It's official -- FCC regulatory fees are due on August 31. Here are the links you will need to make payment by the deadline:
FCC announcement of the August 31 deadline
FCC public notice -- Payment methods and procedures
FCC public notice - Fee filer system
FCC public notice -- ITSP fees (with payment code)
FCC public notice -- Commercial wireless fees (with payment code)
In July, we reported that the FCC had adopted its FY 2010 regulatory fee schedule. In past years, regulatory fees were due in September, usually in the third week of the month. However, it looks like this year's fee will be due significantly earlier -- by August 31, 2010.
The first hint of an earlier due date appears in the FCC Regulatory Fee Order released on July 9. The order did not establish a due date for regulatory fees, but the Commission stated that it intended to collect fees "during an August 2010 filing window." (see paragraph 1). That made us curious, but not convinced. Last week, however, the FCC released a public notice concerning fees for its radio and TV licensees. That public notice states that the media services fee is "due no later than 11:59 PM, ET, on August 31, 2010." This seems a pretty good indication that fees for all filers will be due earlier than in years past.
Given that late-paid regulatory fees are subject to a mandatory, non-waivable 25% late payment penalty, carriers should plan accordingly.
Following on the release of the 2010-11 TRS Fund contribution factor, the Commission today released its final regulatory fee schedule for FY 2010. The Commission adopted a telecommunications provider fee that is slightly lower than it proposed in April. The regulatory fee for telecommunications providers (including audio bridging providers) is $0.00349 per revenue dollar reported on the April 1, 2010 Form 499-A.
The Commission acknowledged that telecommunications providers pay 46% of all regulatory fees, which several carriers had argued is a disproportionately large percentage of the total amount collected by the FCC. (And I agree.) Recognizing these concerns, the Commission announced that it would be releasing a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to "rebalance" its regulatory fees in the future.
Regulatory fee payments will be due by the end of September and are subject to a 25% late payment penalty if not paid on time. As with last year, the FCC will not mail bills to telecommunications carriers. Carriers are required to check the FCC regulatory fee web page for payment information before the September due date.
We have a classic "man bites dog" story for you today: The FCC announced that its contribution factor for the fund that supports the Telecommunications Relay Service -- a telecom assistance service for persons with hearing or speech disabilities -- is decreasing by nearly 50%. Whereas last year's TRS contribution factor was 1.1% of telecom revenues, the 2010-11 factor is only 0.585% of telecom revenues.
However, this rate was lowered in part by a one-time application of a refund from the 2009-10 fund. Carriers can expect a slight increase in July 2011, after the one-time refund is exhausted.
The new rate is effective as of July 1. Carriers subject to the TRS fund (basically, any entity that files a FCC Form 499) should see the lower rate on their next invoice from the TRS administrator.
Kelley Drye's client advisory on the TRS reduction is available here.
The FCC order setting the TRS contribution factor is available here.
Despite issues over the FCC's jurisdiction in light of the Comcast decision, the FCC's Public Safety Bureau took a step toward possible extension of the FCC's outage reporting requirements to broadband service providers and providers of interconnected VoIP services. In a July 2 Public Notice, the Bureau seeks comment "in advance of" a possible Commission rulemaking proceeding. The comment request in many ways presumes that the outage reporting rules should apply, and asks a number of questions about how they could apply and what changes might be necessary in light of the different technologies involved. Clearly, the Bureau is seeking to do its homework before the Commission initiates a rulemaking proceeding.
Continue Reading...Yesterday, the FCC launched a review of its data collection practices, which it termed its "Data Innovation Initiative." Most relevant to the scope of this blog is the inventory of compliance obligations released by each FCC Bureau. The FCC's notice highlights just how extensive the reporting obligations are for carriers and other regulated entities.
The Data Innovation Initiative public notice is available here. As described by the FCC, the Initiative is designed "to modernize and streamline how [the Commission] collects, uses and disseminates data." Accompanying the initiative are three public notices establishing comment periods concerning the data collection requirements adopted by each of the main three bureaus -- Wireline Competition, Wireless Telecommunications and Media. Each bureau's public notice is accompanied by an "inventory" of data collection activities approved by the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB"). The inventories list the following number of data collection requirements:
Wireline Competition Bureau inventory: 104 data collection requirements
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau inventory: 96 data collection requirements
Media Bureau inventory: 140 data collection requirements
Yesterday, I attended a bar association event featuring the FCC's Enforcement Bureau. There were no newsworthy revelations made during the session, but the Bureau distributed an updated organizational chart and contact list. I'm attaching the materials here and will be adding them to our resource links on the right hand column of the blog.
