account the special circumstances of debts arising under our auction rules.” The order included a rule under which the FCC will withhold action on applications and other requests if the applicant is delinquent in non-tax debts owed to the Commission. This rule calls for dismissal of such applications if the debt in question isn’t resolved. Key changes to the FCC’s debt collection rules include increasing the value of claims the FCC can compromise, suspend or terminate and the minimum value that can be referred to the DoJ. The maximum amount was raised to $100,000 from $20,000. The minimum amount that can be referred to the Justice Dept. rises to $2,500 from $600. The order said the change also reflects new debt collection procedures under the DCIA, including: (1) The transfer of delinquent debt to the Treasury Dept. for collection. (2) Mandatory credit bureau reporting. (3) A prohibition against extending federal assistance in the form of loan or loan guarantees to delinquent debtors. (4) The addition of DCIA administrative wage garnishment requirements and the federal salary offset procedures into FCC rules. The FCC said that under the rules, it won’t approve any applications or other authorizations until it determines that all delinquent debt to the FCC by the entity is paid or arrangements have been made for payments. The FCC’s so-called “red light rule” allows delinquent debtors to resolve their delinquency within 30 days to avoid having an application dismissed. In an earlier notice, the FCC had proposed that the 30-day period wouldn’t apply to applications when more restrictive rules oversee the treatment of debtors who have fallen behind. As an example, the FCC said existing rules require auction applicants to certify they aren’t behind in non-tax debt or their short-form application will be rejected and they won’t be able to bid. The FCC adopted this proposal, as well as one in which the red light rule applies to subsequent applications filed by winning bidders, known as “long-form applications.” But the FCC adopted an exception to comply with U.S. Bankruptcy Code related to the Supreme Court’s NextWave ruling. The Supreme Court held that Sec. 525 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code precluded cancellation of NextWave’s licenses. This provision of the code provides that a govt. agency may not revoke a license “solely” because a debtor hasn’t paid a debt that’s dischargeable in bankruptcy court. The rules provide that applications to which Sec. 525 applies won’t be dismissed by virtue of the applicant’s delinquent status. The order was adopted March 25 and released Tues.

There’s stark disagreement on whether the FCC should extend CALEA requirements to VoIP services, comments filed with the FCC Mon. showed. While acknowledging the importance of ensuring that law enforcement is able to prevent crime using electronic surveillance, ISPs opposed the petition filed by the Dept. of Justice (DoJ), the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) with the FCC. They said the proposal had no legal basis, and the CALEA rules would cripple the Internet. Bells generally shared the concerns of the law enforcement but said some modifications are needed. Law enforcement agencies strongly supported the petition, urging the Commission to adopt it expeditiously.