Leap Wireless urged FCC to not roll back wireless spectrum cap, saying market for commercial mobile radio services hadn’t developed enough to justify eliminating ownership restrictions. Like larger carriers that touted research by economists to bolster position that cap should be altered (CD April 17 p2), Leap cited data from U. of Md. economics prof. Peter Cramton to illustrate that cap had public interest benefits. Company said Cramton research showed that its entry into market would drive down prices average of 37% and provide consumers with replacement for landline phones. Leap also took issue with extent to which large carriers needed more spectrum. “To be sure, they would prefer to have more spectrum, but no carrier could possibly need more than 45 MHz,” Leap said in comments at FCC on notice of proposed rulemaking examining whether there still is need for spectrum cap and cellular cross-ownership rules. Leap cited extent to which carriers could increase efficiency of existing spectrum holdings by upgrading subscribers to digital from analog. Carrier cited example of AT&T, which it said had 30% analog subscribership and could double system capacity by upgrading that component. Leap also argued that carriers shouldn’t have cap lifted to accommodate additional spectrum needs of 3G services. “To the extent that 3G equipment may create a demand for additional capacity, it will also furnish added supply: We can expect 3G equipment at the very least to double the spectral efficiency of existing equipment.” Rural Telecommunications Group and OPASTCO told Commission that spectrum cap and cellular-cross interest rules were “now obsolete.” Groups wrote: “These rules so constrain carriers that they have had a negative impact on the growth of competition in rural and underserved markets and in the rollout of new technologies in these markets.” Existing cap of 45 MHz, except in rural markets where it is 55 MHz, has anticompetitive effect because it potentially makes introduction of new services and expansion into adjacent areas illegal, groups said.

Pegasus submitted proposal for resolution of 2nd round Ka- band licensing to FCC in effort to expedite licensing process. Company asked Commission to allocate it 2 Conus slots for Ka-band service between 85 degrees W and 115 degrees W. Pegasus wants Commission to rigorously enforce rules and give priority to new entrants for licenses.

FCC imposed $520,000 fine against AT&T for slamming 11 customer phone lines, prompting Comr. Furchtgott-Roth to issue separate statement dissenting in part on amount of forfeiture, which he found excessive. In response to Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) that Commission had issued December 21, AT&T didn’t deny that it had submitted unauthorized change orders for 6 telephone lines, but argued that in 8 remaining alleged violations no slamming violations had occurred. Commission disagreed, finding carrier slammed 11 of 14 customer telephone lines identified in NAL and said available evidence suggested that 3 remaining customers did authorize switching carriers. In his statement Furchtgott-Roth said 6 unauthorized conversions undisputed by AT&T “were caused wholly by processing or data entry errors. AT&T in no way intended to slam these customers, had procedures in place to prevent slamming but erroneously changed these customers’ preferred carrier.” Noting that carriers process millions of change orders each year and it’s impossible to eliminate all mistakes, he said FCC failed to follow rules that “explicitly require it to consider the degree of culpability in determining the amount of forfeiture penalty. In terms of culpability, AT&T’s unintentional violations of the slamming rules pale in comparison to most we have previously penalized. In these circumstances the penalty for slamming should be significantly reduced,” he wrote.

Completely different pictures of broadband world were painted by Bell companies and their ISP competitors in comments to FCC refreshing Computer III record (98-10, 95-20). Portraying themselves as underdogs in high-speed market, Bells asked Commission to repeal its Open Network Architecture (ONA) rules that require Bells to provide services on behalf of competing ISPs as well as requirement that they post on their Web sites list of available services. ISPs continued (CD April 17 p10) to warn that DSL competition was nearing extinction and to call for tougher rules.

DBS operators shouldn’t be able to offer local TV channels on a la carte basis to subscribers and shouldn’t be able to require fiber delivery of TV signals, broadcasters said in several oppositions to DirecTV petition for reconsideration of local station carriage rules (CS 00-96). NAB said FCC had provided “virtually no justification” for pricing rules, which it said would create “incongruous” unfairness in treatment of different TV stations in same market.

There’s “no basis” for claims by ALTS and Conversent Communications that Verizon overcharges for power to colocation arrangements, Verizon said in ex parte letter sent Fri. to FCC. Verizon said it didn’t “simply pass along current from the electric grid” but also added provisions for emergency backup power and upgraded its buildings to handle added power. Company said that to resolve those complaints, which also had come up in state proceedings, Verizon would change way it charged for power to better break out costs and give colocators more control over costs.

