FCC Comr. Abernathy said at Thurs. press breakfast that she expec...

FCC Comr. Abernathy said at Thurs. press breakfast that she expected Commission to act before one-year anniversary of Verizon Wireless petition for forbearance on wireless local number portability (LNP) requirements. Verizon last July asked forbearance on requirement that carriers began providing wireless LNP capabilities by Nov. 24 of this year. If FCC doesn’t act on such forbearance petitions within one year of original filing, they're automatically granted unless agency grants temporary extension. Abernathy told reporters that range of dates under discussion to give wireless carriers more time appeared to be between 6 months advocated by public safety groups in recent filings and year or more, which she advocated. Asked whether last week’s U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., ruling that vacated certain line-sharing and unbundled network element (UNE) requirements would make it harder to impose Internet access requirements on MSOs or other service providers, she said: “I don’t think it has done that… We are trying to figure out exactly what the standard is that the court articulated in that decision.” D.C. Circuit had remanded FCC orders on line-sharing requirements and UNEs, handing ILECs victories in both cases (CD May 28 p1). Commission still is examining what “reasonable” interpretation of that decision would be. “We are still working through that, it’s very complex,” Abernathy said. In some regards, FCC is “fortunate” because notice of proposed rulemaking already is examining issues that court had highlighted as needing more justification by Commission. Example, she said, is that FCC is seeking comment on issues such as national list of UNEs. “We have already asked if additional granularity is required in this area,” she said. “It certainly gives us some more information about the court’s thinking when it comes to under what circumstances do you force line-sharing, under what circumstances do you impose unbundling requirements,” Abernathy said. Asked whether Commission still had maneuvering room to require cable operators to carry unaffiliated ISPs, she said, “I think that’s still an option.” She said she hadn’t spoken directly to Gen. Counsel’s office on issue, but it still appeared to be option, although Commission would need to justify such step. “You can’t just do it because you think it’s nice.” Asked about recent series of cases in which Supreme Court has gone different way than circuit courts on issues such as TELRIC and pole attachments, Abernathy acknowledged, “it is frustrating.” But she said Commission was obligated to abide by Circuit Court rulings in such cases unless Supreme Court held otherwise. On recent legal challenge to FCC’s classification of cable modem service as information, Abernathy said agency’s order was “very well written. I feel very strongly that we should be able to win that.” Local govt. groups recently announced they were asking U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., to review that decision.