A diverse group of telecom companies and trade groups have jointly submitted a supporting brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Paetec v. CommPartners appeal. The Joint Brief includes ILECS like AT&T and Verizon, CLECs like Neutral Tandem, and normally contrary trade associations like USTA and the VON Coalition. Although these parties have wildly divergent views on how the VoIP access charge dispute should be resolved, they all agree that the Court of Appeals should decide the issue now. The Joint Brief states that the parties submitting "have differing views about the merits" of the district court ruling, "but all agree that a decision from" the Court of Appeals is desirable to clarify the situation for all concerned.
No one knows for sure, but the many pending cases and disputes on VoIP access charges collectively probably have hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. The FCC has exerted much effort to avoid making a decision on the court referrals and various petitions that it has received on the subject since 2005.
Continue Reading...The FCC took a flurry of actions at yesterday's monthly open meeting. Fulfilling this blog's role as your resource for news and helpful links, below is your guide to yesterday's actions.
Wireless Market Report: The Commission adopted its 14th Annual Report on the state of the wireless market. Among other things, this report was controversial because it refused to make an "effective competition" judgment on the wireless market. The report also expands coverage beyond CMRS to address the broader mobile marketplace.
Number Porting: The Commission released a Report and Order shortening the time interval for "simple" ports. This action will particularly affect wireline-to-wireless ports, and might accelerate the trend of "cut the cord" conversions.
Pole Attachments: The Commission made a number of changes to its rules governing the rights of cable and competitive telecommunications providers to hang facilities on utility poles. The order also proposes a number of changes to the pole attachment complaint rules.
Universal Service: The Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to modify its "e-rate" rules, which support discounts for schools and libraries for internet access and other services.
Broadband Spectrum: The Commission adopted rules to make available another 25 MHz of spectrum for mobile braodband use.
REMINDER: For more information on many of these topics, peruse our links on the right hand side of this page.
A month after the Court of Appeals reversed the FCC's Comcast decision, FCC Chairman Genachowski announced a "third way" to regulate broadband transmission lawfully. The Chairman released a statement describing his "third way" along with a memo from the General Counsel asserting its legality. Commissioner Copps, who publicly advocated reclassification of braodband internet access services to Title II, praised Genachowski's solution (though he still prefers reclassification). Meanwhile, Commissioners McDowell and Baker, the two Republicans on the Commission, declared the proposal "disappointing" and "deeply concern[ing]."
The battle has only begun.
Continue Reading...The Wireline Competition Bureau of the FCC has overruled a USAC finding that an internet services provider should pay universal service fund assessments on T-1s that the company uses to provide internet access and voice services. The order is available here. In U.S. TelePacific Corp. the Universal Service Adminstrative Company concluded that revenues received by TelePacific Corp from its sale of internet access services, sometimes coupled with voice service, should be subject to assessment for universal service fund contributions. According to the Bureau, USAC had reached its finding "solely because the facilities (T-1 lines) ... are typically used for basic transmission service." The Bureau reversed this conclusion, stating that even though TelePacific was utilizing T-1 lines it "is not required to make contribution based on revenues from sales of [internet access] service."
Notably, the Bureau did not decide an ancillary question raised in the proceeding -- whether TelePacific should have contributed indirectly to the federal universal service fund on T1 wholesale inputs purchased from incumbent LECs. Instead, the FCC instructed TelePacific to take two further actions within 60 days. First, it requested a "detailed explanation of the methodology by which TelePacific apportions revenues derived from its sale to end users of voice telephony...and how it reports such revenues" on its USF forms. TelePacific represented in the inquiry that it allocates its revenue among the services it sells and pays into the universal service fund on the amounts attributed to voice services. Second, TelePacific was told to "provide USAC with the names and contact information of its wholesale providers of transmission services within 60 days .., so that USAC can assure that all contributions to universal service are promptly paid." In a footnote, the Order explains that TelePacific may have erroneously certified itself as a resale carrier to its wholesale vendors which, in turn, "may have impacted the amount of revenues that TelePacific's wholesale provider reported."
