CommLawBlog : Broadcast & Communications Lawyers & Attorneys : Fletcher Heald & Hildreth Law Firm : Telecommunications, FCC Regulation, Communications Act

Commercial FM channel preference policy established in Rural Radio proceeding kicks in July 2.

In January we reported on the release of the Third Report and Order (3rd R&O) in the long-running Rural Radio proceeding. That’s the decision that created a short-cut available to Native American Tribes seeking new commercial FM stations primarily serving Tribal Lands. (As used by the Commission, “Tribes” is a collective term referring to federally-recognized Native American Tribes and Alaska Native Villages.) We're pleased to report that the revised versions of Section 73.3573 and Form 301 adopted in the 3rd R&O have received OMB’s seal of Paperwork Reduction Act approval. It says so right here in the Federal Register. And according to that notice, the revised rule and related form will become effective on July 2, 2012.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

List of applicants to be disclosed on June 13.

The universe of Internet addresses will soon be expanding. On June 13, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the organization formed in the late 1990s to oversee the global domain name system, will unveil the 2000+ applications for a host of new “Generic Top Level Domains” (gTLDs). Once in place, these will change how all of us use the Internet.

First things first. A top level domain (TLD) is the term that appears “to the right of the dot” in Internet addresses. It comes in two flavors: a “country-code” top level domain, or ccTLD (e.g., “.US”, “.FR”, “.UK”) and a “generic” top level domain (or gTLD), including most of the ones we use every day, such as “.COM”, “.ORG”, and “.GOV”.

Since ICANN took over domain name management in 1999, it has added a few gTLDs, but there are only 21 now available for the world to use. Each gTLD is entrusted to a Registry which is responsible for the TLD’s technical management, including proper operation of the registry zone servers and dissemination of the TLD zone files. Registries play a role key in the technical management of Internet infrastructure and in stability and security of the Net.

Registries do not sell domain names to the public. That task is reserved for “Registrars,” who handle the retail side of the domain name operation. They register “second level domain names” to the left of the dot, e.g., “fhhlaw” in fhhlaw.com. GTLD Registrars, like gTLD Registries, are under contract to ICANN, which encourages competition among them. GoDaddy, famous for its Super Bowl commercials, is the largest of these.

ICANN is now introducing competition to the top level as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Great FM Translator Application Purge has moved one step closer: the FCC has formally initiated the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) process which must be completed before the “information collection” aspects of the herd thinning measures can be implemented. With respect to the several thousand new FM translator applications still pending since 2003, the new rules adopted last March in the Fourth Report and Order (4th R&O) impose application caps of (a) 50 nationwide and (b) one in each of the 156 markets identified in Appendix A of the 4th R&O. Any applicant with more than 50 apps nationwide and/or more than one app in any of the listed markets must dismiss enough applications to bring themselves under the limits. The letters necessary to seek those dismissals constitute “information collections” subject to the PRA.

Additionally, the 4th R&O affords pending FM translator applicants some limited opportunities to amend their applications. Those amendments, too, are “information collections”.

With its notice in the Federal Register, the Commission has invited the usual PRA comments on both aspects.  We'd like to be able to tell you exactly what the "information collections" actually look like, but the notice doesn't contain any examples.  Instead, it provides instructions for how to find copies on the OMB website -- but when we tried to follow those instructions, we came up empty.  Ideally this problem will be corrected before comments are due.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Commission seeks input on Deployable Aerial Communications Architecture techniques.

When communications fail in the midst of a disaster, who can you call? Trick question: most often, you can’t call anyone because, as the question assumes, communications have failed.

But the Commission has now taken a preliminary step toward addressing the problem that gives rise to that assumption: as we predicted last year, the FCC has released a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) looking toward implementation of Deployable Aerial Communications Architecture (DACA) techniques. 

DACA techniques are designed to assist, in emergency situations, with the restoration of communications not just to first responders, but also to consumers.  Think small unmanned aerial vehicles (SUAV), weather balloons, high altitude long distance unmanned vehicles (HALE), and deployable suitcase systems.  The idea is to come up with gear that can be deployed during the first 72 hours after a disaster to help ensure communications capabilities without requiring deployment of special user devices. 

The Commission has already sought public comment on DACA, from which the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau prepared a White Paper on the subject.  The NOI is the next procedural step through which the FCC is looking to develop a record on which to base a set of DACA regulations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At Congress’s direction, FCC explores feasibility of more precise caller-location capability for 911 calls from MLTSs.

When you make an emergency call to 911, it’s helpful – and often crucial – for the person on the receiving end to be able to figure out where the call is coming from, particularly if you the caller can’t speak or aren’t familiar with your surroundings.  The receiving operator, stationed at a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), generally sees both the number from which the incoming call is made and the address associated with that number in a database available to the PSAP.  This occurs through the magic of Automatic Number Identification, similar to the Caller ID system with which we’re all familiar.  Even cellphones must report their location to the PSAP, meeting FCC-prescribed accuracy standards.

