FCC fined SBC $100,000 for refusing to file sworn statement in en...

to answer questions about possible discrimination in its provisioning and maintenance of DSL technology and to clear up its “possible misrepresentations” to bureau. Bureau said SBC should provide sworn statement to attest to truth of its responses because of misrepresentation issue. SBC answered questions as requested but didn’t include sworn statement. When bureau asked about omission, company said it intentionally refused to provide sworn statement because it questioned legality of request. SBC eventually submitted sworn statement but “under protest.” Although dispute began at bureau, it was bumped up to Commission level “given the significance of the challenge to the Commission’s authority” and forfeiture order was issued by Commission. FCC said it was “critical” to get sworn statements in cases such as this where “a core question at issue is whether a carrier has engaged in misrepresentation to the Commission.” Agency also cautioned that “a licensee cannot ignore a Commission order simply because it believes such order to be unlawful.” FCC said it disagreed with SBC that requests for sworn statements could be made only under Sec. 409 of Communication Act which outlines when FCC can use subpoena power. “We have routinely required affidavits and verifications from regulated entities during the course of various proceedings without asserting subpoena power,” agency said in order. SBC’s action “obstructs” agency’s ability to do its job, FCC said. SBC said FCC’s action was “disappointing” because agency didn’t question truthfulness of carrier’s responses. Instead, it said, enforcement action was based solely on “legal issue” of whether FCC “has the authority to require that information submitted to it be in the form of a sworn statement as opposed to a letter signed by legal counsel.” AT&T spokesman said FCC was “correct to reprimand SBC for obstructing an Enforcement Bureau investigation” but “unfortunately a $100,000 fine for SBC has less impact than a parking ticket.” SBC’s defiance led to speculation by Washington telecom insiders that company was setting up court challenge to limit FCC’s authority.