Man who called Tauzin-Dingell bill “blasphemy” will hear testimony today (Wed.) from man who called Tauzin-Dingell opponents “parasites.” House Commerce Committee confirmed Tues. that House Commerce Committee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.) and ranking Democrat Dingell (Mich.) would testify, as expected (CD March 14 p4), in defense of their Bell data deregulation bill, HR-1542. Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Hollings (D- S.C.) has made no secret of his dislike for bill, but in holding hearing he already has gone further than another opponent, former House Commerce Committee Chmn. Bliley (R- Va.). In last Congress, Tauzin and Dingell managed to convince majority of House to co-sponsor bill, but Bliley still refused to hold hearing. Now he’s retired, Tauzin occupies his seat, and bill has passed House and is pending in Senate. Hollings originally scheduled hearing on local phone competition, but after convincing Tauzin -- who initially compared invitation to “bear trap” -- and Dingell to testify, he has decided to have 2nd hearing later on local competition with witnesses opposed to Tauzin-Dingell. In recent comments, Hollings called HR-1542 “blasphemy,” while Dingell said CLECs that wanted to interconnect with Bells and oppose Tauzin-Dingell were “parasites.” Hearing is at 9:30, Rm. 253, Russell Bldg., and will be simulcast on http://commerce.senate.gov/.
Country of origin cases
ORLANDO -- FCC and NTIA officials at CTIA Wireless 2002 show here Sun. cautioned that tough spectrum policy choices lay ahead in light of new homeland security considerations, including re-evaluation of how well current priority access service (PAS) rules are working. Panelists on homeland security roundtable repeatedly stressed importance of making sure public safety community had adequate spectrum and that existing allocations were being used efficiently. Several officials also pointed to complicated govt. jurisdictional issues raised by factors such as PAS, particularly as some states contemplate legislation on their own version of wireless priority access. While Administration hasn’t formulated stance on what should be done with priority access service, “the concern that we would [do so] is against classification of network where you could have displacement of emergency calls from individuals because of priority access calls coming from government,” said NTIA Deputy Asst. Dir. Michael Gallagher.
Comments deadline on FCC’s 3rd attempt to adopt EEO rules that will withstand court scrutiny, originally due today (Fri.), has been postponed until April 15.
“No legislation will pass Congress this year.” In case people missed it first time, Senate Judiciary Committee Chmn. Leahy (D-Vt.) repeated that exact phrase 3 more times in 3- hour hearing Thurs. on digital rights management, referring to proposed bill by Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Hollings (D-S.C.) that would mandate hardware and software copyright solutions in every digital CE device. Ranking Republican Hatch (Utah) and other members at the hearing also expressed concerns about possibility of federal govt.’s mandating technical solutions in place of marketplace solution. Leahy said it was inappropriate to consider legislation until IT, CE and content industries had reached agreement on digital rights management (DRM) solutions, at which point Congress could step in to certify standard or modify intellectual property law to permit the use of DRM solutions.
House Commerce Committee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.) is reconsidering his decision not to participate in local competition hearing by Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Hollings (D-S.C.). Tauzin originally rejected invitation to testify, saying that Hollings intended to stack witnesses against him (CD March 8 p6). Congressional source said staffs of both committees were negotiating terms of that appearance, possibly to enable Tauzin and ranking minority member Dingell (D-Mich.) to appear together on panel separate from opponents of their data deregulation bill (HR-1542). House Commerce Committee spokesman Ken Johnson confirmed Tauzin’s possible appearance before the Senate panel: “It’s Chairman Tauzin’s understanding that the Senate Commerce Committee will allow him and Mr. Dingell to explain how our bill works and to answer questions.”