But if the 911 call is made from a phone system that operates through multiple extensions (including Centrex, VoIP, PBX, hybrid, and key systems) – systems referred to as Multi-Line Telephone Systems (MLTSs) – the magic may not work.  MLTSs, used by businesses and institutions, usually use shared outgoing trunks that may not even have a conventional phone number and are tied only to the location of the central phone system and not the location of the calling extension.  So when a 911 call comes in from an MLTS, the PSAP must hope that the caller can report his/her location and callback number.  Without input from the caller, the PSAP operator may know only the general location of the business or institution, but not the particular room, floor, or even building from which the call is coming.

It doesn’t do a lot of good to send an ambulance to a university campus if you don’t know where on the campus to look for the patient.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Studio relocation without prior FCC OK leads to $7K fine (minus $1,400 for good behavior)

When it comes to main studio site compliance and Longley-Rice, the Media Bureau’s Audio Division is sticking to its guns. As we reported back in October, 2010, the Division had issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) to an FM licensee even though its main studio was within the station’s city-grade contour, as required by the rules. Now the Division has followed up with a Forfeiture Order re-affirming that NAL. If you’ve got a main studio whose legality hinges on Longley-Rice signal coverage calculations and if you weren’t paying attention when the NAL came out in 2010, now would be a good time to focus on this. 

What’s the problem with relying on Longley-Rice, you ask? Nothing, as long as you jump through the right hoops in the right order, according to the Division. It seems that this particular licensee’s studio location was not within the city-grade contour according to the FCC’s predicted method, even though it was within that contour as determined by a Longley-Rice analysis. According to the licensee, it performed the Longley-Rice analysis to confirm that the site in question was within the contour as required by the main studio rule; comfortable with that knowledge, the licensee went ahead with the move, simultaneously notifying the Commission of the move. In the notification the licensee asserted that the new location complied with the rules. (It later moved a block or two down the street, to a site that also complied with the rules, according to Longley-Rice.)

More than a year after the first move, the Commission started an investigation when somebody (we’re guessing it was a competitor, but you never know) complained. The licensee explained what it had done. In response, the Division whacked the licensee with a $7,000 fine, even though everybody agreed that, per Longley-Rice, the studio was street legal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New rules authorize body-worn networks for medical monitoring and treatment.

It was impressive enough when medical engineers started mass-producing complex devices for use inside the human body. Now those devices are talking not only to the physician, but also to each other.

The FCC has authorized Medical Body Area Network (MBAN) devices that will operate in the 2360-2400 MHz region, immediately below the heavily-used unlicensed band that houses Bluetooth, and most Wi-Fi, along with many other applications. We told you about the proposed rules three years ago. The new Report and Order took a while because, like all useful spectrum, this band already has incumbent users, many of whom have to be protected.

An MBAN, as the FCC envisions it, is a little like a cellular wireless system in miniature, worn on a patient’s body. Sensors around the body monitor various functions, depending on the patient’s needs, and communicate their data to a central hub, worn by the patient or located close by. The hub aggregates data from the various sensors, and transmits those data using the health care facility’s network (possibly over Wi-Fi or Ethernet) to a central control point, from where the data are made available to the professional staff for interpretation and appropriate response.

The 40 MHz identified for MBANs is a lot of spectrum, and moreover is located in the “sweet spot” of frequencies best suited to mobile communications. The FCC defends its allocation of this wide swath by explaining that the need to avoid interference to other users will limit the frequencies available at any given time and place. Moreover, it says, adequate bandwidth will both increase reliability and allow room for multiple vendors, thus increasing competition and reducing costs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

[This is the fifth (and last) in a series of posts by Bob Butler on the Fine Art of Telecom Transactions. In the first installment, he cautioned about the needs to plan early and to understand the structure ad interrelationships of the deal documents. In this and the other installments, he identifies more factors to watch out for in the drafting process.]

Tip No. 9 – Limit Your Liability Exposure

The standard carrier agreement almost invariably contains very one-sided risk allocations. Clauses limiting liability under the contract and requiring indemnification for third party actions are frequently drafted solely in favor of the carrier. You need as a minimum to make these provisions mutual and ensure that liability caps (a) are not so low as to be meaningless, and (b) do not apply to indemnification obligations. In particular, in this era of increasing litigation by patent trolls, a comprehensive indemnification from your vendor for all costs, not just finally awarded damages, for infringement of a third party’s intellectual property is a must.

