Rainbow/PUSH Coalition filed notice of appeal of FCC’s rejection of its EEO complaint against KWMU(FM) St. Louis, saying Commission had failed adequately to consider evidence in case. Coalition had asked FCC to deny license renewal for station, but FCC imposed total of only $8,000 in fines. Notice said FCC failed to consider most of individual pieces of evidence presented by Coalition, as well as “the totality of that evidence,” and referred only to individual discrimination complaints to EEOC. Coalition called action arbitrary and departure from precedent.
FCC will allow BellSouth to waive 90-day period for providing colocation after application is received it said in order Wed. BellSouth sought same type of waiver Commission has granted Verizon and SBC, raising question whether 90-day interval was reasonable. Agency conditioned waiver on BS’s compliance with alternative application processing and provisioning standards for physical colocation identical to standards set for SBC and Verizon. BellSouth must implement those standards in states where no standards for colocation have been set, in this case, Ala., N.C., Tenn. Interim standards are based on N.Y. PSC’s that ILEC must notify requesting carrier within 8 business days of receipt of colocation application. CLECs are entitled to obtain colocation space within 76 business days when space is available. In major construction or special requirement situations, provision must be completed in 91 business days. Additions to existing colocation arrangements must be completed within 45 business days. BellSouth may extend provisioning interval by no more than 60 calendar days if ordering CLEC hasn’t provided timely or accurate forecast of colocation needs. BellSouth must file with state commissions any amendments necessary to bring its Statement of Generally Available Terms or colocation tariffs into compliance with interim standards within 15 days. Standards will take effect 60 days after amendments are filed and at earliest possible point permissible under state law for tariffs.
In oral argument Wed., U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., wrestled with question of how DSL ISP-bound traffic should be regulated, with attorneys from all sides acknowledging debate that fell into series of advanced services issues under Telecom Act that still were working their way through courts and remand process. Some arguments centered on whether DSL-based advanced services should be subject to same unbundling services that ILECs face under Sec. 251(c) of Telecom Act. One apparent area of agreement was that based on same court’s action last year vacating reciprocal compensation order, remand to FCC should have been sought for related issues in order on DSL traffic. In earlier ruling, court cited confusion on definition of ISP traffic, whether it was telephone exchange service, exchange access or 3rd category. In that decision, court remanded ruling, saying FCC hadn’t provided satisfactory explanation of why LECs that terminated calls to ISPs weren’t properly seen as terminating local telecom traffic and why such traffic was exchange access rather than telephone exchange access. On Wed., court heard separate appeals filed by Qwest and WorldCom on advanced services order released by FCC in 1999. WorldCom argued that Commission incorrectly concluded DSL ISP- bound traffic was exchange access and not telephone exchange access. It cited reciprocal compensation ruling last year that held that ISPs didn’t connect to local exchanges for purpose of origination or termination of telephone toll services. “These things are tripping over each other,” FCC attorney John Ingle acknowledged to court Wed. “We think in hindsight we should have asked for a 2nd remand. We do at some level have some embarrassment. We probably should have done that.” Judges David Sentelle, Stephen Williams and Judith Rogers heard arguments. WorldCom attorney Darryl Bradford urged court not simply to remand order but to vacate it. Qwest attorney Jonathan Frankel said Telecom Act didn’t change fact that different rules applied to different services. Unbundling requirements of Sec. 251(c) should apply to LEC based on specific service being offered, not all services that particular classification of telecom carriers offered, he said. Otherwise, “it turns 251(c) into a ball and chain that incumbents carry with them into every new market they enter,” Frankel said. Referring to what he called “fearmongering” in FCC’s brief, he said: “This appeal is about how DSL will be regulated, not whether it will be.” WorldCom arguments hinged on DSL ISP-bound traffic’s being telephone exchange service, not exchange access. Telecom Act forecloses conclusion that ISPs connect to local exchanges for purpose of origination or termination of telephone toll services, WorldCom said. Darryl Bradford, attorney for WorldCom, told court that ISPs provide information service and aren’t telecom providers that are connecting to local exchanges to terminate traffic.
Robert M. Silliman, 87, consulting engineer who designed first widely accepted FM antenna as industry standard, died of pneumonia Feb. 11 in Baltimore retirement home. After graduating from U. of Minn., he joined FCC in 1937, leaving in 1942 to go to Harvard U. Radio Research Lab, where in World War II he was involved in efforts to jam Germany’s radar. In 1946 he formed consulting firm that he headed until suffering stroke in 1996. Silliman also was officer of Electronics Research Inc., where he was active in designing TV antennas on Empire State Bldg. in N.Y., John Hancock Center in Chicago and other tall buildings. He was former pres. of Assn. of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers and received NAB Lifetime Radio Engineering Achievement Award in 1993. Wife, 3 daughters, son survive.
FCC denied Global Naps petition to review its decision not to preempt Mass. Dept. of Telecom & Energy (DTE) authority after latter dismissed company’s complaint on interconnection agreements with Bell Atlantic in N.J. and Va. FCC in Feb. 21 order said Common Carrier Bureau had acted lawfully. FCC said Global Naps hadn’t provided basis for finding that Mass. DTE had “failed to act” on Global Naps’ complaint.
