Some very interesting news today courtesy of TMCnet.com. Today, in two closely related cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) reached contrary results in challenges to two orders of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that address the rules under which one telecommunications carrier must transfer or "port" a subscriber's telephone number to another carrier, the Wireless-to-Wireless Order and the Intermodal Order. (Central Texas Telephone Cooperative, Inc. et al. v FCC, Case No. 03-1405, United States Telecommunications Assc. et al. v FCC, Case No. 03-1414). The court stayed the FCC's ability to enforce the Intermodal Order against small entities pending the FCC's completion of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to consider the impact of the order on small wireless carriers and small telephone companies as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), but affirmed the obligations of wireless carriers to port under the Wireless-to-Wireless Order. The petitioners in both cases had argued that the orders violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because in adopting the orders the FCC changed its porting rules without providing proper notice to the public and seeking public comment as required by the APA and without considering the impact on small telephone companies and small wireless carriers as required by the RFA. The FCC argued that it had merely "interpreted" its rules rather than changing them.
In the Intermodal Case (which involves the obligations of telephone companies to port numbers to wireless companies), the court held that the FCC had changed its rules rather than just interpreting them, but that any failure to fully comply with APA was harmless. Although the court found that any failure to comply with the APA was harmless, the court held that the FCC had failed to consider the impact of its action on small wireless carriers and rural telephone companies as required by the RFA. Accordingly, the court stayed the FCC from enforcing the orders against small carriers until the FCC has conducted and published the required RFA analysis.
In the Wireless Case (which involved the obligations of wireless carriers to port numbers to one another), the Court determined that the obligations imposed by the FCC flowed from its previous number portability order and that the Wireless-to-Wireless Order, therefore, was an interpretive order that did not require further action under the APA or RFA.
Greg Whiteaker, a principal with Bennet & Bennet, PLLC in Washington, DC and the lead counsel to the rural carrier intervenors in the Intermodal Case and petitioners in the Wireless-to-Wireless case, stated, "We are pleased that the court recognized that the FCC changed the porting obligations of rural telephone companies without considering the impact on rural companies and that the court did not condone this conduct. The FCC order shifted costs from the nationwide wireless carriers to small and rural carriers. This occurred because the Intermodal Order could be interpreted to require rural carriers to port locally rated numbers to the nationwide wireless carriers and to complete calls to those ported numbers, even though there are no local facilities for completing the calls and no means for the rural carriers to recover the cost of transporting such calls. Rural carriers, in effect, were forced to subsidize the large carriers' networks in rural areas. The FCC had ignored the cost to rural carriers of transporting calls to ported numbers that are served by distant switches. Now that the court has stayed the enforcement of the Intermodal Order, the FCC will have to consider rural rating and routing issues that have been pending for years. This was the rural carrier's primary goal in participating in these cases, to get the FCC to address the impact on rural carriers."
John Smith, the former executive vice president and general manager and current interim general manager to Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc., one of the petitioners in the Wireless-to-Wireless case and an intervenor in the Intermodal Case, stated, "The FCC had just ignored the impact of the porting orders on rural carriers. It was as if calls were supposed to be magically completed even when there were no facilities for completing them."
The Wireless-to-Wireless Order required one wireless carrier (the Old Service Provider (OSP)) to port a number to another wireless carrier (the New Service Provider (NSP)) even were the NSP had no point of interconnection or facilities in the area where the ported number was rated. The Intermodal Order required a landline telephone company to port a number to a wireless carrier whenever the wireless carrier's coverage area overlapped the area were the number is rated even if the porting-in wireless carrier had no point of interconnection or facilities in the area.
About Bennet & Bennet
Bennet & Bennet, PLLC is a full service telecommunications law firm specializing in the representation of rural telephone companies and telephone cooperatives. The firm has a particular expertise in wireless telecommunications matters gained through the representation of cellular carriers, wireless cable providers, paging companies, specialized mobile radio (SMR) operators, personal communications service (PCS) providers and broadband wireless companies. The firm is unique because it also employs degreed electrical engineers to provide radio frequency (RF) design, network and technical support to its wireless clients.
The combined legal and technical capabilities of the firm allow it to assist its clients with bid evaluations, interconnection negotiations, vendor contracts, tower siting issues and all facets of its telecommunications clients' needs where a thorough understanding of detailed engineering specifications, and the ability to integrate that understanding into the necessary legal documents, is essential to the successful implementation of telecommunications systems. The firm negotiates and structures acquisitions, mergers and license transfers; develops auction strategies for those seeking spectrum through the FCC auction process; counsels clients on regulatory compliance; and participates in licensing and rulemaking proceedings before the FCC. Bennet & Bennet has participated in virtually every major FCC rulemaking proceeding affecting the interests of rural wireless telecommunications providers. The firm also represents its clients' interests before state regulatory bodies, federal courts and Congress.
In addition to its representation of rural telephone companies and wireless telecommunications providers, Bennet & Bennet has significant experience in the representation of competitive local exchange carriers, broadcasters, cable companies, equipment manufacturers, video programmers, resellers, private land mobile and microwave licensees, and providers of long distance and international telecommunications services. Bennet & Bennet also advises and counsels clients interested in the provision of advanced telecommunications services utilizing emerging telecommunications technologies.
android apple asterisk at&t blackberry cell phone cisco dell digium e911 facebook fcc google google talk gps im ip-pbx ipad iphone ipod itexpo ITEXPO lync microsoft mobile phone open source outage phone review sip skype sony unified communications verizon video video conferencing voip vonage wireless xbox 360
- Apple (280)
- Bittorrent (2)
- Call Center and CRM (48)
- Computer Hardware (183)
- Computer Software (71)
- Gadgets (650)
- Google (225)
- Home Entertainment (263)
- Internet (173)
- Linux (111)
- Microsoft (376)
- MovableType (48)
- News (187)
- Personal and Humor (118)
- Politics (9)
- Reviews (246)
- Security (2)
- Social Networking (42)
- Sports/Outdoor Technology (9)
- Tablets (32)
- Technology and Science (355)
- Unified Communications (471)
- VoIP (2285)
- Wireless (584)
- p2p (20)
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
Featured Videos