IDT Winstar and Verizon told FCC they had settled dispute over former’s acquisition of assets of fixed wireless provider that filed for Chapter 11 protection in 2001. But Verizon said in Jan. 2 filing that its counter-petition for declaratory ruling would remain alive because issues could recur under similar scenarios. IDT Winstar and Bell companies had disagreed in last year over terms of interconnection agreements to which RBOCs must be held for fixed wireless provider that has emerged from Chapter 11. In April, IDT Winstar filed emergency petition for declaratory ruling, raising concerns about “immediate threats” by Verizon and Qwest to deny or delay providing facilities. Winstar contended Communications Act and agency rules mandated that those facilities and services be provided to company. But Bell companies contended federal bankruptcy law required IDT Winstar to assume and cure past debt on contracts assumed by pre-Chapter 11 Winstar. Verizon told Commission its process shouldn’t be used to allow carriers in bankruptcy to avoid requirements of bankruptcy court and that Winstar had period to assume or reject existing services or facilities and to make “appropriate cure” for services assumed from pre-Chapter 11 company. IDT Winstar and Verizon said their notice informing FCC of settlement didn’t affect relief that Winstar sought against other LECs in its original petition.
Facing May deadline for digital conversion, public broadcasters have largely come up empty in their digital carriage negotiations with cable operators in more than 3 years of talks following the successful carriage deal with Time Warner in Sept. 1999. Only other MSO to sign voluntary carriage agreement with PTV stations was Insight Communications in April last year.
Federal judge in Seattle declined to issue emergency stay of Jan. 1 effective date for new telecom consumer privacy rules adopted last month by Wash. state regulators. Judge Barbara Rothstein of U.S. Dist. Court, Seattle, rejected Verizon request for emergency injunction suspending new rules. She said Verizon failed to show rules would cause immediate and irreparable harm if they went into effect. Wash. Utilities & Transportation Commission (WUTC) privacy rules establish “opt-in” approach to privacy of sensitive customer account information such as call detail records, meaning such information can’t be released to any other party without customer’s prior consent. That is in contrast to FCC’s opt-out approach, where such information can be released unless customer specifically forbids it. Verizon sued in federal court, saying state’s rule was unconstitutional infringement on its commercial free speech rights that unlawfully impaired its ability to communicate with its customers and its affiliates. Verizon contended new rule would cripple its ability to assess customer needs and develop new products and services and force it to make numerous unsolicited contacts with users in order to obtain their permission to consult account information. However, WUTC countered that Verizon “generally overstates and misrepresents” effects of new rules.
Wireless technology developers urged FCC to move forward with allocation plan for 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz that would allow commercial users and govt. and scientific operations to co-exist. Allocation and licensing proposals for W-band frequencies were part of comments due this week in rulemaking that would pave way for commercial operations in those bands for first time. Developers have eyed that millimeter wave spectrum for rollout of gigabit-per-sec. broadband capacity, particularly in areas where fiber couldn’t reach easily.
FCC is likely to loosen some unbundled network elements (UNE), said AT&T Gen. Counsel James Cicconi during debate on broadband at Federal Communications Bar Assn. conference Fri. Cicconi said noteworthy part of ruling will be “how the Commission views the important problems of switches,” he said, adding Bell companies have been unwilling or unable to facilitate the “hot cut” process.
ANAHEIM -- Proliferation of online services offered by cable companies has resulted in MSOs’ grappling with unprecedented, and unforeseen, privacy and legal issues. At law and policy roundtable Thurs. at Western Show here, Charter Vp Linda Reisner cited unexpected consequences of being Internet broadband supplier and having ISP customers: “We have school districts calling us up telling us a student had just posted a message on a Web site that they were coming to school to shoot someone. Then we have to call the police immediately to provide that information, but that creates privacy issues.”
Congress eventually will have to “weigh in” on universal service, NTCA CEO Michael Bunner said Wed. in letter to incoming Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. John McCain (R- Ariz.) that urged continuing universal service fund (USF) support. “We continue to advocate these concepts before the Federal Communications Commission in a plethora of open proceedings,” letter said. “Yet, it is our belief that it will be crucial for Congress to weigh in on these matters as well, to ensure congressional intent is being met in terms of ensuring the future of this indispensable national policy.” Bunner said “string of adverse regulatory and judicial decisions” in name of “competitive neutrality” have eroded congressional mandate on universal service. “The Senate has long played a leading role in advocating and monitoring the many aspects of this critical national policy,” he said. NTCA outlined its leading USF principles: (1) Universal service support must be sufficient and sustainable and all providers of telecom should contribute as public interest mandates. (2) Eligible telecom carriers (ETCs) receiving universal service support should receive such support based on their own costs rather than on costs of incumbent. (3) Competing ETCs should receive support only when they actually had captured customer lines, begun service to new lines or modified their rates or services. (4) States must take their public interest duties more seriously when authorizing additional ETC’s in given market.
