Recently in FCC Category

The FCC notified Y Pay More of its Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $4,500 for delivering at least one unsolicited advertisement to the telephone facsimile machine of at least one consumer. 

Florida just added a new seat belt law that means law enforcement can pull you over solely for not wearing a seat belt. It's all about the Benjamins. The state gets $35M in federal funds - and the largesse of 200 fines on the first day!

If the FCC can pull in $4500 for a single UCF (unsolicited commercial fax), why not have a UCF month and collect some big dollars?  If only you could fine spam the same way.

Doug Mohney tweeted this morning that Verizon has a 7-day repair window which may be why they are losing landlines. I would suggest that the RBOC have been lobbying since 282 Relief for Forbearance relief as well - at both the state and federal level. For the most part they have won. 

Gone is the regulation for most telecom services in most states, which means the state PUC cannot deem that POTS lines be fixed in 24 hours (the old standard), especially when Digital Voice (VOIP) is dependent on broadband that does not have an SLA or mean-time-to-repair.

After VZ's 6-city forbearance petition was struck down in 2007, VZ legal took it to the court system and won a review by the FCC.

By letting landlines go, the majority of the existing POTS type service will go to cable or other providers, which would almost insure that VZ would get forbearance on a new review. Slick and devious.

I'm not the brightest guy in the world. Yet over and over I see politicians and regulators make decisions that the other 99% of the US knows will be bad news. One such decision: approving the sale of Verizon's New England region to Fairpoint.

For one thing, agents can no longer sell in that region because Fairpoint thinks they can sell better than a telecom agent can. Ha! I'd put any agent I know up against any W-2 from a telco.

Two, even VZ knew that it would become too expensive to maintain the copper plant in New England; nevermind deliver broadband to most of it. But for some reason the regulators in 3 states and the folks at Martin's FCC approved the deal. Buying into the story that while a giant like VZ can't, an elfin telco like Fairpoint could, while saddled with the debt from the $2.3B deal. 

The customers in New England are not happy either. As much as 12% of its customers have bailed out. (To cellular and cable probably). But it could get worse as Fairpoint hinted back in March that it could file bankruptcy because of its debt. Verizon still owns about 60% of Fairpoint (I think).

The only happy camper was VZ who took a huge one time credit, released $1.7B in debt, and dumped a rural liability. And smiled the whole time.

In a similar deal, Hawaii Telecom went BK - that was a former VZ area. I know when Alltel (now Windstream) took over Eastern KY, it was like buying a termite infested house. VZ doesn't leave its assets in a state that anyone can work with apparently. Hence, the WSJ suggesting that Frontier learn its lesson from the Fairpoint deal.

From an FCC Filing by Birch:

On May 11, 2009, Birch Communications, Inc. (f/k/a Access Integrated Networks, Inc.), Birch Telecom, Inc. (BTI), and BTI's certificated subsidiaries, and Cleartel Communications, Inc. and its subsidiaries, Cleartel Telecommunications, Inc., IDS Telcom Corp., nii communications, ltd., Now Communications, Inc., Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems, Inc., and Telecon Communications Corporation, filed an application pursuant to section 63.03 of the Commission's rules seeking approval to complete a proposed transaction whereby Assignees will acquire substantially all of the customers, customer accounts, and telecommunications assets of Assignors.

The interesting part is this statement: "BTI is a Delaware corporation, and together with its subsidiaries, is wholly-owned by BCI, a Georgia corporation. .. The following U.S. citizens hold a 10 percent or greater direct interest in BCI: Holcombe Green (66 percent) and and R. Kirby Godsey (32 percent)." Two people collectively own pretty much half of all the UNE-P CLEC's in the Southeast.

The FCC is cleaning up USF abuse. Here's two culprits:

MS. CYNTHIA K. AYER. Debarred Ayer from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism for three (3) years from the debarment date. Action by: Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 05/21/2009 by LETTER. (DA No. 09-1115). http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1115A1.pdf

MR. R. CLAY HARRIS C/O ALLISON COBHAM DAWSON. Debarred Harris from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism for three (3) years from the debarment date. Action by: Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 05/21/2009 by LETTER. (DA No. 09-1113). EB http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1113A1.pdf

Why you ask?

"As discussed in the Notice of Suspension, a federal jury found you guilty of bribery and conspiracy to defraud the United States in connection with your participation in the E-Rate program. Evidence provided at trial demonstrated that, as President and majority owner of MCSC, you provided bribes to co-conspirators, former employees of Atlanta Public Schools and co-owners of M&S Consulting, in order for the co-conspirators to support your efforts in securing MCSC's performance of E-Rate and other technology-related work for APS. Such conduct constitutes the basis for your debarment, and your conviction falls within the categories of causes for debarment under section 54.8(c) of the Commission's rules." per the FCC documents.

The FCC assesses the competition in the video market on the same day that the FCC approves the acquisition of a de facto controlling interest in DIRECTV by Liberty Media Corp. and Liberty Entertainment Inc. (DA No. 09-780)

The FCC adopted a supplemental Notice of Inquiry to Congress On Video Competition for Years 2008 and 2009. The docket 07-269 can be commented on until 5/20/2009 (FCC No. 09-32).

