Telecom Law Monitor : Washington D.C. Telecom Lawyer & Attorney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm : New York, Chicago, Connecticut, New Jersey, Brussels

Julius Genachowski became the Chairman of the FCC on June 29. Mr. Genachowski began announcing his staff the same day. His Chief of Staff is Ed Lazarus, most recently a lawyer in private practice in the Washington, D.C. office of the firm of Akin Gump. Like Chairman Genachowski, Mr. Lazarus served as a clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court (Justice Blackmun). In addition, the Chairman’s office announced two senior advisors and two legal advisors.

Colin Crowell will hold the title Senior Counselor to the Chairman. Mr. Crowell has spent more than 20 years working on telecommunications issues as a Congressional staff member for Congressman Ed Markey and the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications.

The other senior advisor is Bruce Gottlieb, who will serve as Chief Counsel to the Chairman. Mr. Gottlieb spent the prior three years as an advisor to FCC Commissioner Copps and, before that, was in private law practice in D.C. with the firm of Harris Wiltshire.

Priya Aiyar will hold the title of Legal Advisor focusing on wireline competition and international issues. She was most recently in private practice with the D.C. firm of Kellogg Huber. Ms. Aiyar also served as a Supreme Court clerk (Justice Breyer) and was a Rhodes Scholar.

Sherrese Smith will be the Legal Advisor for media, consumer and enforcement issues. Ms. Smith most recently was Vice President and General Counsel of Washington Post Digital and, before that, practiced law with the D.C. firm of Arnold and Porter.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Friday, June 19, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision involving a mobile marketing campaign. A key issue in the case is whether text messages are subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), a law that was drafted before the advent of text messaging. Although the Ninth Circuit remanded the case so that the district court could develop more facts, the decision underscores the importance of ensuring that marketers get express consent before sending text messages to consumers. 

Background on the Case

Laci Satterfield became a registered user of Nextones in order to receive a free ring tone. During the registration process, Ms. Satterfield checked a box which read, in part: "I would like to receive promotions from Nextones affiliates and brands." On January 18, 2006, Ms. Satterfield received a text message from Simon & Schuster advertising a novel by Stephen King. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Satterfield filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Simon & Schuster's text message campaign violated the TCPA.

In June 2007, the Federal Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment to Simon & Schuster holding that the company did not violate the TCPA. Specifically, the court determined that the text message campaign did not violate the TCPA's prohibition against using an automatic telephone dialing system (an "ATDS") because the device used to send the messages did not fall within the statutory definition of an ATDS. Moreover, the court found that Ms. Satterfield had agreed to receive text messages when she registered for Nextones.

Ninth Circuit Opinion

On Friday, June 19, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court had erred because (1) the text message was a "call" within the meaning of the TCPA, (2) there was a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the system Simon & Schuster used was an ATDS, and that (3) Ms. Satterfield did not consent to receive messages from Simon & Schuster because Simon & Schuster is not an affiliate or brand of Nextones.

The TCPA applies to certain types of "calls." Simon & Schuster had argued that the sending of text messages did not constitute a "call" under the TCPA. Although the district court did not rule on that point, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with Simon & Schuster's argument. The term "call" is not defined by the TCPA. However, the Federal Communications Commission has noted that the statute

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the last month, AT&T sent another round of demand letters to prepaid card providers seeking access charges on prepaid card calls. AT&T sent the first round of such letters in the fall of 2008. Now, we are seeing signs that a second group of targets has received similar letters. In all of these letters, AT&T targets prepaid calling card providers who make available local telephone numbers as an alternative to 1-800 access numbers. In this scenario, the prepaid provider typically purchases local DID numbers from a CLEC, and resells this local service along with its prepaid card service. The arrangement is similar to "foreign exchange" service in that it provides a distant entity with a "local" presence, accessible by dialing a local number, instead of requiring customers to dial long distance. AT&T contends that the use is subject to its access tariffs, and has threatened lawsuits against prepaid providers that do not cease and desist from the practice.