Four large TV group owners are devising plan to assure FCC exactly when they will give up analog Ch. 60-69 in planned switch to digital transmissions, Pax TV CEO Lowell Paxson said. After speaking at Federal Communications Bar Assn. lunch Wed. in Washington, he parried all reporters’ questions about what plan would entail, saying: “I'll get this plan to you when we finish it” in 2-4 weeks. In answer to another question, he said “it'll all come out in the plan.” He identified other licensees involved as Univision, Shop at Home and Pappas Telecasting -- which, Paxson said, represented more than 40% of 136 stations currently assigned to analog Ch. 60-69 which are to be auctioned to nonbroadcast users. Saying FCC Chmn. Powell had referred to upcoming switch to DTV as “a train wreck,” Paxson said to Powell (who wasn’t in audience): “You're the engineer now. Get us back on track.” Paxson said FCC’s recent rulemaking on DTV issues (CD Jan 22 p1) indicated agency was asking for direction from Congress. He urged Commission to hold hearings on transition to digital rather than solicit more comments. He said Pax TV Network was in black after 27 months of operation -- primarily due to help of NBC, although he didn’t mention that network -- while he said WB and UPN continued to lose money after several years of operation. Meanwhile, Moody’s (citing help from NBC) issued “outlook stable” notice on Paxson’s $122 million credit facility and $230 million in 11.625% notes, both due next year.
U.S. Supreme Court rejected attempt by Time Warner Entertainment (TWE) to challenge constitutionality of law limiting number of cable subscribers that single company could control. Acting without comment Tues., court declined to hear TWE’s appeal of U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., decision last May that unanimously upheld constitutionality of 1992 Cable Act provisions restricting MSOs’ ownership of cable systems and programming (CD May 22 p4). TWE, joint venture of AOL Time Warner and AT&T, argued that law’s subscriber limits and channel occupancy rules violated First Amendment protections of free speech for cable operators. But appeals court said both provisions were content-neutral and advanced important govt. interests. In separate, case now before same appeals court, AOL Time Warner and AT&T are challenging actual 30% subscriber and 40% channel occupancy limits set by FCC under Cable Act. Ruling in that case, in which oral arguments were heard in Oct., is expected soon. Representatives of AOL Time Warner, AT&T and NCTA declined comment. Gene Kimmelman, co-dir. of Consumers Union’s Washington office, called Supreme Court ruling “an important win for consumers” and said it “reaffirms that Congress can challenge the monopolistic practices of cable operators.”
AT&T, Concert and WorldCom jointly petitioned FCC, requesting that agency enforce benchmark settlement rate of 15 cents per min for service on U.S.-Qatar route. Rate is required under Commission’s 1997 benchmarks order, companies said. Order requires carriers in countries that are classified as upper income nations, including Qatar, have settlement rate that doesn’t exceed 15 cents per min to conduct revenue settlements on service provided with U.S., companies said. AT&T, Concert and WorldCom told FCC they hadn’t been able to reach agreement with Qatar Telecom that complied with benchmark rate. AT&T and WorldCom asked that Commission enforce its benchmarks order by requiring that no U.S. carrier pay settlement rate that exceeded 15 cents for service with Qatar. Comments are due March 22, replies April 6.
Records of Bell companies in providing services to CLECs and RBOCs’ own customers could affect their efforts to gain regulatory relief on Capitol Hill, said Gerry Salemme, XO Communications senior vp-regulatory affairs. At XO news breakfast Tues., he said Bell company arguments for legislative relief on Sec. 271 requirements could be “undercut by their own performance” as service quality issues become more prominent in policy debates this year. At NARUC winter meeting that starts Sun. in Washington, Salemme said he also expected call for split in retail and wholesale operations of Bell companies to be hot topic. Recent bill in Md. House (HB-597) would impose structural separation regime similar to that ordered by Pa. PUC for Verizon. Structural separation is “a nice, easy, clear way that isn’t regulatory” to ensure Bell companies meet market-opening requirements under Telecom Act, he said. Salemme said he expected talk at NARUC meeting to turn to retail/wholesale split as possible “model.” He stressed importance of both Congress and FCC focusing on enforcement “to make sure the Bell companies and ILECs feet are held to the fire” when it comes to meeting Telecom Act commitments, he said. “We need to have rules enforced and penalties have to be strong and harsh enough that it’s not just a cost of doing business,” Salemme said. Asked about FCC Chmn. Powell’s recent statement that deregulation shouldn’t be “dessert” that’s given only after full competition, he said he didn’t interpret that to mean that FCC would alter review process for Sec. 271 applications. He said he didn’t see any signs that Commission would be “lowering the bar” for how applications were evaluated. Meanwhile, he said XO had been focusing on putting in place its own DSL access multiplexers (DSLAMs) to provide its own DSL service with providers such as Northpoint filing for bankruptcy, he said. Asked whether XO would be interested in buying such financially troubled DSL providers, he said: “We always look at everyone.”
It would take estimated 1,000 hours to scan one station’s public inspection files so they could be placed on Web, according to FCC filing by STC Bcstg., which owns 11 stations. Responding to Commission rulemaking on public interest obligations (MM 00- 168), STC also said it would cost at least $8,000 to create Web site and $125 extra per month to store that much information on server. Public benefits of that spending would be “trivial,” STC said. State broadcast associations, in joint filing in rulemaking (CD Feb 20 p4), agreed benefits would be minimal and repeated charge that proposed new standardized form would violate Administrative Procedure Act as well as First Amendment. Broadcasters said there was “no evidence that broadcasters are not meeting” their public interest obligations already.