Ex-FCC Comr. Harold Furchtgott-Roth criticized Commission Mon. for not returning $3.3 billion in deposits that wireless companies such as Verizon Wireless paid for spectrum that was returned to its original owner, NextWave. Furchtgott-Roth said agency might have conflict of interest in retaining that money because interest was being paid to Telecom Development Fund, organization created by Telecom Act with board appointed by FCC. Fund gives financial help to start-up businesses using money from interest earned while auction monies, such as upfront payments, are being held by agency. Interest from NextWave deposits amounts to at least $100 million per year, assuming very low interest rate of 3%, he said. Furchtgott-Roth said there was nothing wrong with fund but it was questionable for FCC to deliberately hold onto that money, particularly since U.S. Supreme Court review of NextWave auction could delay resolution for at least year: “I don’t think there’s any doubt that [deposits] have to be returned.”
Verizon Wireless asked FCC to “promptly” refund its entire deposit from Jan. 2001 NextWave re-auction after U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., threw case into disarray by reversing FCC decision to cancel NextWave licenses for missed payment. D.C. Circuit on March 1 turned down Verizon petition asking that court compel “full compliance” with its June 2001 ruling, meaning that auction was void and all down payments should be returned (CD March 5 p2). Letter was written on same day as U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear oral argument in FCC’s appeal of D.C. Circuit’s NextWave ruling. Re- auction winners asked FCC earlier this year to return $3.1 billion in down payments that agency has held without interest since Feb. 2001. Verizon Wireless, as largest re- auction winner, has largest deposit at stake, $1.7 billion. Citing D.C. Circuit’s denying Verizon’s petition that it enforce June 2001 ruling, company said in letter to FCC Deputy Gen. Counsel John Rogovin March 5: “We want to make clear that, to the extent the contract is not already void or voided, and to the extent we have the right to void the auction contract as to the NextWave licenses, we elect to void the contract.” Verizon Wireless said it didn’t want Commission to retain 3% or any portion of original bid prices. One expectation earlier this year had been that Commission might hang on to small portion of deposits after completing refunds to make it easier to revive settlement that expired Dec. 31. That proposed agreement by govt., re- auction winners and NextWave lapsed after Congress failed to approve pact. “The fact that we worked with the Commission in making a failed attempt at a legislated settlement plainly does not bar us from asserting the Commission’s breach of the auction contract,” Verizon Wireless Gen. Counsel Mark Tuller told Rogovin. Carrier hasn’t been able to “derive any value” from PCS licenses that were returned to NextWave, he said. Carrier said it had “had to incur costs in making alternative arrangements to satisfy capacity demands.” Saying it had been 13 months since auction and deposits hadn’t been returned, Verizon said that was “well beyond any reasonable time frame in which the government had the obligation to deliver the licenses to the winning bidder.” Meanwhile, status hearing in case was held last week in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, White Plains, N.Y. Judge Adlai Hardin reportedly set next status hearing for Oct. 22. He told participants at brief hearing that he expected that Supreme Court processes would take significant time and he suggested that participants in last round of settlement talks might want to talk again about fate of licenses. Legg Mason issued note to investors Fri. saying “one key question” in light of Supreme Court decision to take case was whether FCC would hold re- auction winners to their bid commitments “if the FCC definitively wins back the licenses, no matter how long it takes.” Legg Mason said: “This is critical because if the FCC does not release the winners from those obligations, the market will assume that almost $16 billion is tied up and cannot be used on other capital expenditures.” Report said that unless something short-circuited litigation, FCC was expected eventually to release re-auction winners from their obligations. “Keeping the winners on the hook to buy spectrum that could be tied up for several years may not be seen as serving the public interest, even if bidders were warned they assumed all litigation risks,” Legg Mason report said.