Tip No. 10 – Secure Your Migration and Exit Strategies

The flip side of early planning (see the first installment of this series) is ensuring that you have a sound migration and exit strategy. This means that your contract should permit you to: (a) terminate without liability for material vendor breach and extended force majeure events (watch out for obligations to pay vendor’s third party costs); and (b) continue to receive service on the same terms and conditions for at least six months after expiration or termination of the agreement for any reason in order to permit you to transition in an orderly fashion to a new provider.   (Important: The vendor should be obligated to cooperate in this transition.) You also need to be aware of your vendor’s plans for service obsolescence and the concomitant risk that you will be forced to migrate to a new service or technology. Carriers uniformly insist upon the right to discontinue aging services they no longer wish to support, often with only 12 months or less notice.  

*                      *                      *

The issues I’ve addressed in this series are not meant to be exhaustive or definitive. Individual situations may entail additional factors or may warrant a reordering of priorities. Issues of confidentiality, network security, service provisioning, software and equipment use, account support and staffing, and other important topics may assume a greater importance to you. But it will still be advisable to pay heed to the top ten issues I have identified in order to secure the benefit of your bargain and avoid exposure to unacceptable liabilities in contracting for telecommunications and related services.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

[This is the fourth in a series of posts by Bob Butler on the Fine Art of Telecom Transactions. In the first installment, he cautioned about the needs to plan early and to understand the structure ad interrelationships of the deal documents. In this and the other installments in this series, he identifies more factors to watch out for in the drafting process.]

Tip No. 7 – Beware the AUP

Historically, Internet service providers have established draconian acceptable use policies (AUPs) designed to hold their customers liable for virtually any bad act perpetrated by anyone over the purchased services. In most instances such AUPs will expose you to substantial potential liability and the threat of service cut-off without notice or recourse. What’s worse, vendors are increasingly seeking to apply AUPs to non-Internet services as well. While in theory there’s nothing wrong with the concept of an “acceptable use” policy, it’s important that such policies reasonably reflect appropriate assignment of responsibility for problems that may be encountered. It’s equally important that you be given some adequate opportunity to correct problems that are within your control before the vendor pulls the plug on you.

Possible approaches include, as a minimum: negotiating limits to your third party liability exposure; shifting the responsibility for network security breaches back to the vendor; and securing meaningful advance notice and cure rights before your service can be suspended or terminated.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Commission’s initial, bare-bones TV channel-sharing rules, adopted late last month, are set to take effect on June 22, according to a notice published in the Federal Register. As we reported a couple of weeks ago, those rules don’t seem to change much -- indeed, Media Bureau Chief Bill Lake managed to cram a presentation on the new rules into a PowerPoint consisting of three pages (not including a title page and a second page consisting exclusively of a photo and the title "What Is Channel Sharing?") -- but they do get the ball rolling for the anticipated incentive auctions and TV channel re-packing process that appear to be high on the FCC’s to-do list.

Note that the Federal Register publication not only establishes the effective date of the new rules, but it also sets the deadlines for seeking reconsideration or judicial review of the Commission’s channel-sharing Report and Order (R&O). Anyone who finds fault with the R&O but is inclined to give the FCC a chance to fix the problem(s) itself can file a petition for reconsideration by June 22. Fault-finders inclined to ask a court of appeals to review the R&O have until July 23. 

If you’re in the latter category, don’t forget that about the judicial lottery factor. That is, if you’re hoping to have a particular circuit review the R&O, Section 1.13 of the rules requires that a petitioner file with the FCC’s General Counsel within 10 days of the Federal Register publication a copy of its petition for review with the court of appeals of its choosing; that copy must bear a date/time stamp from that court proving that it was in fact filed. If more than one petitioner specifying more than one circuit jumps through all those hoops, the Commission will ship all the candidates over to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which will pick a lucky circuit at random.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

[This is the third in a series of posts by Bob Butler on the Fine Art of Telecom Transactions. In the first installment, he cautioned about the needs to plan early and to understand the structure ad interrelationships of the deal documents. In this and the other installments in this series, he identifies more factors to watch out for in the drafting process.]

Tip No. 5 – Watch for Term and Commitment Traps

Most telecom contracts specify a minimum financial commitment – the dollar spend for services you agree to buy, whether annually or over the life of the contract – and a minimum time commitment, or contract term, which typically runs three-five years. To maximize your flexibility and leverage, you should: (a) opt for shorter terms (no more than three years except in specialized cases, such as fiber build-outs); (b) commit to no more than 60-70% of your expected actual spend; (c) make the commitment only over the full term of the agreement rather than annually or with respect to particular services; and (d) secure a termination right that will kick in whenever you reach the committed spend, even if early in the term. The idea is to make it as easy as possible for you to satisfy your commitment, with the additional benefit (and inducement) of being able to terminate the deal once you have met that commitment.

Of course, even the best laid plans often go awry, so it’s also a good idea to consider, and protect against, unfavorable scenarios. For example, despite your best efforts, you may not satisfy your commitment. Recognizing that up front, you should not agree to 100% shortfall liability in the event of such a failure. In my experience, 25-50% is more typical, and it’s often possible to further cushion the blow by negotiating rollover or work-off options as well. You should also ensure that you are not obligated to pay both shortfall and termination liability changes if you exit the contract early without cause or the carrier terminates you for breach. You certainly don’t want to pay what would amount to a double penalty for early termination.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

UNLESS and UNTIL you’ve got consent – Section 73.1206 leaves very little wiggle room.

