House Commerce Committee Chmn. Barton (R-Tex.) pledged legislation next year to improve the administration of the federal E-rate program, beset by scandal at the local level. Speaking at a subcommittee hearing Thurs. that delved into fraud in E-rate funding in San Francisco, Barton told the audience “we're going to make structural changes in this program statutorily, probably in the next Congress… to make sure this doesn’t happen again.” The hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations was run by Rep. Walden (R-Ore.) because Subcommittee Chmn. Greenwood (R-Pa.) announced his retirement Thurs.
SAN FRANCISCO -- VoIP could drain Cal.’s universal service coffers of $400 million in 2008 as it grabs 43% of the state’s voice business, predicted the staff of the state PUC. The so-called High Cost Funds A & B -- to promote service in high-cost areas through subsidies to SBC, Verizon and 17 small companies -- are expected to lose $114-$253 million, said Jack Leutza, the PUC’s Telecom Div. dir. The Universal Lifeline Fund, providing subsidies to low-income users, is seen losing $48-$107 million, the Deaf & Disabled Communications Fund $13-30 million and the Cal. Teleconnect Fund for school, library and rural medical and community- based organizations $8-$17 million, he said on a Tues. night VoIP panel here organized by Women in Telecom.
Regulatory parity isn’t as easy to achieve as some might think and sometimes the only solution is “common sense and a case-by-case analysis,” according to an article by Sherille Ismail, senior counsel in the FCC Office of Strategic Planning & Policy Analysis. Writing in the latest issue of the Federal Communications Law Journal (Vol. 56, No. 3), Ismail said regulatory parity is a favorite argument by policy advocates but there are times when the FCC can’t achieve parity because: (1) Disparate treatment is required by statute “such as… the content restrictions that apply to broadcasters but not to cable or DBS operators, the interconnection and unbundling rules that apply to ILECs but not to CLECs.” (2) Laws passed by different jurisdictions -- for example states vs. the federal govt. -- result in different treatment of similar services. “There may be disparities in the licensing fees and entry conditions applicable to DBS operators, who are licensed by the Commission, and cable operators, who are licensed by local franchise authorities,” the paper said. (3) “The most significant barrier to achieving regulatory parity is that it is rarely the case that two types of providers are so alike that they must be treated in exactly the same manner.” Ismail said “trying to achieve parity in these circumstances may induce paralysis in policy-making.” The 47-page paper looked at several types of regulations in telecom, video and data services and concluded: “The lesson from this survey is that the constraints on the Commission’s ability to achieve regulatory parity in communications policy may be underappreciated… A better approach would be to resolve the issues on the basis of specific rules or policies, rather than to seek to eliminate alleged disparities. In legal terms, this suggests a focus on ‘rights’ rather than ‘equality.’ It is unlikely, however, that policy advocates will banish the term ‘regulatory parity’ from their working repertoire. Like the term ‘equality,’ the term ‘regulatory parity’ has a powerful effect on listeners.” Given the difficulty in erasing such disparities, “the strongest arguments are likely to be those that seek to apply a rule to two closely situated parties, in areas where a policy-maker has the discretion to act,” Ismail said: “If the comparison is made between two services that are not closely similar, are regulated by different jurisdictions, or are subject to different laws enacted by Congress, disparities are sure to exist, and policy-makers will likely be unable to eliminate them… Simple rules are not sufficient to solve these complex disputes; there is no substitute for common sense and case-by-case analysis.” The article represented Ismail’s views and “does not necessarily reflect the views of the FCC, any FCC commissioner or other staff.”
Interoperable public-safety communications is still years away, govt. panelists told the House Govt. Reform National Security Subcommittee. The hearing focused on a GAO report released Tues. and featured witnesses who downplayed expectations for interoperability. FCC Wireless Bureau Chief John Muleta told Subcommittee Chmn. Shays (R-Conn.) it would be “significant” if it took just 5 years for the govt. to develop effective planning for interoperability. Shays said 5 years of work on “just planning” would be a “huge failure.”
FCC Comr. Abernathy encouraged minority broadcasters to take advantage of new communications technologies to increase minority business ownership. Opportunities lie “not just in radio or TV, but Wi-Fi, broadband. You don’t need as much capital and it’s kind of a free-for-all right now,” Abernathy said. Abernathy, speaking at the Minority Media & Telecom Council conference Tues., said minority broadcasters shouldn’t look only at existing media companies.
STANFORD, Cal. -- FCC Chmn. Powell held out hope Congress would take VoIP decisions away from the Commission before recessing this summer. In a Q-&-A at the end of an appearance here Tues. night at AO2004: The Innovation Summit, Powell was asked when the questions of CALEA and 911 obligations on VoIP would be clarified. He emphasized that congressional bills reflect a “growing legislative debate” over VoIP policy “that’s real and alive.” AO2004 derives from the name of conference organizer AlwaysOn Network, which hosts Powell’s new Web log.