AT&T's first round of letters prompted a dust-up in the FCC's pending intercarrier compensation docket.  More recently, Cinco Telecom, which received one of AT&T's second round of letters, asked the FCC for clarification in the face of AT&T's threats. This request was followed by a letter from One Communications, supporting the need for clarification. On June 15, 2009 AT&T filed a response to the Cinco Telecom Corp. letter. The response submitted by AT&T denounces any need for clarification, stating that the request is "unfounded because the Commission’s order is quite clear." But AT&T ignores the pending petition for reconsideration in the docket that asks for the very relief AT&T claims is clear. And AT&T still does not explain how its tariff enables it to bill a prepaid provider for traffic when the prepaid card provider does not subscribe to any AT&T service.

The letter is significant because AT&T opens a new front against prepaid card providers -- the payment of USF. Prepaid calling card providers, like other providers of telecommunications services, must contribute directly to the federal USF based on their interstate and international telecommunications revenues. In the letter, AT&T complains that by using local dialed numbers, prepaid card providers receive an intrastate service instead of an interstate service, thereby reducing the interstate revenues available to the USF. Tellingly, AT&T copies Enforcement Bureau staff, in a clear attempt to bring additional investigations upon prepaid card providers.

Only one thing is clear in this situation: AT&T and the prepaid card providers are far apart on this issue. We have not seen any evidence that AT&T has filed suit against a prepaid card provider, but that may just be a matter of time. Unless the FCC acts, of course. Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC has reversed a November decision by its Consumer Policy Division relating to alleged slamming by a VoIP provider. The Bureau's May 19 ruling granted a request to reconsider the Consumer Policy Division's November 6, 2008 decision that Mediacom, a VoIP provider, had violated the "slamming" rules by switching a customer from Verizon to Mediacom without following the FCC's prescribed procedures for authorizing carrier changes. The November Order of the Division stated that it had sought to contact Mediacom but gotten no response, and thus it applied a presumption of liability to Mediacom and held it liable for slamming. The new Bureau Order indicates that Mediacom had actually responded to the Division, but had misfiled it and thus the Division was unaware of the response at the time it ruled. Then, stating that "the Commission's carrier change rules have not been extended to VoIP", the Bureau rescinded the November Order and denied the slamming complaint against Mediacom. The Bureau noted that the FCC requested public comment on the application of the slamming rules to VoIP in 2004, but has never acted on that proposal.

This latest ruling remains consistent with the FCC's position that VoIP providers are only subject to carrier rules after the FCC explicitly decides to apply them; in contrast, more traditional carriers are obligated to observe all rules simply by virtue of being authorized to operate as common carriers. In light of the FCC's extension of the number porting rules to VoIP providers, however, it seems very likely that the slamming rules will be extened to VoIP sometime in the next several months.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the new chairman still awaiting Senate confirmation, it has been fairly quiet on the enforcement front the past few months. Yesterday was an exception, when the the FCC released an NAL proposing to fine a carrier $100,000 for failing to obtain a 214 from the FCC.  Although this order is significant, its timing most likely reflects the operation of the FCC's statute of limitations, rather than a revival of carrier enforcement activity. Absent a tolling agreement (which the Bureau apparently did not seek in this instance), the statute of limitations would have expired on June 18, one year after the carrier received its 214 in this instance. The Bureau thus had to release this order or lose the ability to fine the carrier for its action.

On the merits, the order is not surprising. The Enforcement Bureau proposed to fine a carrier $100,000 for initiating international service before obtaining FCC authorization pursuant to section 214 of the Communications Act. This marks the third time that the FCC has proposed a $100,000 forfeiture for failing to obtain a 214, indicating the FCC considers this the "base forfeiture" for such a violation.  However, the Bureau still has not explained why it is consistent with the statute to penalize a carrier $8,000 for an unauthorized transfer of control but 12 times that amount for the unauthorized operation of a carrier (which is like an unauthorized acquisition of a carrier). Until a carrier challenges the FCC's approach in court, we can expect to see more orders using the $100,000 base forfeiture for this type of violation.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link