ALTS filed letters with FCC from 4 small facilities- based CLEC members that emphasized importance of their getting access to unbundled loops and transport to serve their small business customers. Letters -- from Cbeyond, DSL.net, Eschelon and Network Telephone -- urged Commission not to eliminate access to TELRIC-priced loops and transport when it acted on Triennial UNE [unbundled network element] Review. CLECs told agency they could offer small businesses large price, customer service and technological benefits because of their ability to purchase unbundled loops and transport from ILECs. “Without an ability to buy loops, transport, tandem switching and interconnection trucking at TELRIC rates, Eschelon would be forced out of business,” Eschelon said in letter. DSL.net said it was founded in 1998 to meet data communications needs of “underserved small and medium-sized business market” and depended on several types of UNEs to do it -- 2-wire copper loops, interoffice transport and high-capacity copper loops such as DS1. Network Telephone said it served small communities such as Hattiesburg and Vicksburg, Miss., and its success relied on continued availability of UNEs such as last-mile digital loops and interoffice transport. Federal policy requires FCC to keep needs of small business in mind when it takes action, ALTS Gen. Counsel Jonathan Askin said.
FCC told 9th U.S. Appeals Court, San Francisco, that it had “reasonably” concluded that cable modem service was interstate information service. “The Commission’s reading of the statute makes good sense,” agency wrote court last week. Court is reviewing FCC’s classification of cable modem service, which is being challenged by Earthlink, Verizon, WorldCom, consumer groups and several others. In March, FCC said that cable modem service was interstate information service and that Internet delivered over cable wasn’t subject to common carrier regulations (CD March 15 p1). Ruling went to heart of questions about rights of local franchising authorities, their ability to levy taxes on such services, whether cable modem ever would be subject to universal service requirements and whether cable operators would have to offer “open access” to Internet service providers (ISPs). In its filing, FCC said court’s ruling 2 years ago in AT&T v. Portland, Ore., didn’t require agency to classify cable modem as telecom service, just that law classified telecom component of cable modem service as such. Because Telecom Act doesn’t define clearly how it should be classified, “this court must defer to the FCC’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory terms,” Commission said. Agency said it believed cable operators were using telecom to provide end users with information service. Therefore, it said, it concluded that cable operators’ offering of telecom to ISPs constituted private carrier service, not common carrier telecom service. FCC said it asserted federal jurisdiction properly because Internet communications frequently crossed state and national boundaries. Court should reject any suggestion that agency’s order “somehow impairs the ability of local governments to manage their rights of way,” agency said: “The Commission has not yet decided how (if at all) its classification of cable modem service will affect local regulation of rights-of-way.” That question is subject of separate proceeding. FCC in March opened rulemaking to examine which govt. agencies, if any, had power to regulate cable modem service and invited comment on whether, “in light of marketplace developments, it is necessary or appropriate at this time” to require multiple ISP access. FCC asked court to dismiss challenge by Verizon, which said Commission should adopt same classification for wireline broadband services. Again, FCC said that question was part of separate proceeding and shouldn’t be considered by court.
Advanced Communications said opposition by FCC Enforcement Bureau, EchoStar, GM and Hughes to Advanced’s petition to intervene in DBS case was based incorrectly on legal proceeding that didn’t address its concerns. Advanced said its petition to intervene and seek continuance of 1995 order, which denied Advanced application for extension to construct, launch and operate DBS system, involved new evidence that Commission had based previous decision on “expectation of future auction revenues” and whether consideration of such expectations violated Communications Act. Opponents said decision U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., in 1996 dealt with issue, but Advanced quoted unpublished decision that said “we express no opinions as to whether the Commission was in fact barred from taking into account the expected impact on federal revenues.” Advanced also said new evidence on Commission decision was “tainted,” making 1995 order and court decisions “not controlling.”