As the FCC, USDA, and NTIA get set to disburse $7.2 billion in moneys to telecommunications companies for broadband deployment, penetration, and mapping along with E-Rate type services and tele-medicine, the FCC has to actually come up with a National Broadband Strategy.

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act charged the FCC with creating a plan to give all Americans access to broadband. The FCC began the effort, which will include a series of hearings and meetings, on Wednesday by asking for public comment. The FCC must present the plan to lawmakers by Feb. 17, 2010." [Infoweek]

One would have thought that former FCC Chairman Martin would have put a national policy in place, but all he had was a chalk board with "ideas" or guidelines that the telcos could ignore. Now acting FCC Chair Copps has been tasked and he takes this seriously.

"This commission has never, I believe, received a more serious charge than the one to spearhead development of a national broadband plan," FCC Chairman Michael Copps said in a statement Wednesday. [CircleID] 

The three agencies did  whirlwind tour of America to listen to experts and public opinion about Broadband availability. April 15th is the last day to comment on the NTIA Broadband Grant Program.  The NTIA does break down how their share of the money will be allocated and are working diligently to put in place a grant program for disbursement. The lynchpin is going to be how terms are defined. By terms, I mean broadband, unserved, and underserved.

The other sticking piint will be what companies are eligible to get grant. Certainly, the 20% matching funds will limit the smaller providers. However, the larger companies (like Verizon and TW Cable) are not happy with the Net Neutrality type of conditions on the money.

Back to the FCC: Copps could really use your input on the development of the National Broadband Plan. The FCC "Seeks public input on plan to ensure every American has access to broadband capability. (Dkt No 09-51). If you have thoughts on these elements, the Commission now seeks your comment:

• The most effective and efficient ways to ensure broadband access for all Americans
• Strategies for achieving affordability and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and services
• Evaluation of the status of broadband deployment, including the progress of related grant programs
• How to use broadband to advance consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation, and economic growth, and other national purposes.

The Obama Administration has nominated Larry Strickling to head the NTIA. Right now former Sprint exec, Anna Gomez, is running that department as it gets ready to disperse $4.7B in broadband stimulus money. We don't have a set plan or any procedures in place yet, but picking Larry Strickling should help. Or will it?

Granted picking someone from Sprint probably was a great choice either. (Sprint isn't exactly knocking any socks off). Larry was on Obama's team as a tech advisor. He's a Harvard grad and worked at the FCC up till 2000. According to BroadcastingCable, "Strickling's resume includes Ameritech (now AT&T), Allegiance Telecom (now XO), CoreExpress (sold to Williams, which was bought by Level3), Network Plus, and he was a partner in the firm of Kirkland and Ellis." He also was Chief Compliance Officer at Broadwing Communications for three years also. Am I missing something? He's an attorney. We need more than that.

The head of the NTIA has to interface with the FCC and the USDA/RUS. And by August 1, 2009, start disbursing one-third of the funds under the Broadband Stimulus Plan. There needs to be policies and procedures and guidelines put into place so that (a) the money will actually go to broadband deployment soon; (b) the money can be tracked to ensure that it actually goes for broadband deployment.

The ILEC's have a long history of taking money (and rate hikes) for promises they do not keep. These same companies bought up spectrum and did NOTHING with it. (I hear that Sprint and/or Clearwire are actually looking to sell some spectrum, as is NextWave and Nextlink). So why would we expect these companies to actually deploy broadband in a timely manner now?

Also, this is supposed to be a Stimulus package. Not a help out your Corporate buddy deal. We have had enough of those already. And these companies have laid off by the thousands (Layoff Tracker).

What America needs is for small businesses to get this money.

I don't see how picking another pal of Obama is going to do that. One of the most disappointing things about this new Administration is the lack of creative choices for positions. If people have been there, they have done that. And we don't need THAT. We need a new THIS. Got it? (The people who brought you here, won't get you there).  Where are the round tables of experts to come up with the best plan? We did see the FCC/RUS/NTIA take to the road, but those meetings certainly centered on one or two niche markets. 

Here's my take on the companies that CAN do deploy Broadband across America: Independent ISP's. Guidelines to include:

• ISP's that are already supplying broadband to rural and non-urban areas.
• ISP's that have filled out the FCC Form 477.
• ISP's with at least 8 employees
• ISP's that are Incorporated.
• ISP's with a credit line or extensive credit history.
• ISP's that have a CPA firm.

Why? Because tracking is this money will be a full time job and if you haven't got at least 8 employees and a CPA firm, you probably will fall behind. (And I don't visit clients in jail). The 20% match means you have to have a credit line or be cash flow positive.  This also means that your ISP is a business, not a hobby, that you have been working it as a business for a while and likely will be successful in this new endeavor.

BTW, the Chicago Sun-Times describes Larry's job as Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the Department of Commerce. Turns out that is the NTIA. Oops.