On April 21, 2010, the FCC issued a Notice regarding proposed universal service reforms. The document is 28 pages long plus some lengthy appendices. The Notice itself is divided into a Notice of Inquiry section discussing steps to implement the Connect America Fund proposed in the National Broadband Plan, and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing specific ideas about reducing amounts currently committed to the High Cost Support portion of the USF program. The High Cost Support aspect of USF consumes about half the total of $8 billion now spent on universal service support each year. The procedural difference between the NOI and the NPRM portions is this: a Notice of Inquiry generally cannot be followed by the adoption of rules without first issuing a follow-on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Thus, an NOI tends to be more ethereal and not focused on near term action. The NPRM portion, on the other hand, can result in rules to be adopted at any time after the expiration of the public comment period. The FCC itself described the Notice as "the first in a series of proceedings to implement" the National Broadband Plan.
Public comments on the Notices are due 60 days from publication in the Federal Register, and Reply comments are due 30 days later.
On April 13, the FCC released its proposed schedule of FY 2010 FCC Regulatory Fees. By law, the FCC is obligated to collect $335 million in fees in FY 2010 from the entities that it regulates. This order identifies how the FCC proposes to allocate the fees. Among the highlights:
The Commission has requested comment on these proposals. It will adopt a final regulatory fee schedule in July. Regulatory fee payments will be due by the end of September and are subject to a 25% late payment penalty if not paid on time.
Form 499-Q Quarterly Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet
Carriers required to contribute to universal service support mechanisms must report their actual and projected end user and wholesale revenues for each calendar quarter by filing Form 499Q on a quarterly basis. The Form 499-Q filing for first quarter 2010 is due to USAC by May 1, 2010.
Thursday, April 8, 2010, the FCC released its Broadband Action Agenda describing the purpose and timing of more than 60 rulemakings and other actions the agency plans to conduct in order to implement its recently issued National Broadband Plan. The FCC News Release can be found here and the more detailed, 10 page Agenda is here. In addition, the Commission issued a one page chart of its proposed action items showing the actions that it hopes to initiate, with each such action listed by the quarter of the year in which it is expected to occur.
Among topics primarily covered by this blog, a few items stand out. In connection with the Universal Service Fund, reform of USF distribution is scheduled for 2Q 2010 (it is on the April 21 Meeting agenda, actually), but contribution reform is not scheduled to begin until the end of the year. Access charges, VoIP and other intercarrier compensation issues are given a 4Q 2010 start date. CLEC interconnection rights with rural ILECs are slated to be "clarified" in 3Q 2010. Pole attachment reforms -- which presumably will include the formal complaint process improvements we described in a previous post -- are slated for 2Q 2010.
Continue reading for more detail on the agenda.
REMINDER: These and other broadband plan documents can be accessed using our Resource Center on the right hand column of this page.
Continue Reading...The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit vacated the FCC's decision declaring illegal Comcast's 2007 blocking of P2P internet traffic. This decision is not surprising, given how poorly the oral argument went for the FCC. (see our post here).
Click here to download the Court's decision. We will post a discussion of the jurisdictional issue later.
UPDATE 4/6/10: The Court of Appeals vacated the FCC Order because the Commission had not adequately justified its exercise of Title I "ancillary" authority over Comcast's network management practices. Discussing at length appellate Title I jurisdiction cases over the last 40 years, the Court in essence held that the FCC failed to relate Internet network management to common carrier telephone service (Title II), broadcast service (Title II) or cable TV service (Title VI). One quote from the decision sums up the conclusion: "On the record before us, we see 'no relationship whatever' between the Order and services subject to Commission regulation." In other words, the FCC must connect its assertion of authority to something that it indisputably can regulate.
Since the decision was released, there has been much discussion about whether the FCC will reclassify Internet access services as Title II common carrier services. While it is premature to predict these issues with any confidence, one alternative not being discussed is to accept the Court's invitation to connect regulation of Internet access service with regulation of pure transmission services. In the Wireline Broadband Order, the Martin Commission concluded that Internet access did not have a separate transmission component. The decision today may lead the Commission to reverse that determination -- and find that a separate transmission component is inherent in the offering -- so that it may then regulate bundled Internet access due to its impact on stand alone transmission services.
Finally, I note that the Court did not address the enforceability of the Policy Statement itself. As a result, the potential impact on the Universal Service Fund's Form 499-A instructions did not come to pass. Maybe next time.