The telephone rule strikes again! Back in February of last year, we thought we made it pretty darn clear that, with very few exceptions, you’re not supposed to record any part of a telephone conversation for future broadcast unless you have first obtained consent from the other party to the conversation. You can look it up – it’s Section 73.1206. And yet, barely three months later, another licensee did just what it wasn’t supposed to do. If only it had paid attention to CommLawBlog.com, it could have avoided a $2,000 fine. Oh well, maybe next time.

Truth be told, this violation was not as bad as some others we’ve seen – including, particularly, the one we wrote about last year. In this case, a station’s morning team called some guy at about 6:00 a.m., possibly to discuss some dispute the guy was involved in. With the recorder running (but not on the air), the announcers ID’d themselves. The guy immediately asked whether he was on the air. No, responded the jocks, but they acknowledged that “[t]echnically you’re being recorded right now.” [Note: Why they qualified that admission with “technically” is not clear, since they were, in fact, recording him. But it was 6:00 in the morning, after all.] The guy astutely advised them in no uncertain terms that he did not consent to the broadcast of his voice.

To which the announcers replied: “Oh bummer”.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Universal Service Fund (USF) – it’s not just for telephone service anymore.

For more than a decade, the Universal Service Fund (USF) has subsidized (1) telephone lines in places where there isn’t enough of a business case for phone companies to build and operate them, and (2) monthly telephone service for people who couldn’t afford it. 

That’s not good enough anymore, according to the FCC. 

As the Commission sees it, high-speed Internet – broadband – is a necessity, not a luxury. Accordingly, the FCC is looking to re-direct some USF funds to support broadband. Most likely, this will take the form of a monthly discount on broadband for low-income households.

In moving broadband way up on the list of life’s essentials, the Commission may be getting ahead of many consumers. Affordability is undoubtedly one factor in broadband adoption, but there may also be a number of people who just don’t think it’s that important, or not worth the hassle, or too much of a privacy risk, or any number of other concerns. To change their minds, the FCC has decided to use a ploy familiar to the criminal element: it’s going to test how much free or discounted Internet Joe Consumer needs to get hooked on broadband.  As with any pusher, the FCC’s apparent hope is that eventually the consumer will become addicted and willing to cough up the full price.

Accordingly, in February, the Commission announced (in its overhaul of the USF Lifeline program) that it would be setting up a Pilot Program “to test how the Lifeline program could be structured to promote the adoption and retention of broadband services by low-income households”. And now, with a public notice released April 30, 2012, the Wireline Competition Bureau has followed up on that plan. The Bureau is making $25 million available to eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) to carry out “field experiments” on customers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

[Blogmeister’s Note: This is the second in a series of posts by Bob Butler on the Fine Art of Telecom Transactions. In the first installment, he cautioned about the needs to plan early and to understand the structure ad interrelationships of the deal documents. In this and upcoming installments, he moves on to factors to watch out for in the drafting process.]

Tip No. 3 – Understand and Accommodate the Impact of Regulation

Telecommunications services are still regulated in various ways at the federal, state and local level in the U.S., and to even greater extents in many foreign jurisdictions. The good news is that such regulation will rarely give a vendor an excuse not to meet your reasonable requests for service or specific contract terms.  The bad news? Governmental regulation may still in some respects limit your vendor’s flexibility in providing the service; it can also increase costs (for both the vendor and, more importantly, you) through taxes and specialized levies such as universal service fund payments. 

What makes matters more difficult is the fact that the regulatory landscape is shifting in various, not necessarily predictable, ways. Contrary to what we’ve generally seen in the past two decades, the recent trend is to increase regulation for some previously regulated service, and to start to regulate previously unregulated offerings such as Internet and other IP services. These changes, which are occurring both in the U.S. and in other countries, can undermine the enforceability of previously negotiated terms, and they can complicate negotiations that are still underway.

To avoid the potential pitfalls created by the uncertainties of regulation, it’s important to conduct due diligence so that you understand the effect that both existing and potential regulation could have on your deal. And an essential added safeguard is an effective material adverse change (MAC) clause to permit you to make appropriate adjustments should regulatory changes, whether or not anticipated, adversely affect your interests after you’ve signed the deal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month we reported on an FCC action that may mark the end of the decade-long “white space” proceeding authorizing the operation of some unlicensed devices in the broadcast television bands. The Commission’s Third Memorandum Opinion and Order (3rd MO&O), released in early April, disposed of a handful of petitions for reconsideration of the agency’s 2010 decision which had in turn tweaked technical “white space” specs adopted back in 2008. The 3rd MO&O has now been published in the Federal Register, which means that, barring any extraordinary intervening event (like the issuance of a stay – the approximate likelihood of which is pretty much zero), the rules as modified last month will take effect on June 18, 2012. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Public interest communications “law firm and advocacy organization” closes up shop

Media Access Project (MAP), a long-time player in the soap opera that is communications law, has left the show. As of May 1, MAP suspended operations “after evaluating the difficult funding environment facing MAP and other progressive public interest groups.”