Acting FCC chief Michael Copps celebrated the 75th anniversary of both the FCC and the Communications Act of 1934 that birthed the agency. In a speech, Copps said, "How do we take this 75 year old agency, charged with implementing our formative communications law, and make sure it is up to the challenges of the 21st century? Born in the world of primitive radio sets, raised on plain old telephone service, now trying to manage high-speed broadband and orbiting satellites, can we make it an agency for all seasons? I'm glad you're thinking about this."

After that Copps kind of digs at Martin's feral grasp on the communications and free flow of information. (In other words, there was none).

I do think it's time for our agency to take a good hard look at our mission. Indeed, I think every independent agency ought to be required to do this. I have always believed that our government's independent regulatory agencies were set up to serve the public interest. But many of them, my own included, have sometimes strayed-- strayed pretty far -- from that purpose. At the FCC -- and I single out no specific regime or individual -- our processes over time have become opaque rather than transparent. Too often we spend our days refereeing disputes between powerful interests, with consumers and other non-traditional stakeholders pretty much left outside the loop of discussion and decision. Even the public record is difficult for the public to access.
The new Administration's Open Government Initiative is music to my ears and offers a wonderful opportunity to make this happen. At this 75th Anniversary, we should be revisiting the vows and obligations we took back at the beginning. What I'm talking about today is not rocket science. To a large degree, it's just having our goals clear in our mind, and then creating the process and management to achieve them in an open and transparent way. Or, as my old boss, the legendary Fritz Hollings, used to say: "On the way through life make this your goal--keep your eye on the doughnut and not the hole."
"...the Commission has just been charged with a truly important job. With enactment of the Stimulus bill, we are called upon by Congress and our new President to develop a national strategy to get high-speed, opportunity-creating broadband out to all our citizens. This is a very big deal -- the Commission has seldom if ever had a greater summons to action.... How we do on this will have a lot to do with how we fare in future years -- both the country and the Commission." [at least He gets this.]
We must start thinking more rigorously -- and I mean all of us -- about the profound impact of so much of our communications moving to the Internet in the years ahead. How to keep that Internet open and dynamic is an important part of this dialogue. But so is how to ensure that as the Internet becomes our primary vehicle for communicating with one another, it protects the public interest and informs the civic dialogue that America depends upon for its democracy? That's a huge question."

CircleID takes a look at America's Broadband Score

"Leonard Waverman, the dean of the Haskayne School of Business at the University of Calgary, describe a measure he developed called the 'Connectivity Scorecard.' It's meant to compare countries on the extent that consumers, businesses and government put communication technology to economically productive use. Even after deducting the untold unproductive hours spent on Facebook and YouTube, the United States comes out on top..."

What's interesting to me is the comments. How no one can find the US Broadband score is funny. (Heard of Google much?) It isn't so much the score as what the score represents.

We have a few problems to fix:

(1) ISP Competition for one. Many places only have one choice for broadband. Many have two - cable or telco. Few have three. It makes download caps and Net Neutrality a hot button that true competition would eliminate. (And please don't give me that 3G is the third rail because guess who owns that - Ma and Pa Bell in the majority just like they own the Internet backbone and the PSTN structure in more than 70% of the country).

(2) A definition of broadband. Is it 256k one way as the FCC has defined it for years? Is it now the new FCC definition of 768k? Or is it 1M x 1M minimum? Or is it 100Mbps? This would certainly help.

(3) Deployment versus Penetration. "When you look at the 2008 ITIF Broadband Rankings report ...the U.S. ranked 15th among industrial nations at a composite score of 10.25. The U.S. is reported to have an average download speed of 4.9 Mbps, which is a far distant behind Japan's 63.6 Mbps. In addition, the report states that the US broadband penetration comes in at 0.57%." [source] Here's the detail: "Composite Score: Each nation's overall score is the sum of its standard deviation score for each of the three indicators: Household penetration or subscribers per household, average download speed in Mbps and price at the lowest monthly cost per Mbps." 

We may have "broadband" deployed in a large swath of America, but the speed is low compared to other countries. Because we are a suburban and rural country, it takes more infrastructure to hit everywhere with broadband, especially very high-speed Internet Access (greater than 3Mbps). And because most places hit are single family homes - we do live in suburban sprawl consisting of McMansions filled with Yuppies and 2.2 kids - it also affects our score at the ITIF.  According to a CWA study, the speed in the US is just over 2Mbps.

(4) Cost! We probably pay more per MB than any other G8 country. We get less speed and pay more for it. That hurts us. Surprisedly, in Wilson NC, the Muni fiber sells 100MB symmetric while TWCable and Embarq just gape at the speed and price. Well, not gape, so much as sue that it's unfair that a city would provide services it refuses to.

So we have cost, penetration, subscriber per household (density), and speed. Can't do much about density, but you can improve speed and cost. Also, there is a Digital Divide in America. Poorer families do not have computers, so do not have a need (or a budget) to buy broadband. It poses a problem that funding broadband for libraries and schools is supposed to throw a rope at. The Pew Report reflects this chasm.

BTW, the Connectivity Scorecard study has been analyzed here and by my favorite snarky blog, TechDirt.