Recently in FCC Category

I don't know how this ended up in front of me this morning, but it was an interesting piece about Obama and Radio Localism. Obviously, conservatives don't want localism because it gets in the way of profit. You can't profit if you have to pay a DJ in each market AND report some local news. Sheesh! Why do you think we get these licenses anyway - Profit. The guys at NAB are ready to fight Localism.

Unfortunately for NAB, word is getting out that license renewal is NOT automatic and even one complaint can derail the process and cost you money. (This was news to me). And during the media ownership workshops, despite broadcasters trying to fill seats, too many folks showed up to report about the total lack of local news in their communities. Even though Martin had a pre-determined gift for NAB, the workshops were too powerful to allow the steamroller to work.

NAB needs to realize that the FCC's job is not to insure that some businesses have a profit or even stay in business. The FCC's main duty is to protect the consumer and to mandate the spectrum equitably.  (Congress needs to remember this as well).  If TBO.com companies started going backrupt, I am certain that another entity would take its place.

AT&T is testing broadband caps in Nevada. First, cable now Ma Bell. In both cases, the reason may have to do preserving TV revenue than anything. There is concern. It even popped up as a LinkedIn question.

DSL Prime is outraged over the cap and has a different view of what it means. (See here)

This is just further proof that duopoly competition doesn't work. The TIA is begging Congress for a Broadband Stimulus bill that they say will generate $1B in economic growth. Meanwhile, WISPA lobbied for a license-lite proposal for the "white spaces" spectrum, which was granted. WISPA members (mainly wireless ISPs) wouldn't mind some largesse from the government either to build out more towers and wireless links to actually bring broadband to places without it (you know, crossing the Digital Divide) -- or to offer a third pipe. (The Clearwire-Sprint-Nextel merger was approved today as well, but that company is funded to the tune of billions. Give th

The FCC voted today too. They took the Inter-Carrier Compensation and USF off the agenda, much to Martin's dismay.

"Federal regulators have approved a plan to open up unused, unlicensed portions of the television airwaves known as "white spaces" to deliver wireless broadband service." [Y! news] [fcc.gov]

FCC approved, with conditions, the mergers of Sprint-Nextel/Clearwire and  Alltel-Verizon. [fcc.gov]

FCC opened an investigation into the pricing policies of major cable operators and Verizon. "The agency wants to ensure the companies' customers are getting treated fairly, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said in an interview with The Associated Press." [Y! news]

The Federal Communications Commission issued regulations this week for voice-over-IP service providers to offer Enhanced 911 emergency call services to all customers. The rules were required under the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, which was signed into law in July.

DUTIES.--It shall be the duty of each IP-enabled voice service provider to provide 9-1-1 service and enhanced 9-1-1 service to its subscribers in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission, as in effect on the date of enactment of the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 and as such requirements may be modified by the Commission from time to time.

Washington, D.C. - October 27, 2008 - Many Americans, especially those living in rural areas have never had affordable broadband Internet access.  In a letter filed with the FCC last week, WISPA, the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (www.wispa.org), showed the FCC how it can make valuable TV White Space spectrum available for new services.  The FCC is scheduled to vote on November 4 on how this spectrum can be used after the DTV transition occurs in February 2009.

WISPA offered a detailed "licensed-lite" solution for unused TV channels.  Unlike expensive spectrum auctions and "noisy" unlicensed spectrum, the "licensed-lite" approach relies on a spectrum sharing system that enables all users to operate without interference.  It would benefit the public by allowing the development of new and innovative types of unlicensed broadband devices and services.  It would also benefit WISPs by improving the service range of their existing networks, thereby allowing WISPs to reach new customers.  WISPA's proposal also ensures that consumers will continue to receive over-the-air television signals without interference.

Rick Harnish, WISPA's President, said "We believe adoption of our "licensed-lite" proposal will stimulate rural economies around the nation by enabling low cost ubiquitous broadband service from local and regional operators.  Children growing up in small towns deserve the same opportunities created by broadband adoption as those children in metropolitan areas.  Small businesses and rural entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of a growing economy and we encourage the FCC Commissioners to do their part in reviving Rural America."

Jack Unger, WISPA Secretary and Chair of WISPA's FCC Committee, added, "We believe that there are enough White Space frequencies for all wireless users to share, without creating interference. Our "licensed-lite" proposal adopts a "common-ground" approach that benefits all users without relying on controversial "spectrum-sensing" techniques.  Our technical solution uses a geolocation database that makes frequency sharing work. We urge the FCC Commissioners to adopt our "licensed-lite" proposal at their November 4th meeting because we believe it truly represents a "win-win" solution for all parties."

Since 2004, over 30,000 comments have been filed with the FCC suggesting how the White Space frequencies should be used.  Broadcasters want to be sure that new White Space users will not create interference with television reception.  Silicon Valley firms favor unlicensed use for personal/portable devices that would rely on the controversial "sensing" technologies opposed by broadcasters.  WISPA's "licensed-lite" approach represents a middle-of-the road solution that accommodates all of these interests.