On March 16, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced the release of the National Broadband Plan (the “Plan”). The Plan outlines sweeping proposals intended to accelerate broadband access and adoption throughout the United States that will be implemented over the coming years. Over the coming months, the FCC will launch a series of rulemakings to seek public comment and adopt rules to implement these proposals. Broadband and telecommunications providers should expect these proceedings will be a key focus of the FCC for the next several years.
Among the Plan’s chief recommendations are proposals that would give the FCC and other policymakers an enhanced role in establishing and enforcing pro-consumer policies, including mandating heightened disclosure requirements for broadband service providers, publishing market-by-market analyses of broadband pricing and competition, and enhancing online privacy protections. The Plan also calls for the FCC to: increase the amount of spectrum available for allocation through the use of incentive auctions; expand the amount of spectrum available for unlicensed use; and increase the transparency of spectrum allocation in general. Further, the Plan includes recommendations to speed the development and adoption of technologies that touch on a wide range of policy objectives from health care to public safety to energy efficiency.
Today, the FCC released its proposed Universal Service contribution factor for the second quarter of 2010. As predicted, it is 15.3% The new rate will go into effect starting April 1, 2010.
The DC area has been hit with back to back snowstorms since February 5, causing the FCC to close for four straight days. This is the first time I can remember the FCC being closed for such a long time period.
We are starting to see the impact of the closure. The FCC's open meeting originally scheduled for today has been postponed a week, to February 18th. The FCC's electronic docketing systems have not been updated since mid-day on Friday, February 5th, putting significant strains on many proceedings before the Commission. I have one proceeding, for example, where comments were due on the 5th. Maybe half of all comments appear in the docket so far, and the February 22 reply date is rapidly approaching. I hope the FCC will grant an extension of the reply date when it finally opens again.
Kudos to all those snowplow operators, emergency services personnel and utility technicians who have toiled so long and hard in what turned out to be a blizzard we will remember forever.
Continuing its recent custom, the FCC quickly sought comment on two Universal Service Appeals. The issues involved in these appeals include classification of information services, classification of reseller revenues and identification of subscriber line charge (SLC) revenues. Carriers offering similar services take note.
Telepacific Appeal and Request for Stay. In this appeal, Telepacific seeks reversal of USAC's classification of an integrated T-1 service as telecommunications. Telepacific contends that its service is an information service based on the FCC's 2005 Wireline Broadband Internet Access Order. Telepacific also seeks a stay of the instruction that it refile a Form 499-A consistent with USAC's decision. Comments are due January 29; replies February 3.
USF filers should note that this appeal did not result from a USAC audit. Instead, Telepacific attempted to revise its 499-A form, and USAC raised questions about the revision. Ultimately, USAC disagreed with the classification reflected in the revision and rejected the filing. In my view, USAC's rejection is procedurally improper. All Form 499-As are certified by an officer of the company under penalty of perjury. USAC should be obligated to accept and process a revision properly certified by an officer.
Grande Communications. In this appeal, Grande challenges three conclusions made in an audit of its 2004, 2005 and 2006 revenues. First, Grande challenges USAC presumption that Grande assessed an interstate Subscriber Line Charge (SLC). Second, Grande challenges USAC's classification of a wireline broadband Internet access service as telecommunications for a portion of the audit period. Finally, Grande challenges USAC's reclassification of Grande reseller revenues, including at least one instance where USAC is seeking to collect USF from Grande and Grande's reseller customer simultaneously.
Comments on the Grande appeal are due February 18. Replies are due March 5.
Full Disclosure: Kelley Drye represents Grande in its appeal.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has upheld the FCC's November 5, 2008 ruling continuing the rate cap on CLEC intercarrier charges for dial-up Internet calls. In Core Communications v. FCC, decided January 12, 2009, the Court found "no legal error in the Commission's analysis" and thus affirmed the agency's decision. This ruling presumably ends a protracted set of challenges and judicial examinations of the FCC's efforts to limit CLEC charges for receiving ISP bound calls.
Continue Reading...Yesterday, the DC Circuit held oral argument on Comcast's appeal of the FCC's ruling that Comcast ilegally blocked P2P traffic in its broadband Internet service. By all accounts, the argument went poorly for the FCC. If the FCC indeed loses the case, it could have implications for enforcement of federal Universal Service Fund (USF) contribution obligations too.