Founded in 1973, MAP assumed a variety of roles over the course of its 39-year history. To some it was a tough litigator, a thoughtful advocate, and a mouthpiece for a wide range of interests that might not otherwise have had a mouthpiece. To others, it was a self-promoting buttinsky given to advancing positions of questionable (if any) validity. A seemingly constant presence in the mainstream press, it could be a total pain in the tail to those with whom it disagreed. Many – maybe even most – “industry” representatives may have disagreed with many – maybe even most – of MAP’s positions and tactics. But MAP, apparently indefatigable and unquestionably resourceful, made its voice heard, for better or for worse.

MAP prevailed in a number of important cases before the Commission and the courts and succeeded in swaying legislative policy. But MAP’s more lasting impact will likely be the fact that it spawned, directly and indirectly, a new generation of like-minded organizations that will carry on MAP’s work into the 21st Century. The ongoing work of those organizations will be MAP’s true legacy.

The demise of MAP has a particular, personal, effect on this blogger.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Internet expert returns to co-head Internet Law and Policy Group.

Fletcher Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C. is pleased to welcome Kathy Kleiman back into the FHH fold.  Kathy was an associate with the firm in the 1990s, but she left to explore the then-just-developing world of Internet Law (but not before she had co-founded the firm’s Internet Law Group, one of the first of its kind).  She now returns as FHH’s Internet Counsel to co-lead its Internet Law and Policy Group. 

To say Kathy is well-suited for the job is an understatement.  She helped found the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the organization that coordinates the domain name system without which the Internet wouldn’t be the Internet.  Kathy was a key drafter of the domain name dispute policy everyone uses today, and an editor of many sections of the rules governing new top-level domains.  She has traveled to ICANN meetings in more than a dozen countries on six continents and spoken on Internet Free Speech, intellectual property protections, fair use, privacy and due process around the world.

Kathy is Beantown-educated – Harvard undergrad, BU law (both with honors, thank you very much).  She currently lives in Falls Church, Virginia, where she dabbles in community leadership and politics when she’s not tending to her two kids.  In what passes for free time chez Kleiman, she is also producing a documentary about the six women who programmed ENIAC, the world’s first modern computer, and thus founded the field of modern programming. (Want to know more about Kathy’s background? Check out her extensive résumé here.)

Kathy will be working with clients on a wide range of projects relating to: domain name conflicts; challenges and opportunities likely to be encountered in connection with new top level domains; website protections; and Free Speech and intellectual property issues in the Internet age.  And, if the Blogmeister has anything to say about it, she’ll be a regular contributor here.

She can be reached at 703-812-0476, by email at Kleiman@fhhlaw.com, or at Skype ID Kathy.kleiman.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

[Blogmeister’s Note: In January Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth welcomed Robert Butler into the fold. Bob – whose extensive bio can be checked out here – has decades of experience in telecom contracting, the fine art of identifying a client’s telecom needs and negotiating to secure the capacity and services to meet those needs without (a) over-buying (i.e., ending up with more services or capacity than you want), (b) under-buying (i.e., getting less than what you really need), (c) over-paying, or (d) exposing yourself to unnecessary potential liabilities. Bob has graciously put together a set of tips that any party looking to deal with a telecom provider should keep in mind. The following -- which presents the first two of Bob's Top Ten Tips -- is the first of five installments.]

Buying telecommunications and related services presents a different kind of contracting challenge.  Such services are, of course, absolutely essential in the modern marketplace. But successfully arranging for just the right services is a far cry from buying paper clips at Office Depot.

Start with the expanding universe of constantly developing high tech products available, all swimming in a dense alphabet soup of acronyms – VANs/WANs, VPNs, VOIP, ISDN, DSL, ATM, MPLS, DS1s, 2s, and 3s, OC-1/10s, etc. Recognize that those products include a mix of regulated and unregulated offerings. Throw in the reality that many routine transactional documents often still include (at least in the initial go-round) contractual artifacts from a long gone monopoly era. Appreciate the fact that one’s particular situation often demands unique contractual provisions addressing specialized needs or concerns. And don’t forget the importance of minimizing exposure to liability that could arise from myriad potential worst case scenarios.