Broadcasters are unfairly blaming cable and consumer electronics industries for slow transition to DTV, CEA and NCTA said in separate comments on broadcasters’ bid for reconsideration of DTV biennial review order (MM 00-39). CEA again said FCC shouldn’t set receiver standards for DTV sets and “critical element” in transition was “an ample supply of high-quality” DTV programming. Group said FCC lacked statutory authority to impose receiver standards and there was “no congressional mandate, and indeed no need” for standards. NCTA criticized what it charged were broadcasters’ “self-serving and disingenuous statements about the cable industry’s role in the digital transition,” particularly claims that broadcasters were only ones investing in DTV. “One would hardly guess that the broadcasters asked the government for a second 6 MHz channel of valuable spectrum,” NCTA said. Meanwhile, it said, cable, which gets no new free spectrum, has invested $42 billion since 1996 in digital cable capability and has signed voluntary agreements with consumer electronics makers to ensure DTV compatibility with cable.

FCC protections for ISPs seeking services from Bell operating companies (BOCs) have failed, competitors told Commission in comments due Mon. to refresh long-stagnant Computer III rulemaking (95-20, 98-10). They said Commission shouldn’t reward Bells by loosening its rules, but should open proceeding on how to better enforce them. “If anything, there is more reason for concern about BOC anticompetitive conduct today than there was in 1998,” last time FCC solicited comments on subject, Information Technology Assn. of America (ITAA) said. “The BOCs have not complied with the safeguards to date, so it makes no sense to eliminate or relax any of the safeguards,” eVoice said. Bell companies are required to create Open Network Architecture (ONA) for competing ISPs, less onerous regime for BOCs than previously required structural separation for Bell ISP subsidiaries. ITAA said FCC still hadn’t justified lifting structural separation requirements to satisfaction of 9th U.S. Appeals Court, San Francisco, and arguments against structural separation were weaker than ever because costs were lower and many Bells were separating themselves anyway to meet long distance requirements. It said Commission recently pointed to use of structural separation for Bell company long distance affiliates as reason to grant long distance applications, and FCC “must explain why structural separation is well-suited to prevent BOC discrimination against [competing phone companies], but is not the appropriate method to prevent similar BOC discrimination against ISPs.” FCC should put teeth in ONA rules, eVoice said. It said Bell companies typically didn’t meet requirement of responding to ISPs within 120 days of being asked to provide service, and in some cases took more than year. ONA rules require Bells to provide service unless it’s not economically or technically feasible, and eVoice said Bells should have to make better showing before claiming such exemptions, and then submit quarterly reports on their progress toward providing such services.

FCC late Mon. said it approved Verizon’s Sec. 271 application to provide long distance service in Mass., making total of 5 states where former Bell companies can provide long distance service to their customers. Vote was 3-1, with Comr. Tristani dissenting. Agency said it applied same standard to Mass. that it had applied to last several long distance requests and determined that company had met Telecom Act’s 14-point checklist in Mass. “Each successful application makes the road map that much clearer,” said BellSouth, which plans to file Sec. 271 application soon for Ga.

FCC said it resolved 3 petitions for reconsideration of Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), proposing minor revisions in rules to clarify: (1) Arrangements telecom carriers subject to CALEA must make to ensure that law enforcement agencies can contact them when necessary. (2) Type of interception activity that triggers recordkeeping requirements. Order didn’t consider technical standards for compliance subject to remand from U.S. Appeals Court, D.C. Specifically, agency declined to adopt additional carrier personnel security measures proposed by FBI that would require carriers to conduct background checks of CALEA-designated employees and make detailed personal information available to law enforcement agencies (LEAs). Opponents of FBI proposals said existing rules adequately addressed personal security. FBI also asked carriers be required to generate automated message to permit LEAs to confirm periodically that interception software was working correctly and accessing correct subscriber. FCC ruled FBI hadn’t argued that surveillance status measures were “necessary to ensure systems security and integrity, as CALEA requires.” It declined to mandate automated surveillance status messages but said “there is nothing that would prevent carriers from providing this capability on a voluntary basis, or with compensations from LEAs.” FCC clarified requirements for recordkeeping to require carrier interception certifications to include “the start date and time the carrier enables the interception of communications or access to call-identifying information.” New language reflects FBI request to clarify event recorded is actual carrier action making interception to LEA, but doesn’t create new reporting requirements, Commission said. FBI asked for clarification of carrier responsibility for CALEA in resale situations. FCC said resellers as telecommunications carriers generally were subject to CALEA, but “in situations where a reseller doesn’t sell the services of a facilities-based carrier subject to CALEA, it can contract with its facilities provider or 3rd parties for CALEA assistance in the same way it contracts for any other network capabilities.” Finally, FCC denied National Telephone Co-op Assn. (NTCA) request to exempt small rural telcos from requirement to file with Commission policies and procedures used to comply with systems security rules and said “relief NTCA seeks is contrary to the statutory language.”