Some of the best summaries appear in MultiChannel News, The Blog of the Legal Times and Enterprise Networking Planet. The argument went so poorly that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski issued what amounts to a "vote of confidence" for the enforcement order. And we know how well those things work out for NFL coaches.
It appears that the FCC might lose because the court feels the FCC lacks authority over broadband Internet service providers. That would have a significant impact on the FCC's activities, particularly with the Commission on the verge of adopting (and then implementing) a National Broadband Plan.
A more narrow ground also could have significant impact on Universal Service. One argument made by Comcast was that the FCC Order is unlawful because the Commission was enforcing a 2005 Policy Statement, not an actual law. The FCC can enforce obligations that are legally binding -- statutes, properly adopted rules and lawful FCC orders. But a policy statement is not itself enforceable. Its enforceability depends on the underlying legal obligations that the Commission is interpreting. If the only "authority" relied upon is the Policy Statement, the FCC would lose.
The Policy Statement is a shortcut to the harder task of adopting specific and enforceable obligations, typically through rulemaking. The FCC is taking a similar shortcut with its Universal Service rules. In a series of FCC Orders, the Commission has created a federal USF and established rules for who must contribute to the Fund and on what revenues. Each year, the FCC releases an FCC Form 499A for contributors to report their revenues for assessment purposes. The 499A comes with 30+ pages of instructions. The instructions purport to mandate a variety of actions by contributors, and they are frequently modified without any change in the underlying FCC rules or orders.
The problem is that USAC acts as if the instructions are binding rules. It is increasingly becoming more aggressive in audits and enforcement actions, relying on specific instructions that never were subject to notice and comment rulemaking, were not adopted by the FCC and could not be appealed. If the FCC loses the Comcast case because the Policy Statement is not enforceable, it will have to return to enforcing actual law. Hopefully, such an outcome will reign in USAC's reliance on non-binding instructions, too. If so, it will not be a moment too soon.
Tucked inside a semi-annual report released over the holidays, the FCC's Inspector General revealed that its most recent round of audits of the Universal Service Fund included, for the first time, an effort to identify entities that failed to contribute to the fund. The IG contracted with an independent accounting firm to compare state PUC listings of active telecom companies with the USAC 499 filer database.
This led to 50 letters sent in September 2009 to companies that had not filed a 499-A. Of these 50 targets, 23 had responded by the end of the reporting period (Sept. 30). The other group -- slightly more than half -- had not yet responded to the IG's letter. However, this sample was taken from only six states. The IG estimates that as many as 1,000 non-filing companies may exist in 32 states.
Although the IG lacks enforcement power, potential targets of the IG effort should be cautious. The IG likely will refer non-filers to the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, where they could be subject to substantial penalties after an Enforcement Bureau investigation. For example, in January 2009, the FCC proposed a fine against a small provider that filed four months late in the year that it slightly surpassed the de minimis threshold for contributions. The FCC's proposed fine was $672,000, even though the highest amount of USF owed was alleged to be $22,000.
With respect to its contributor audits, the IG reports that 12 audits conducted in 2009 are close to resolution. According to the IG, three of the audits conclude that a wholesale carrier overstated reseller revenues. This has been a frequent subject of USF appeals, leading to one FCC decision in August 2009 (now subject to an application for review) and a half dozen other appeals pending before the FCC. It appears that more are on the way.
Although advertised as a "policy framework" for the National Broadband Plan, Wednesday's presentation to the FCC looks more like a "to do" list for Chairman Genachowski's 2010 agenda. A number of suggestions will be very controversial, including ensuring "productive" use of spectrum (especially TV broadcast spectrum), spurring competition for TV set-top boxes, and measuring "advertised vs. actual" broadband speeds. Most relevant to this blog's focus are the reforms of USF and the FCC Formal Complaint Process.
USF Reform. Staff emphasized that USF should be refocused to support broadband, and suggested a 5-10 year transition. Increases in broadband support would come with "trade-offs", primarily in the form of cuts in high cost support, but with all funding programs being reformed. The long-discussed Lifeline support for broadband services may be growing legs. Finally, "sustainability" would be the driving force for reforming the USF contribution base (no doubt, spurred by concerns over the new 14% USF factor next quarter).