The bottom line is that a steady and experienced hand is indispensable to securing a customer-friendly deal. The following are prime examples of areas in which an experienced hand can and should assist anyone looking to arrange for telecom services.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Meanwhile, FCC cranks up the Paperwork Reduction Act process

If you’re thinking about asking the FCC to reconsider its recent decision to move TV public files to an FCC-maintained cloud-based online system – or maybe if you’re more inclined to ask the courts to take a look at that decision – your deadlines for doing so have now been set. The Commission’s Second Report and Order, which we reported on last month, has now been published in the Federal Register. That means that (as dictated by Section 1.429 of the rules) petitions for reconsideration are due to be filed with the Commission no later than June 11, 2012.

On the other hand, thanks to 28 U.S.C. §2344, petitions for judicial review may be filed by July 10. Those can technically be filed with any of the federal courts of appeals, but heads up. If you’re hoping to have a particular circuit review the FCC’s order, you need to be mindful of the judicial lottery process and Section 1.13 of the rules. As implemented by the Commission, that process requires that, to be part of the judicial lottery, a petitioner has to file with the FCC’s General Counsel within 10 days of the Federal Register publication (in the case of the Second Report and Order in the public file proceeding, that would be May 21) a copy of its petition for review with the court of appeals of its choosing; that copy must bear a date/time stamp from that court proving that it was in fact filed. In other words, if you’re going to be picky about what circuit should hear the appeal, you’ve got to act much faster than the rules would otherwise allow.

This flurry of procedural dates does not, however, mean that the new public file rules are going to become effective in the immediate future. Before that can happen, the FCC has to run the new rules through the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) process, a process which the Commission has also just cranked up with a Federal Register notice. If you have any PRA-related thoughts to offer, you’ve got until June 11, 2012 to lob them in to the Commission. After that, the Commission will bundle up all the comments it receives and ship them over to the Office of Management and Budget, along with a supporting statement explaining why it think the new rules are consistent with the PRA. (The rules will then go into effect 30 days after the FCC announces in the Federal Register that OMB has approved the rules.  Check back here for updates on that score.)

By the way, according to the notice, PRA-related comments are supposed to address:

• whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
• the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
• ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
• ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
• ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Announcement of OMB approval expected soon

If you’re planning on building a new tower, or significantly modifying an existing tower, in the foreseeable future, listen up. The Commission’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has issued a public notice laying out the new registration procedures that have been adopted (but not yet implemented) to provide pre-registration notice-and-comment opportunities relative to environmental considerations. We have previously reported on the new procedures; the public notice puts a little more meat on the procedural bones we have already described.

Who needs to worry about this? You do, if you’re:

planning to build any new tower that would have to registered through the FCC’s Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) system. The only exceptions are for (a) towers to be built on sites for which some other federal agency has responsibility for environmental review or (b) cases in which an emergency waiver has been granted.

modifying an existing registered tower by (a) increasing its overall height by more than 10% or 20 feet, or (b) adding lighting to a previously unlit structure, or (c) modifying existing lighting from a more preferred configuration to a less preferred configuration. (Helpful tip: the “most preferred” configuration is no lights at all; the least preferred is red steady lights. Anything else falls in the middle.)

amending a pending application involving either of the foregoing situations and the amendment would (a) change the type of structure, or (b) change the structure’s coordinates, or (c) increase the overall height of the structure or (d) change from a more preferred to a less preferred lighting configuration or (e) an Environmental Assessment is required.

If you’re in one of those categories, here’s what the Bureau will expect you to do once the new process takes effect.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In its sprawling Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Universal Service Fund (USF) and Intercarrier Compensation, released last November, the Commission adopted (among a lot of other things) a number of changes to the various reporting requirements. Those requirements affected certain carriers, including competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) and incumbent local exchange carriers. (Last December we described how many, but not all, of the extensive changes would affect wireless providers.)

Because many of the modified reporting requirements involved “information collections” subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, they could not take effect right away. Rather, they had to be reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget. That process has now been completed, according to a notice published in the Federal Register. As a result, a number of the rule changes adopted last fall have now become effective or applicable as of May 8, 2012.

The rules that have become effective are: Sections 54.312(b)(3); 54.313(b); 54.313(h); 54.314; and 54.320(b). The rules that have become applicable are: Sections 54.305(f); 54.307(b) and (c); and 54.313 (a)(1)-(a)(6).

Additionally, the Federal Register notice provides official notification to ETCs and other unspecified stakeholders that information required to be filed pursuant to Section 54.313(a)(2)-(6) and (h) must be filed by July 2, 2012.  Section 54.313 sets out the annual reporting requirements for high cost recipients.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

$300 million to be available for areas with poor broadband access

Following up on the landmark USF Order last fall in which it first adopted a plan to distribute Universal Service Fund money for broadband build-outs, the FCC has released a Public Notice setting out the basic ground rules for the “reverse auction” by which the money will be distributed. The Notice fills in some important gaps in how the whole process is supposed to work.  