The new FCC all-or-nothing rule adopted last week (CD July 9 p3) is restricted to interconnection agreements approved under Sec. 252 of the Communications Act and doesn’t address how the new rule will apply to new commercial agreements, according to the text released Wed. One reason is that commercial agreements came under scrutiny after the Commission launched the further NPRM revising its interpretation of Sec. 252(i), we were told. The order will apply to all effective interconnection agreements, including those approved and in effect before the date the new rule goes into effect, the Commission said in the order, which will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The new rules will equally apply to arbitrated and negotiated agreements, the FCC said. It found that Sec. 252(i) did “not differentiate between negotiated and arbitrated agreements.” It said the primary purpose of Sec. 252(i) was to prevent discrimination, and in the context of arbitrated interconnection agreements, requesting carriers were “protected from discrimination primarily by the arbitration process itself. Continuing to apply the pick- and-choose rule to arbitrated agreements, therefore, is an overly broad means of fulfilling the statutory purpose of protecting against discrimination.” Moreover, the Commission said, maintaining separate regimes for negotiated and arbitrated agreements would be difficult to administer. It stressed, however, that “parties are under a statutory obligation to negotiate in good faith.” The FCC also concluded in the order that it “does indeed have the legal authority” to reinterpret Sec. 252(i). Specifically, it said Congress hadn’t directly addressed the degree to which interconnection, service or network element provisions from a state-approved interconnection agreement must be made available to other requesting carriers. “We reach this conclusion because the plain meaning of the section’s text gives rise to 2 different, reasonable interpretations, and because the Supreme Court expressly recognized that the Commission has leeway to reinterpret section 252(i),” the order said. It also said the language in Sec. 252(i) didn’t limit the Commission to a single construction. On another issue raised by the competitive industry, the FCC said it found that Sec. 252(i) was “ambiguous” from the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, which, it said, held that the Commission had the expertise to determine a reasonable interpretation of Sec. 252(i). Several competitors had argued the Commission shouldn’t eliminate its pick-and-choose rule, which according to the Supreme Court “tracks the pertinent language almost exactly,” and is the “most readily apparent reading.” Comr. Copps, who dissented on the order, has also pointed at the highest court pronouncement, saying “this is a strong stuff for a Commission whose policy pronouncements do not always pass muster with the courts of land.” But the FCC said in the order the Supreme Court “did not hold that the Commission’s current interpretation of section 252(i) is compelled by the statute.” It said the Supreme Court had “routinely recognized that government agencies have discretion to change interpretations of ambiguous statutes, and that an agency is not stopped from changing its view.” The Commission also said “the order does not take a position on any issue outside the scope of the FNPRM.” Several parties participating in the proceeding have asked the Commission to address issues beyond those raised in the FNPRM. For example, Verizon has asked for a declaration that agreements governing network elements no longer subject to mandatory unbundling aren’t subject to Sec. 252(i) or the pick-and-choose rule; Birch has proposed structural separation of ILECs into wholesale and retail operations; and T-Mobile has urged the Commission to adopt a procedure for federal arbitration of national interconnection agreements. Those issues weren’t addressed in the order.
SALT LAKE CITY -- Closing speakers at the NARUC summer meeting here said VoIP, broadband over power lines (BPL) and other promising new telecom technologies and applications will face major development hurdles until federal and state regulators sort out their oversight roles. All major telecom resolutions were unanimously approved by the NARUC board during the convention.
Allowing broadband network owners to discriminate in providing access to their networks “represents a dramatic change” that would severely limit the growth of the Internet and IP services, according to a white paper by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA). The CFA said it will file the 110-page paper in nearly a dozen FCC and court proceedings, which it said “will define the architecture of the telecommunications network in the 21st century.” CFA defended the open architecture and open access principles in the FCC’s Computer Inquiries the past 3 decades, saying “policy-makers in the U.S. seem to have lost their appreciation for the fundamental importance… of open architecture.” CFA Dir.-Research Mark Cooper said “the Commission is trying to reverse this remarkably successful policy” of open access. “The steadfast refusal of telephone companies and cable operators to negotiate commercial access to their broadband networks, on terms that treat unaffiliated Internet service providers reasonably, makes it clear that the public interest can be promoted only by requiring facility owners to operate open communications networks,” he said. But the CFA said the “fundamental policy decisions are still up in the air” in a series of pending FCC decisions, including inquiries into high-speed cable Internet access, DSL high-speed access and universal service requirements, unbundling proceedings, broadband over power line and wireless broadband. It said the issue also is still in the courts in cases like Brand X. In the paper, the CFA said open networks “support rapid and efficient technological innovation,” as well as such benefits as interconnectivity, new services and lower costs. The paper also said the FCC can’t forebear regulating VoIP including on issues such as E- 911.
The FCC dismissed a petition asking it to declare that the monthly Interconnection Cost Adjustment Mechanism (ICAM) surcharges proposed by US West in the 14 states where it provided telecom service violated Secs. 251 and 252 of the Communications Act. The petition -- filed by Electric Lightwave, McLeodUSA and Nextlink in 1997 -- also asked that under Sec. 253 of the Act, the Commission preempt any state commission action letting US West impose ICAM surcharges. But the FCC said in the order since Qwest -- US West’s successor company -- decided not to pursue recovery of interconnection costs through the ICAM and no state ever adopted the proposal, “we fail to see that any dispute regarding the legality of the ICAM continues to exist between petitioners and Qwest.” It said it dismissed the petition “without prejudice as moot unless any interested party notifies us… that there is still a genuine dispute that remains to be resolved.” Notice is due 30 days after publication of the order in the Federal Register, replies 45 days after publication.