Utah and Ind. legislatures passed competition and 911 bills, while Ill. advanced no-call measure. Utah legislature passed telecom competition bill much amended from original measure. Bill (HB-140) sent to Gov. Michael Leavitt (R) would establish 12-member legislative task force to determine whether telecom competition in state was meeting procompetition mandates of state and federal law. Five members would be from Senate and 7 from House. Task force would obtain input from incumbent telcos, CLECs, wireless, cable and fiber carriers, plus PSC, Utah. Div. of Public Utilities and Utah Consumer Services Committee, along with business and residential phone customers. Panel would meet at least monthly between April and Nov. and issue report to legislature by Dec. 1. Legislature deleted provisions in original bill that would have required PSC to conduct expedited proceedings on complaints alleging Qwest had engaged in anticompetitive conduct and expanding PSC’s punishment powers. Also dropped was original language that would have required PSC to initiate structural separation proceeding if Qwest were convicted 3 times of anticompetitive conduct. Meanwhile, Ind. legislature passed and sent to Gov. Frank O'Bannon (D) bill allowing state’s E-911 advisory board to invest 911 fees collected from wireless carriers and use earnings to reimburse wireless carriers and local 911 systems for costs of implementing FCC’s Phase II wireless location order that requires wireless systems to be able to pinpoint location within a cell of wireless phone that’s calling 911. Bill (SB-180) would limit wireless 911 fee to $1 monthly per number. It also would reduce board’s size to 7 members from 11, make state treasurer voting member, repeal term limits for board members seeking reelection. Ind. legislature also passed and sent O'Bannon another 911 bill (SB-214) that would make it misdemeanor to prevent another person from making 911 emergency call. In Ill., Senate Judiciary Committee passed bill (SB-1830) that would require Ill. Commerce Commission to maintain and enforce no-call telemarketing list. Consumers would pay $5 to register their number on list while telemarketers would pay $1,000 to obtain copy of list. Violations would be punished by $2,500 fine per offending call. Bill now goes to Senate floor.
FCC at agenda meeting March 14 will address cable operators’ concerns about regulatory classification of Internet delivered over cable. Commission said Thurs. it would consider declaratory ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on legal classification and appropriate regulatory framework for Internet service when delivered over cable. At moment, that’s considered “cable service.” In fact, Supreme Court, in case on pole attachments earlier this year, dealt with issue and some justices expressed dismay that Commission had not yet classified service (CD Jan 17 p1). Industry insiders believe Commission is likely to reclassify it as “information service,” which would protect it from being called “telecom service” and all common carrier regulations that would naturally follow. Cable executives have been lobbying FCC intensively on almost daily basis in recent weeks in hope that if it chose to call it “information service,” agency would ensure that local franchising authorities (LFAs) would have no regulatory jurisdiction over high-speed data. Item had been widely expected by cable industry, especially since Commission opened proceeding addressing Internet via wireline at its last agenda meeting. Meeting is scheduled for 9:30 a.m., Rm. TW-C305, FCC hq. Commission also will consider: (1) Order on streamlined procedures for transfer of control applications by domestic telecom carriers. (2) Order and rulemaking dealing with charges for changing end users’ presubscribed interexchange carriers. (3) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comments on how to address interference to public safety systems in 800 MHz band. Last fall, Nextel submitted White Paper to Commission that proposed reconfiguration of operations at 700 MHz, 800 MHz, 900 MHz and 2.1 GHz to mitigate interference that public safety licensees were receiving from wireless operators such as Nextel. Proposal has been expected to seek comments on wider range of potential solutions than the one put forward by Nextel. (4) Further action on new Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) in 12.2-12.7 GHz band. Meanwhile, FCC originally planned, then postponed, consideration of proposed amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of Commission rules to permit frequency sharing between nongeostationary orbit fixed satellite systems with GSO and terrestrial systems in Ku-band frequency. It also delayed review order that allows terrestrial companies to use DBS satellite spectrum in 12.2-12.7 GHz band that included applications of Northpoint, PDC Broadband and Satellite Services.
Seemingly routine oral argument on FCC’s line-sharing rules (00-1012) Thurs. at U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., turned into broader discussion over whether it was even appropriate to require ILECs to share their DSL facilities with CLECs. In hearing appeal brought by ILECs, judges asked whether consumers really differentiated among various Internet access services and whether it was proper to impose sharing requirement on ILEC DSL service when it operated in such competitive market. In trying to determine differences in classification of Internet platforms, Judge Stephen Williams at one point asked whether cable was telecom service. ILEC attorney Michael Kellogg reminded him that 9th U.S. Appeals Court, San Francisco, had dealt with that issue.