The Mont. PSC ruled that Qwest couldn’t bill customers its “trouble isolation charge” unless it determined “with certainty” that a service problem’s cause lay on the customer’s side of the network interface. Qwest bills the $85 trouble isolation charge when line trouble is reported but the cause turns out to be a problem on the customer’s side of the network. The PSC was acting in response to customer complaints that disputed payment of the isolation charge. The customers contended the fee was being assessed when service technicians were unable to determine the exact cause of the trouble. Qwest said it assessed the fee when service technicians couldn’t find anything abnormal on Qwest’s side of the network, but the PSC said that policy also could result in customers’ being charged when the cause of the reported trouble was undetermined, such as with intermittent faults. The PSC said failure to find a source for trouble on the Qwest side didn’t necessarily mean the problem originated on the customer’s side. It said the isolation fee shouldn’t be billed unless Qwest had verified that the trouble’s cause came from the customer side.
Country of origin cases
LOS ANGELES -- Fox is continuing to inch away from the traditional fall season launch. Executives told TV critics here that by shifting more focus toward Jan. and midseason, the network was able to generate momentum just as other broadcasters were on the downslide. Entertainment Pres. Gail Berman said: “We have to look at the season in a different way, and a lot of our focus now is from midseason in January to the end of the TV year in June. We've gone to year-round programming. This summer, we were going to put on some original scripted shows come hell or high water.”
The FCC needs to approve Globalstar’s emergency application for review of its International Bureau decision to revoke the company’s 2 GHz mobile satellite service (MSS) because the decision was “unlawful,” the company said. The International Bureau said it revoked Globalstar’s licenses because the company had failed to enter into a noncontingent construction contract that satisfied the original milestone schedule (CD Jan 31 p1). Globalstar earlier had applied for a license modification, which was rejected, and it said it wasn’t allowed to change the milestone deadlines built into the contract. But it said the policy governing that decision was unclear, ignoring the “traditional concepts of due process” precluding the Commission from implementing a policy “without first providing adequate notice of the substance of the rule.” A later order granting Boeing’s license modification said a contract with new milestone deadlines was acceptable only if the Bureau had accepted the license modification application, Globalstar said, but “the explanation comes too late. The Bureau cannot cure its failure in the [Globalstar order] to follow the law with respect to [Globalstar] by publishing post hoc explanations and policy pronouncements.”
CTIA petitioned the FCC for a clarification Wed. of how specialized overlays would work when customers were able to carry their phone number between wireless and wireline services when local number portability (LNP) took effect Nov. 24. The petition involves a Conn. Dept. of Public Utility Control request to implement a specialized overlay for 2 area codes. That would be the first such overlay in the country to be authorized under an FCC order that paved the way for technology-specific nongeographic overlay area codes, which could be used for fax numbers or data transmissions. The point is to provide area code relief for parts of the country that face shortages of numbering resources. CTIA said that in May, the FCC withheld approval of the Conn. petition to implement a specialized overlay for the 203 and 860 area codes. The Commission sought details such as the kinds of services that would be included. As part of the final review of the request, CTIA urged the Commission to address “how the provisions for wireless carriers will apply upon the implementation of intermodal (wireline-wireless) number portability.” The association said the LNP deadline of Nov. 24 was likely to occur before Conn. implemented the specialized overlay (SO). “The FCC needs to clarify how it intends to harmonize its oft-stated intent to require intermodal porting with the fact that wireless LNP will negate many of the benefits that a SO might conceivably be expected to yield,” the group said. CTIA said the FCC originally banned wireless-only SOs because it deemed them “unreasonably discriminatory,” later saying it would look at requests for such overlays on a case-by-case basis. “The FCC has never addressed how the LNP requirements for wireless carriers affect wireless SOs now that the Commission no longer flatly prohibits the use of SOs,” CTIA said.
FCC staff recommended that a condition preventing AOL Time Warner from offering advanced services involving its Instant Messaging (IM) system be lifted, an agency source said. The commissioners have yet to vote on the recommendation, but Chmn. Powell had opposed the condition when it originally passed a Democratic-controlled Commission in 2001. The condition was that AOL-TW couldn’t offer advanced services unless it developed IM interoperability with other companies’ IM systems. The condition was considered a huge victory for consumer rights activists at the time, but the company’s petition drew barely a whimper in comments to the FCC (CD May 21 p7). AOL-TW’s main competitors in the IM arena are Yahoo and Microsoft, and none of the companies appear to be making any money from IM. AOL- TW had argued in its petition that the original assumptions about the company -- that the merger of AOL and TW would result in a firm that could dominate the Internet -- turned out to be false. The FCC staff agreed, we were told.
Hughes Electronics, fueled by a rise in net new DirecTV subscribers, swung to a $21.6 million 2nd-quarter profit from a $155 million loss a year ago as revenue edged up to $2.37 billion from $2.2 billion. Hughes said it took an $8 million charge against 2nd-quarter earnings to cover a payment to Boeing as part of settlement of a lawsuit stemming from the latter’s acquisition of Hughes’ satellite manufacturing operations in Oct. 2000.