As we have previously reported, the FCC is proceeding for the first time with an unusual reverse auction under which rights will be determined by the party which bids the lowest amount for the area in question.   In this case, carriers will be bidding to provide service to relatively high cost parts of the country provided they receive certain subsidies.   The company asking for the lowest subsidy to do the job will get the money and the attendant service obligation. Many of the key features of this auction remain subject to petitions for reconsideration, but the Wireless Bureau is nevertheless plunging forward to set the ground rules on the assumption that the auction will proceed largely as laid out in last fall’s USF Order.

In addition to the usual provisos, warnings, disclaimers, and notices that accompany every FCC auction, the Public Notice alerts us to the following:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Commission adopts skeletal preliminary rules for sharing, but leaves plenty of important details to be worked out in future proceedings

And so it begins.

The Commission has adopted the first minimal rules paving the way for the repacking of the TV broadcast spectrum. The new rules are, at most, preliminary guide markers. In that respect they’re much like the seemingly inconsequential surveyor’s stakes that quietly appear as an early harbinger of the heavy-duty construction teams that will eventually re-shape the idyllic pastureland into a ten-lane highway. Like those surveyor’s stakes, they mark the beginning of a process that will likely lead to dramatic changes in the landscape.

As everyone by now knows, the Commission (with Congress’s clear support) is intent upon repurposing a substantial chunk of the spectrum currently used for over-the-air television broadcasting. The goal is to free up UHF spectrum for broadband use. The full technical details of how the FCC might hope to accomplish that have not been revealed (and may not even have been fully formulated as yet). But you’ve got to start somewhere, so the Commission has now taken its first step.

In its recent Report and Order (Channel Sharing Order), the Commission has opened the door – at least for the purposes of the incentive auctions that Congress has authorized – to permit channel-sharing by full-power and Class A TV licensees. (The Commission will consider channel sharing in non-auction contexts in a later rulemaking.) The channel-sharing concept, under which multiple TV licensees would share a single six MHz channel, arose a couple of years ago. It was also an integral component of the spectrum portion of the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act” (which the FCC refers to as the “Spectrum Act”) the Congress enacted last February. 

According to the new rules, when channel-sharing eventually becomes a reality, it will be subject to the following general considerations:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Commission reverses decision released in January, 2012, but still defers further consideration of TTS technology

Back in January the Commission released its Fifth Report and Order (5th R&O) in its long-running effort to modernize the Emergency Alert System. Under the new rules (many of which became effective on April 23, 2012), EAS participants are required to be able to convert CAP-formatted EAS messages into messages that comply with the EAS Protocol requirements, following the procedures for such conversion as set forth in the EAS-CAP Industry Group (ECIG) Implementation Guide. 

One notable exception, though, involved the Guide’s provisions concerning text-to-speech (TTS) conversion. The Commission was not confident in the accuracy and reliability of current TTS technology. Additionally, the FCC figured that it might be preferable to require TTS conversion software to be utilized by the originators of EAS messages, rather than by EAS participants – the goal being to minimize the risk of “differing, and thus confusing” audio messages that might otherwise result.

Bottom line in January: the FCC mandated that TTS conversion would not be permitted, notwithstanding the ECIG Implementation Guide.

That decision was apparently news – and disappointing news, at that – to the FCC’s EAS regulatory partner, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA fired off a petition for reconsideration, pointing out that, by prohibiting TTS conversion by EAS participants, the FCC was discouraging development of TTS technology. What’s worse, the lack of TTS conversion capability could “possibly disrupt dissemination of National Weather Service alerts, delay retrieval of referenced audio files in alerts, and impact the ability of jurisdictions with limited resources, or those with certain, already implemented CAP alerting capabilities, to issue CAP-formatted alerts.”

FEMA’s position was seconded by a number of state and local emergency management agencies, as well as the Commission’s own Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council.

That was enough for the Commission. It has revised its rules to permit, but not require, EAS participants to follow the ECIG Implementation Guide with respect to TTS. In so doing, the FCC made clear that it was still not prepared to embrace the ECIG’s adoption of TTS software configured in EAS equipment to generate the audio portion of an EAS message; rather, consideration of that particular item has been deferred.

With the publication of the rule change in the Federal Register, that change takes effect May 7, 2012.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC has performed that annual rite of spring – its announcement of proposed regulatory fees for 2012. These are the reg fees that, for the vast majority of Commission regulatees, will be due and payable by a to-be-announced date (probably sometime in August or September). As with most ritual activities, there are no real surprises here: the rates are, with very few exceptions, proposed to go up. 

In general, the Commission figures that broadcast-related reg fees should get bumped up between 4-7% or thereabouts, depending on the type of facility in question and the market in which it’s located. There are some exceptions, though. For example, commercial VHF TV stations in Markets 51-100 would enjoy a nearly 9% reduction (amounting to $2,205) compared to last year’s fee, if the FCC’s proposal holds. And fees for UHF stations in Markets 11-25 would drop $1,000 (about 3%) from last year’s levels.

