Verizon Wireless was among telecom carriers filing petitions for ...

Verizon Wireless was among telecom carriers filing petitions for reconsideration last week on FCC’s building access order that lets building owners require relocation of network demarcation without getting approval of subscribers. Verizon Wireless contended order shouldn’t apply to commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) operators because their location of transmitters in multitenant environments didn’t raise same type of anticompetitive concerns that order addressed. “Because CMRS providers cannot affect competition by entering into exclusive access arrangements with building owners,” it said, there’s no credible reason to extend provisions of order to CMRS operators. CMRS providers generally don’t require access to building space or wiring to provide wireless service to tenants in building, Verizon said. Real Access Alliance contended FCC decision was mistaken on: (1) Role of building owners in development of facilities-based competition. (2) Scope of FCC’s authority to expand Over-the-Air- Reception Devices (OTARD) rule to include antennas used to receive and transmit data and voice communications. (3) Agency’s authority to interpret Sec. 224 of Communications Act to apply to facilities and rights inside buildings. “Building owners fall outside the Commission’s jurisdiction,” Alliance said. “The Commission concedes as much in the further notice of proposed rulemaking released with the orders, which seeks to achieve the CLECs’ goals by regulating carriers rather than property owners.” On narrower grounds, Wireless Communications Assn. (WCA) filed petition for partial reconsideration, asking FCC to clarify that safety exception of rule applied “to any professional installation requirements adopted by nonfederal authorities for subscriber premises fixed wireless transceivers that are protected by the rule.” WCA said exception prohibited “safety-related” antenna restrictions that would impair installation of subscriber premises fixed wireless antennas unless they met certain caveats, such as being nondiscriminatory. Triton Network Systems said that although it believed FCC properly expanded OTARD rule, it appeared “to have unintentionally excluded certain fixed wireless devices that should be appropriately covered.” Triton asked agency to clarify that restrictions weren’t designed to exclude certain fixed wireless devices deployed in consecutive point networks. Smart Buildings Policy Project also asked limited reconsideration.