CTIA told the FCC Wireless Bureau late last week that July 3 guidance from Bureau Chief John Muleta didn’t go far enough to address industry questions on wireless local number portability (LNP). The association earlier had asked the bureau to clarify several issues on wireless LNP implementation, seeking answers by Labor Day to allow time in advance of a Nov. 24 deadline on wireless LNP. The U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., last month turned down a wireless industry challenge to the FCC’s decision to retain the LNP requirement on wireless providers, keeping the Nov. 24 deadline intact (CD June 9 p1). Responding to requests for guidance, Muleta said this month that carriers wouldn’t be held liable for 911 callbacks that got lost during the porting period, citing the “mixed service” period during which a customer porting a number between wireless and wireline service might not have the correct callback number listed for a 911 operator. Muleta urged carriers to inform subscribers about the potential problem. CTIA Pres. Tom Wheeler wrote to Muleta Fri. that “threshold implementation issues remain unaddressed.” On 911, he wrote: “Consumers with every right to expect full 911 capability will discover they fall into a ‘no man’s land’ while they await their number to be ported -- a situation that can last for several days.” In other areas, Muleta had said he agreed with Verizon Wireless that there must not be a porting delay beyond customer validation requirements, meaning issues such as outstanding balances on a subscriber’s bill shouldn’t hold up the transfer of a phone number. Muleta had said other issues on which the industry sought implementation guidance were limited in scope and would be resolved before the Nov. 24 deadline. Among the issues that remain to be addressed are how to handle a wireline customer who ports to a wireless carrier without a rate center presence in the customer’s wireline rate center. Wheeler cited that as an example of an issue that required a faster FCC answer. “An issue that will prevent upwards of 90% of wired customers from taking advantage of competitive wireless services is not a matter of ‘limited scope,'” Wheeler said. He said that without FCC action, “the random uncertainties” involved in the rate center issue would leave consumers in the dark whether a particular port request would be honored by their original carrier because such rate center information wasn’t “readily available.” Wheeler reminded Muleta that Labor Day was only 51 days away, underscoring the importance of FCC answers on other issues in advance of that date. “If the Commission delays, carriers and their customers will be misled, frustrated, angered and abused by the Commission’s failure to resolve critical LNP implementation issues the Commission has left unanswered for the past 6 years,” Wheeler said.
The Ia. Utilities Board gave Z-Tel Communications until Aug. 9 to defend its proposal for a wireless local termination tariff against objections raised by wireless carriers. The tariff (Case TF-03-194) would set a default per-min. termination charge for calls originated from a wireless carrier, relayed through an intermediate carrier and terminated to a Z-Tel local exchange customer. The default rate would apply unless a different rate had been negotiated in an interconnection agreement. Verizon Wireless and U.S. Cellular urged rejection of the tariff on grounds it would violate the federal Telecom Act’s requirements for reciprocity of charges and for negotiated termination charges based on cost. The wireless carriers also said the FCC was studying the lawfulness of wireless termination tariffs and any board approval before that agency’s ruling would be inappropriate.
Some of the largest U.S. equipment makers have drawn lines in an ultra-wideband (UWB) standards-setting debate at the IEEE, creating a divide between proposals backed by Motorola and XtremeSpectrum and those supported by Intel, Panasonic, Texas Instruments and others. At issue is work on an IEEE draft standard for wireless personal area networks, 801.15.3a, that covers UWB devices used for communications applications.
The FCC’s International and Wireless bureaus concluded NextWave had met regulatory conditions on its C-block licenses on foreign ownership requirements. The conditions required NextWave to either restructure and bring its indirect foreign ownership in line with the 25% benchmark of the Communications Act or demonstrate that it would be in the public interest to exceed that mark. The bureaus’ clearance on the foreign ownership question appeared to be the last regulatory hurdle that NextWave had faced at the FCC on its licenses. Sec. 310(b) of the Act set a 25% benchmark for indirect investment by a foreign entity in a common carrier radio license, but gave the FCC discretion to allow higher ownership stakes if they were deemed in line with the public interest. Based on NextWave’s original 1997 petition for a temporary waiver of its restructuring options under the foreign ownership limits, the FCC held that NextWave’s indirect foreign ownership complied with the Commission’s foreign participation order. At that time, it said NextWave’s level of foreign equity share ownership was less than 27%, and more than 95% of its total equity ownership could be traced to U.S. citizens and citizens of other World Trade Organization countries. “We find no basis to attribute to NTI [NextWave] a level of foreign voting interests that is higher than the level of attributable foreign equity,” the Commission said. In a letter to the FCC in May 2003, NextWave said its Series A stock, which represents legal and actual control of the carrier, was held by U.S. citizens or companies, with a “de minimis” share owned by foreigners. The FCC also concluded that NextWave’s current level of indirect foreign equity and voting interests fell below the 25% benchmark for foreign ownership. It said NextWave’s ownership was divided, with 80.9% of issued and outstanding shares held by domestic interests, 14.5% by foreign individuals or companies and 4.6% by U.S. brokerage houses on behalf of individuals or firms whose citizenship wasn’t known to NextWave. “NextWave appreciates the attention the Commission and its staff have given to this matter in recent months, and we're glad that it’s now put to rest,” a company spokesman said. Petitions previously filed by AT&T Wireless, Verizon and VoiceStream questioned NextWave’s foreign ownership status, but the carriers later rescinded those filings. Questions also were raised in 1997 when 2 failed C- block bidders, Antigone Communications and PCS Devco, asked the FCC to dismiss NextWave’s conditional license approval based on alleged violations of foreign ownership limits. Before the FCC had taken final action on that petition, the agency cancelled NextWave’s licenses for nonpayment. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year upheld a U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., ruling that had held that the FCC had erred in cancelling the licenses.