[The ex-parte  notice is here]

FOR MORE INFORMATION - CONTACT:

• Jack Unger, Chair WISPA FCC Committee  818-227-4220
• Stephen Coran, Principal, Rini Coran, PC  202-463-4310

More on the issue here.

The FCC is holding a meeting on Nov. 4. On the agenda: Inter-Carrier Compensation, Alltel-VZ merger, Clearwire-Sprint merger, and a vote of White Spaces. Lots of heavy lifting on this agenda. Martin wants to give his pals at VZ one more gift before he goes.

The VZ-Alltel merger is big, but the topic that can really rock telecom is the Inter-carrier Comp issue, which has been a stagnant FCC docket for years.

If companies can show high costs, they will continue to benefit from the subsidy program. Martin also wants to eliminate wireless providers' right to claim government subsidies for offering service in hard-to-reach areas. Martin wants all companies, wireless included, to show they have incurred losses in providing rural service before they can collect the subsidy. Without those changes, Martin worries that the subsidy fund will collapse of its own weight and rates will go up anyhow. [CNN]

It depends want the Compromise looks like -- and it will be a large compromise. Democrats want one thing. Republicans another. Cellcos versus Wireline. Rural versus Urban. Inter-Carrier Comp even bleeds into the USF issue. How? Because rural carriers count on both Universal Service Fund subsidies AND rather high call termination charges to keep afloat.

Why now? The ISP inter-carrier comp rule has been in court for six years. Earlier this year, the DC Court ruled that the FCC had to get off the pot:

The court set the deadline for an order from the FCC at November 5, 2008, six months from the date of oral argument, stated it will not grant an extension and warned that if an appropriate order is not timely issued, it will vacate the interim inter-carrier compensation rules.

Consumer groups are against another largess for the monopolies at the expense of the ratepayers.

The head of the Federal Communications Commission wants a massive overhaul of the fees that phone companies pay each other when they connect calls. Supporters say the reforms will help fund improved broadband Internet access for rural America, but consumer advocates question how much the plan will raise people's phone bills. "This could be potentially a billion-dollar giveaway to phone monopolies, paid for out of consumers' pocketbooks," said Chris Murray, an attorney with Consumers Union. [AP]

Intercarrier comp is how the various phone companies pay each other for traffic. VoIP providers and cellular carriers, especially Sprint, would like a fairer shake. The old RBOCs would like the Rural LEC's to stop getting so much money. (see Free Conference services not getting paid by RBOCs).

The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, which represents small phone carriers, told FCC officials earlier this month that a new rate of $0.0007 per minute puts many of their members' livelihoods at risk.

And then there is the White Spaces issue. When broadcasters make the DTV transition in 1Q09, there will be unused spectrum that the Wireless World would like to use for its own bandwidth needs. However, due to bleed over (interference) with cordless microphones and other broadcasting devices, the NAB is opposed. [see dailywireless]

All of this is at one meeting while America votes.

SERVICE QUALITY, CUSTOMER SATISFACTION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATING DATA GATHERING. Granted forbearance from legacy reporting and accounting requirements. Seeks comment on industry - wide reporting. (Dkt No. 07-21, 07-139 , 07-204). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 09/06/2008 by MO&O. (FCC No. 08-203). WCB.

The CommLawBlog writes, "On Saturday, September 6, the FCC released a decision granting forbearance from filing Automatic Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS) Report Nos. 43-05, 43-06, 43-07, and 43-08 to all carriers currently required to file those reports. (Editorial note: Who knew the FCC ever did anything on Saturdays?)  These reports were originally designed to monitor what the FCC calls a "theoretical concern" that price-cap carriers might reduce service quality or network investment to increase short-term profits. The FCC has now concluded that the information is of only limited benefit to consumers, because the reports are filed by only some large wireline carriers and not by smaller wireline carriers or cable or wireless telephone service providers, so the reports paint an incomplete picture of the industry. It rejected complaints by states that they need the reports for state regulatory purposes, finding that it does not have the authority to maintain federal regulatory requirements solely to help state commissions undertake intrastate regulation."

On the one hand, most of the FCC reports are flawed and/or old. On the other hand, the FCC hasn't done much enforcement any way, so why collect all that data.  However, Bruce and TeleTruth have a reply to the FCC:

Harms to Small Competitors: FCC "Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action."

"We all know the consequence of bad data - Entering Iraq and the missing weapons-of-mass-destruction debacle should be an indicator just how bad it gets when data is flawed, intentionally misleading or missing. While Congress and others have been holding meetings about the paucity of the FCC's data on broadband, on Monday, September 8th, the FCC decided to erase your ability to know the truth about AT&T, Verizon and Qwest's behavior and acts on multiple topics pertaining to America's telecom and broadband future.  It is a slap to the face of everyone reading this.  Now, even the analysts will not be given enough data to see just how badly we've been hosed.