We’re attaching a grid providing the proposed 2012 fees along with some comparative information showing the changes from the fees actually imposed last year. (Red entries reflect 2012 fees that would go up over last year’s fees; the small handful of green entries reflect fees that would go down this year.)

As always, the Commission is giving everybody a chance to comment on the proposed fees. If you’ve got something to say about the proposals, you’ve got until May 31, 2012 to file comment with the Commission. Reply comments may be filed until June 7. 

Over and above the fees themselves, this year’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) contains a couple of elements of interest.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you don’t think you can meet the January 1, 2013 deadline, NOW is the time to ask for a waiver.

Do you operate a commercial or public safety private land mobile radio system in the VHF (150-170 MHz) or UHF (450-470 MHz) bands?  If so, you must convert your systems to “narrowband” operation by January 1, 2013.  If you don’t, you face the possibility of interference from other users, FCC fines, or losing your license.  If you can’t make the switch by the deadline, now is the time to seek a waiver from the FCC to ask for an extension

Licensees have been on notice for about ten years of the impending narrowbanding deadline.  Most radios purchased since the late 1990s already have narrowband capability (i.e., they operate on 12.5 kHz channels or equivalent efficiency) and only need to be reprogrammed.  However, most older radios are destined for the trash heap.

The FCC will entertain requests for temporary waivers of the deadline.  Last year, the FCC spelled out what it wants to see in a waiver request, including reasons why the licensee cannot meet the deadline, its funding requirements, a description of what steps have been taken so far to comply, a schedule of work that must still be completed, and evidence that the delay will not harm other licensees in the region.

Until last week, land mobile radio licensees in the so-called “T-Band” (470-512 MHz) were also subject to the narrowband deadline (broadcasting industry readers may recognize the band as the home of TV channels 14-20, which is shared with land mobile radio in 11 major metropolitan areas).  However, since Congress has now mandated that spectrum occupied by public safety licenses in the T-Band be auctioned within nine years, the FCC relieved all licensees in that band of any narrowbanding obligations.  On the flip side, the FCC also imposed a freeze on applications for new T-Band systems and certain modifications to existing systems.  In a nutshell, the freeze bars any modifications that would expand the service area of a T-band system; it does not preclude adding units to existing systems or making other changes that do not expand the system’s service area.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month we reported that effective dates for some, but not all, of the rules revised as part of the Commission’s reform of its Lifeline program had been set. It looks like the effective dates of the rest have now also been set, although the Commission’s own Federal Register notices concerning those dates leave at least some room for doubt.

The Lifeline reforms were adopted back in February. In a Federal Register notice published in March, the Commission announced that Sections 54.411, 54.412, 54.413 and 54.414 were to take effect April 1, 2012 and Section 54.409 will take effect June 1. No problem there. But it then said that Sections 54.202(a), 54.401(c), 54.403, 54.407, 54.410, 54.416, 54.417, 54.420 and 54.222 wouldn’t kick in until after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had given them the Paperwork Reduction Act once-over.

According to the latest Federal Register notice, OMB has completed its review and given its thumbs up. So the FCC has announced that Sections 54.202(a), 54.401(d), 54.403, 54.405(c), 54.407, 54.416, 54.417, 54.420(b), and 54.422 have become effective as of May 1, 2012, while Section 54.410(a)-(f) will take effect June 1, 2012.

Careful readers will note a couple of minor discrepancies between the March notice and the most recent. Where the March notice referred to Section 54.401(c), the April notice refers to Section 54.401(d). Also, the April notice indicates that Section 405(c) is among the sections taking effect on May 1. But that particular section wasn’t among those listed in the March notice. And, in the most recent notice, the Commission mentions, pretty much in passing and without explanation, that it has also removed certain provisions (in particular, the temporary address confirmation and recertification requirements set forth in Section 54.410(g), the chunk of Section 54.405(e)(4) relating to temporary address de-enrollment, and the biennial audit requirements of Section 54.420(a)).  It's not clear what that means. The rules have, after all, been formally adopted by the Commission and are therefore technically in the books, but if OMB hasn't signed off on them (which appears to be the case), they can't become effective.  So they'll presumably just be dead wood in the rule book, at least for the time being.   

These discrepancies, though, may be relatively minor, particularly given the enormity of the changes the Commission is making to the overall Lifeline program. Look for the Commission to tie up any loose ends eventually.

One final observation.  While the standard OMB approval extends for three years, this OMB approval is for a paltry six months.  That means the FCC will be back knocking on OMB's door before you know it.  Interestingly, the FCC asked OMB to act on this particular request on an emergency basis.  What was the emergency?  According to the FCC:  “The Commission has set a budget target to eliminate $200 million in waste in 2012, which is dependent on certain rules going into effect as soon as possible.” Ah, a self-created emergency. We can't wait to see what they come up with in six months.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link