FCC Formal Complaints. A number of enforcement reforms were discussed to promote infrastructure deployment. In particular, the Staff urged "timely and predictable" dispute resolution by the FCC's Enforcement Bureau of pole attachment requests and development of a uniform rental rate to replace a rate that varies by the type of provider attaching to the pole. FCC mandates to decrease the "make-ready" work a pole owner performs and to impose deadlines for current attachers to perform "make-ready" work may be on the horizon too.
The FCC press release and Staff's presentation are available here and here. The FCC will adopt the National Broadband Plan by February 17, 2010.
As we do regularly in this blog, we preview significant items to be presented at the FCC's upcoming monthly meeting. This month it is easy, because the FCC's agenda includes only one item: an update on the development of the National Broadband Plan.
At the December 16th meeting, the FCC staff will present an update on the status of the National Broadband Plan, and particularly, on the "policy framework" for the Plan. With the National Broadband Plan due to be adopted by February 17, 2010, this update likely will include the first disclosure of the major components of the plan. Word is that the Plan will recommend ways to re-focus the federal Universal Service Fund to support broadband connections, and may include suggestions for phasing out some existing USF support in order to replace it with broadband support.
In addition, the update may discuss proposals to examine TV broadcast spectrum as a possible source of mobile broadband service. The possibility of authorizing broadcasters to use or lease spectrum for this purpose, or, even more radically, to reallocate broadcast spectrum to other licensees, has been floated by wireless interests in the past few months. While certain FCC personnel have indicated a willingness to investigate this possibility, the views of the Commissioners -- the ones whose votes count -- are unclear. We will be watching the FCC meeting with anticipation.
As it does annually at this time, the FCC established its regulatory fee assessment methodology for 2009. For the past few years, Congress has mandated that the FCC recover the majority of its $350 million plus budget from companies within the FCC's jurisdiction via the regulatory fee.
In the Order, the FCC established a regulatory fee for telecommunications carriers of $0.00342 per dollar of interstate and international end user revenues. This is a slight increase over the factor from a year ago. Assessable revenues are determined by a carrier's 2009 Form 499-A, which was filed in April. Regulatory fee payments are due by the end of September and are subject to a 25% late payment penalty if not paid on time. Carriers can find payment information here.
One aspect of the Regulatory Fee Order bears emphasis. The FCC estimates that it will collect $160 million from telecommunications carriers via this fee. That is 47% of the $342 million the FCC expects to collect in regulatory fees, and is, by far, the single largest category of contributions via the fee. This seems disproportionate in view of the many other activities of the Commission. In future years, telecom carriers should study the FCC's calculations more closely and perhaps seek modifications that more fairly reflect the level of regulatory activity associated with telecom services.
Finally, the FCC has a de minimis threshold for collection of the regulatory fee, but the $10 threshold is far too low. By contrast, the de minimis threshold for federal universal service fund contributions is $10,000. Small carriers, especially those that are de minimis for USF purposes, should consider arguing for a higher threshold in future years.
Six months after Obama took office, it seems that the FCC is almost, finally ready to get moving. The Mignon Clyburn (D) and Meredith Baker (R) nominations were approved by the Senate this week. With these confirmations, we will have the full five-member Commission in place for the August 27 open meeting.
In addition, Chairman Genachowski continues to designate his Bureau and senior staff. Yesterday, Genachowski announced two appointments relevant to the scope of this blog. First, in the Wireline Competition Bureau, Genachowski announced that Sharon Gillett will become Chief of the Bureau. Ms. Gillett is Director of the Massachusetts Broadband Institute and previously served as head of the Massachusetts equivalent to the FCC and worked as a professor at M.I.T. The announcement notes her academic work maintained "a particular focus on broadband." Clearly, at least in the short term, this Commission's number 1 goal (and goals numbered 2, 3 and 4) is going to be broadband deployment. Ms. Gillett will take office on August 28.
In the Enforcement Bureau, Genachowski announced that Suzanne Tetreault will become Deputy Chief of the Enforcement Bureau. Ms. Tetreault has served in a variety of positions in the Wireline Competition Bureau, Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau and the Office of General Counsel. Kris Monteith, the current Bureau Chief, will become Deputy Chief of the Media Bureau, effective August 10. At that point, Ms. Tetreault will become Acting Chief of the Bureau. The designation of Ms. Tetreault as an Acting Chief signals that Genachowski intends to fill the Enforcement Bureau Chief slot with a person not currently employed by the Commission. I would expect that announcement fairly soon.
