The California Public Utilities Commission withdrew its consideration of whether to submit comments to the FCC on the federal body's net neutrality NPRM Wednesday, prompting outcry from several public interest groups at a CPUC meeting Thursday. The CPUC had been set to vote Thursday on whether to submit the comments to the FCC and whether to recommend that the FCC reclassify broadband as a Communications Act Title II service. The CPUC had held off on a vote on the comments at its Oct. 2 meeting at Commissioner Carla Peterman’s request (see 1410030047). The CPUC originally voted 3-2 in September to recommend Title II reclassification, but then placed the comments on hold after Peterman decided to change her vote in favor of Title II to an abstention (see 1409120054).
The FCC Wireless Bureau told a federal appeals court that the FCC was justified and acting within its rules in 2012 when it decided FiberTower had not demonstrated that it was providing substantial service for 689 of its 24 GHz and 39 GHz licenses and the licenses should be revoked. The case is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Pay-Tel Communications submitted an “Ethical Proposal for Reform of Inmate Calling Rates and Fees” to the FCC calling for lower interstate and intrastate calling rates for state and federal prisons than the proposal submitted by Global Tel*Link, Securus Technologies and Telmate, but higher rates for local, county and regional jail calls, according to a comparison of the proposals posted as an ex parte notice Wednesday in docket 12-375 (http://bit.ly/1nd1aXJ). Pay-Tel would cap prison calls at 8 cents per minute, compared with 20 cents per minute under the proposal from other ICS providers, the filing said. The two ICS proposals were submitted as a Further NPRM circulates at the FCC (CD Sept 26 p10). Rates would be capped at 26 cents per minute for jails with an average population of less than 350 inmates, and 22 cents/minute for larger jails, Pay-Tel said. The proposal from the other ICS providers had the same 20 cents/minute cap for jails as prisons. While the Global Tel*Link, Securus and Telmate’s proposed rate caps and ban on commission payments to facilities would take effect 90 days after adoption by the FCC, Pay-Tel would grandfather contract rates and commissions for a minimum of 18 months, the filing said. Among other differences, Pay-Tel called for lower caps on transaction, money transfer and validation fees, said the comparison. Prisons and jails have different costs, so “it doesn’t make sense to have a single cap that applies without regard to the type of facility,” said Brooks Pierce attorney Marcus Trathen, representing Pay-Tel. Grandfathering current contracts would allow facilities to “get beyond the current budget before they are impacted by the new rules,” Trathen said. Securus is evaluating the proposal, said Stephanie Joyce, an Arent Fox communications lawyer representing the company.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler signaled the start of a new joint FTC/FCC enforcement era on Wednesday as the agencies and all 51 state attorneys general disclosed a $105 million settlement with AT&T over mobile cramming allegations. Not only is the agreement the largest mobile cramming settlement, it’s the biggest FCC enforcement action, Wheeler said during a Wednesday news conference. It starts a new type of enforcement action, he said, where there’s “no daylight” between the FCC and FTC.
Panelists at the final FCC net neutrality roundtable agreed Tuesday that litigation is all but certain as the FCC pushes forward with net neutrality rules. The sixth and final session focused on the open Internet and the law, with FCC General Counsel Jonathan Sallet asking most of the questions.
As demand for wireless data and capacity grows, industry and government must work together to let service providers innovate and deploy infrastructure to meet that demand, said government officials and wireless executives Tuesday at an FCBA event. An order that will be taken up by the FCC at its meeting this month will be a critical step, they said.
The California Public Utilities Commission delayed plans to reconsider whether to submit comments to the FCC supporting the federal body’s net neutrality Communications Act Title II NPRM after CPUC Commissioner Carla Peterman placed a hold Wednesday on the vote for “further review.” CPUC will now consider the possible FCC comments at its Oct. 16 meeting. The CPUC had planned to vote at its Thursday meeting on whether to submit comments to the FCC supporting reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service. Industry participants had predicted a delay was very possible because Peterman remained undecided on her vote (CD Oct 2 p12).
Key aspects of the Further NPRM on inmate phone call charges circulating at the FCC are being opposed by local regulators. The FCC lacks legal authority to cap intrastate inmate calling rates or pre-empt local PUC’s decisions, NARUC said in a statement to us. The Alabama Public Service Commission also challenged the agency’s legal authority to bar commissions inmate calling service (ICS) providers pay to jails and prisons, as the FCC is also proposing.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is scheduled to reconsider Thursday whether to submit comments to the FCC supporting the federal body’s net neutrality Title II NPRM, though at our deadline Wednesday it was unclear whether a vote on the issue would proceed. An industry lawyer who has dealings with the CPUC told us Commissioner Carla Peterman was seeking to hold off on a vote on submitting comments until the commission’s Oct. 16 meeting. A CPUC spokesman said the net neutrality comments remained on the agenda for Thursday’s meeting, but an official list of held items wouldn’t be released until later Wednesday. Peterman and other CPUC commissioners didn’t comment.
The FCC approved revisions to its 2013 technical rules for signal boosters, providing relief sought by Wi-Ex on rules for the testing and certification of wideband consumer signal boosters. The FCC also sought further comment in docket 10-4 on a single issue in the order and Further NPRM (http://bit.ly/Y34b0K), released Monday. Wi-Ex, which sells boosters, had complained in a petition seeking reconsideration that testing procedures to certify wideband boosters were complicated by the need for special test equipment to determine whether the device complies with the downlink noise limit in the rules. Wi-Ex told the FCC that during the course of meetings with the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology and the ANSI ASC C63 working group “it was determined that filtering equipment that includes variable tunable bandpass filtering and notches was necessary to measure the downlink noise in the presence of downlink signals through the booster,” the order said. But the OET lab and other labs that test communications equipment “do not have such equipment, thus complicating device testing,” the FCC said. “We agree ... and find that the requested amendments to our rules will facilitate the test procedures and equipment certification process for Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters without diminishing the safeguards in our rules designed to protect wireless networks.” The FCC approved a handful of changes sought by V-Comm, Verizon and Wilson Electronics in a second petition. Among them, the FCC approved new noise and gain limits for provider-specific consumer signal boosters. The commission accepted a recommendation that “the maximum booster gain not exceed 58 dB and 65 dB for frequencies below and above 1 GHz, respectively.” The FCC said the limits are “reasonable for signal booster manufacturers to implement, while also adequately protecting against interference to wireless networks.” The FCC also adopted, at the joint petitioners’ request, a requirement that provider-specific boosters “must be sold together with antennas, cables, and/or coupling devices that meet the requirements of this section” of FCC rules. The FCC also adopted a requirement that all consumer signal boosters certified for fixed, in-building operation include a label directing consumers that the device may only be operated in a fixed, in-building location. “We agree that such a requirement is appropriate to ensure that consumers are properly informed about which devices are suitable for their use and how to comply with our rules,” the FCC said. The FNPRM tees up a single issue -- should the FCC eliminate the “personal use” restriction for provider-specific consumer signal boosters. “Would removing this restriction for Provider-Specific Consumer Signal Boosters be in the public interest?” the FCC asks. “What are the costs and benefits of removing the restriction? What are the costs and benefits of maintaining the restriction?” Comments will be due 30 days after the notice appears in the Federal Register and reply comments 20 days later.