"The FCC today essentially granted "forbearance" meaning, AT&T, Verizon and Qwest no longer have to collect data on say, quality of service, the build out of the infrastructure, or other important issues.

"In this Order, we grant significant forbearance from carriers' obligation to file Automated Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS) Reports 43-05, 43-06, 43-07, and 43-08 (collectively, the "ARMIS service quality and infrastructure reports").  In particular, with certain limited exceptions, we find that the section 10 criteria are met for the ARMIS service quality and infrastructure reports, subject to certain conditions." - To read the document
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-203A1.doc       

"ARMIS reports" are the basic data the phone companies should be supplying to the FCC; now strip-mined to nothing useful.

Dissenting in part, FCC Commissioner Copps wrote: "The collection and analysis of solid communications-related data is a linchpin in the Commission's ability to make sound decisions and provide useful guidance and assistance to consumers, states, industry-participants and other stakeholders. That is why it has been so troubling to see in to many instances the Commission headed down the road of collecting less data."

Commissioner Adelstein wrote: "I have long believed that the Commission has a responsibility to collect accurate and reliable data in order to develop effective policies and fulfill Congress's goals for the evolving telecommunications marketplace.  Just as an airplane pilot would not land a plane with eyes closed and instruments off, the Commission must ensure that its decision-making is guided by sufficient data."

You can read the rest of Bruce's report at NewNetworks (TeleTruth) website.

I'm beginning to believe that maybe the FCC is an expense we can cut from the federal budget along with the FAA. We have to save money some where!

BTW, the FCC has even more chances to move to Deregulation (or what I call UnRegulation). See them here.

Here's the thing that most folks don't understand. The main responsibility, duty, and sanction of Congress and any Federal Agency (like the FTC and FCC) is to protect the Consumer. The end user. Remember it is By and For the People. Not By and For Corporate America.

We have cable crying about bandwidth hogs and the need for network management. This goes against the grain of what you are advertising, not to mention Common Carrier ideals.

What no one at Comcast gets is that IF Congress decides to regulate or define network management, and the FCC is "enforcing" that definition, we are in a world of trouble. Expensive trouble. Expensive for the government, the court system, the cable companies and ultimately the economy and the poor sap consumer that has to pay for all this eventually. The same poor sap who doesn't understand all this or what a cap is or what 5 GB means in reality, etc. etc.

The DPI (deep packet inspection) and targeted advertising ship has a leak that developed when Congress decided to start talking to the Industry. Nothing grounds a executive more than a Congressional subpoena.

I don't understand why the big Duopoly can't just give us the bandwidth we want - like they do in Korea, Japan and Europe. Upgrades cost money, but band-aids cost money as well. Muni broadband and FTTH (fiber to the home) projects (from private companies) are on the rise because the Duopoly won't provide the fat pipe.

Cities today are competing for jobs. Broadband is a utility that companies look for when they are planning a new office, plant or facility.

More and more telecommunications looks like the airline industry. Neither industry understands what the consumer wants. Brand Loyalty is out the window. The incumbents can't spell customer service. And you don't know what the final bill will be because of all the hidden fees. Congress needs to jump on THAT. (Again this affects the economy too).

Bad enough the FCC makes bonehead decisions, but now you have to worry that you may be getting a fake site set up by phishers. (Maybe they would do a better job ?)

Dear Members: As I am sure you are aware, FY 2008 Regulatory Fees must be paid to the FCC no later than September 25, 2008. Coincidentally, someone has set up 2 fake FCC websites to intercept financial data from companies paying FCC fees.

I want to add that the FCC form 477 for Broadband counst is due, um, today.

The law firm below has discovered two fake FCC websites floating around for annual payments - trying to intercept company info. ... Not sure how the scam works but it probably is a good reminder below to always go right to fcc.gov and not follow links that come in emails from other sources.

"When paying fees, always start by manually typing www.fcc.gov into the browser address window. (Once there. click on "FY 2008 REGULATORY FEES" at the top of the page.) DO NOT go to the FCC website by following other people's links.

Thanks to Ron at VOX, COMPTEL, XO and FHHLaw.com

The FCC made a ruling on Comcast's network management (or P2P traffic interference). There are 2 blogs that give an excellent view of the ruling - one is from OpenID and the other from Prof. Susan Crawford.

I wonder why they just don't use the Common Carriage definition. If cable is a Common Carrier like telcos then stuff like DPI and traffic interference are a no-no. What? You mean Embarq and others are infringing on Common Carriage with something like NebuAd and Sandvine? No. Couldn't be. Not with the FCC around protecting the consumer and stuff. Oh, wait. ILEC's have a hall pass. I forgot.

UPDATE: Kevin Martin 's Open Network Manifesto on NYT.