FCC Chairman Genachowski today announced that Austin Schlick will become the next General Counsel of the FCC and that Steven VanRoekel will be its new Managing Director. Mr. Schlick has previously served at the FCC, at the Department of Justice (where he argued seven cases to the Supreme Court), as a legislative assistant to a Senator, in private practice, and he has clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court (Justice O’Connor). Mr. VanRoekel has spent 15 years at Microsoft, including serving as Speech and Strategy Assistant to Bill Gates.
In addition, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, July 15 on the nominations of Mignon Clyburn (D) and Meredith Baker (R) for the remaining two FCC Commissioner slots. The hearing is expected to be non-controversial and, when completed, will put the FCC at full force for the first time this year.
After opening remarks from new Chairman Genachowski and Commissioner Copps, the FCC outlined its schedule and process for the creation of a National Broadband Plan by February 17, 2010, as mandated by Congress. The process will involve all Bureaus within the agency and will start with a series of workshops on 21 topics to be held starting August 12 and ending September 3. The FCC also launched a new website, www.broadband.gov, to make information about the process available to the public. That website will give the list of specific workshop topics and dates. For those interested in participating or monitoring the workshops, the FCC promised to post the names of the staff coordinators by July 16, the final list of topics by July 23, and the list of formal participants by August 5. After the workshops have been completed on September 3, the FCC will accept public comments about matters addressed in the workshops until September 11. Following that hectic schedule, the FCC expects to provide a formal response to the GAO by December 8, 2009, issue its “Section 706” Report by February 3, 2010, and then its final National Broadband Plan by February 17, 2010 (as the statute requires). The agency also indicated that it expects the Broadband Mapping project to be done by February 17, 2010 as well, since the mapping is important to the final Plan.
Click here for the full FCC Commission Meeting - The FCC and Broadband: The Next 230 Days.
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.
Late last night, the FCC announced its agenda for its May 13 Open Meeting. Highlighting the agenda are items relating to VoIP provider discontinuance obligations and LNP deadlines.
VoIP
The FCC announced that it plans to “consider a Report and Order concerning the requirements of interconnected VoIP providers when discontinuing service.” This is sort of a stealth item on the agenda, as there has been virtually no discussion in the docket on this issue in the most recent months.
We hear that the FCC is likely to impose notice requirements similar to those that apply for traditional telecommunications carriers. This will continue a trend for interconnected VoIP where the FCC has imposed, one-by-one, obligations traditionally held by telecommunications carriers while steadfastly refusing to classify interconnected VoIP services. In today’s state of affairs, interconnected VoIP has nearly all of the burdens of regulation but few of the benefits. The most significant outstanding issue continues to be the application of access charges to interconnected VoIP. This topic has been a subject of litigation for some time.
Number Porting
The FCC will address porting intervals and related standards for the transfer of telephone numbers between carriers when a customer switches service providers. Cable providers in particular are pushing for a maximum interval of one-day for simple wireline to wireline and intermodal porting requests. The Order could also further address the information that carriers may require in order to implement a porting request, response intervals for customer service requests (CSRs) and other concerns raised regarding fair competition among providers.
Changes at the FCC moved one step closer to fruition this week. On March 25, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee confirmed that the White House has transmitted the nomination of Julius Genachowski to be Chairman of the FCC. No word yet on when the Senate will conduct confirmation hearings.
Meanwhile, Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, whose term had expired in 2008, has been nominated to head the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) within the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The RUS oversees grants and loans to support rural broadband service, and will have the responsibility to distribute $2.5 billion in stimulus money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Commissioner Adelstein has a history of supporting service in rural America.
We can think of no one better equipped to run the RUS in this important time for the entity.
The “Obama FCC” took one giant step toward reality today when President Obama formally announced his “intention to nominate” Julius Genachowski as Chairman of the FCC. Genachowski’s nomination has been expected for some time, but apparently was delayed when President Obama revamped his process for vetting candidates after several high-profile withdrawals by key nominees.
Genachowski comes with stellar credentials including two Supreme Court clerkships, a prior stint as advisor to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt and several years at Barry Diller’s Internet company, IAC. Virtually every telecom organization took turns today praising the incoming chairman.
Genachowski is expected to further President Obama’s policies to promote broadband deployment and net neutrality. Genachowski’s nomination must be approved by the Senate, so he may not formally take office for a few months.
Enter keywords:
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.