With nod to growth of high-speed wireless devices in unlicensed spectrum, FCC unanimously approved further notice of proposed rulemaking at Thurs. agenda meeting to update its Part 15 rules for spread spectrum systems. Changes, sought by group of companies including 3Com, Cisco and Texas Instruments, would reduce amount of spectrum that must be used for frequency hopping spread spectrum systems at 2.4 GHz. Proposal responds to petition for partial reconsideration or clarification filed by 3Com and others over Aug. 2000 decision. That order had altered Commission’s Part 15 rules spectrum to allow spread spectrum devices in 2.4 GHz band to use wider frequency hopping channels for first time. Proposal adopted by FCC Thurs. also would eliminate processing gain requirement for direct sequence spread spectrum systems and would allow new digital transmission technologies to operate under same rules as spread spectrum systems. In general, proposal appears to update Part 15 rules to allow operation of technologies that employ smart hopping techniques to avoid interference in band. In general, changes aim to address coexistence of increased applications in 2.4 GHz, including by wireless technologies based on Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and HomeRF wireless networking systems.
Some wireless technology developers are recommending FCC set aside 5 GHz of spectrum or more when Commission finalizes proposal for service rules for spectrum at 92 GHz. Expectation is that as early as this fall FCC will launch rulemaking, although industry already has been bouncing ideas off Commission for what developers would like to see in that spectrum. On issue whether band should be made available on unlicensed basis or via licenses, panel organized by Wireless Communications Assn. (WCA) has floated idea of hybrid approach that would license some segments and allow others to be unlicensed at more restricted power levels, said Donny Burt, vp-advanced technology, e-xpedient/CAVU. Among “last mile” technologies that can be offered in that band, developers said, are gigabit ethernet-based systems that can connect buildings and extend metropolitan area networks.
Regulatory authority over unwanted e-mails on wireless devices appears to be murky, with industry groups and consumer advocates questioning whether FTC or FCC potentially have mandate in that area and agencies themselves saying they don’t. Lack of clarity on regulatory purview is expected to drive at least some attention in Congress this year on wireless spam. While spamming incident involving short message service (SMS) on as many as 170,000 mobile phones in Phoenix has drawn widespread attention in recent weeks, analysts and industry representatives said problem still was rare in industry searching for broader consumer use of wireless Internet applications.
Bipartisan group of 5 senators urged FCC Chmn. Powell to reject interpretation of Sec. 310(a) of Communications Act that Sen. Hollings (D-S.C.) has backed for evaluating proposed VoiceStream-Deutsche Telekom merger. Without naming Hollings, senators referred to requests agency has received to interpret Sec. 310(a) to bar telecom carrier with substantial govt. ownership from indirectly owning U.S. wireless licensee. Sens. Smith (R-Ore.), Lugar (R-Ind.), Cantwell (D-Wash.), Brownback (R- Kan.) and Murray (D-Wash.) signed letter. “In our view, such an interpretation of the law would place the United States in direct violation of its commitments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement on basic telecommunications and the General Agreement on Trade in Services,” senators wrote to Powell. “We believe it is crucial that the FCC not back away from or undermine from or undermine that agreement.” WTO commitments obligate U.S. to not bar foreign telecom companies, including foreign govt.- backed carriers, from entering U.S. market or obtaining controlling interest in U.S. wireless licenses, senators wrote. Hollings’s interpretation of Sec. 310 and how it applies to DT- VoiceStream deal has become touchstone of ex parte filings at FCC on pending merger. He has argued that Sec. 310(a) supersedes Sec. 310(b) of Communications At in cases in which foreign govt. has indirect control of radio licensee, barring approval of indirect foreign govt. interest that confers control of U.S. license. VoiceStream and Deutsche Telekom wrote FCC Comr. Tristani Mon., contending that if Hollings’s interpretation had been followed, Commission wouldn’t have approved Vodafone AirTouch merger or Vodafone-Verizon wireless venture.
NorthPoint “reached out” to its ISP customers Mon. to see whether there was any way to provide interim service to consumers in wake of Cal. PUC order to do so but “we don’t want to inflate anyone’s hopes,” NorthPoint attorney Michael Olsen said. Cal. PUC, which on Fri. ordered NorthPoint to continue service to Cal. customers for at least 30 days, understands company’s situation and “I don’t think it wants us to do the impossible,” Olsen added. NorthPoint is operating on skeleton staff, already has disconnected many of its customers and is nearly out of money, he said. Cal. PUC restraining order, along with other efforts to delay NorthPoint’s demise, are aimed at giving customers more time to find new service providers.
Broad group of wireless, GPS, satellite radio and air transport interests urged FCC not to take final action on operation of ultra wideband (UWB) equipment under Part 15 rules without issuing further notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In letter sent late Tues. to Chmn. Powell, 26 companies and trade groups stressed it would be “premature and inappropriate for the Commission to adopt any final rules at this time.” Agency issued NPRM on UWB operations last May (CD May 11 p1), but it didn’t contain specific regulatory language, group said. Since then, FCC has received large volume of test results on potential interference of UWB operations in both GPS and non-GPS bands. “However, the interested parties cannot logically extrapolate from the various test submissions any comprehensive picture of the direction of the Commission’s final thinking with respect to a potential regulatory framework,” group said in letter obtained by Communications Daily. Companies signing letter include AT&T Wireless, Lockheed Martin, Nortel, Qualcomm, Satellite Industry Assn., U.S. GPS Industry Council, WorldCom.
U.S. Dist. Court, L.A., denied class action certification in antitrust suit against 13 cable operators by 2 customers. Suit alleges that subscribers to cable high-speed data services must buy content services of affiliated ISPs at artificially inflated prices. Arguing that exclusivity agreements between MSOs and Excite@Home and Road Runner forced cable companies to impose condition on customers, plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief that would have imposed open access obligations on cable operators. Court’s denial of class certification was without prejudice, so plaintiffs could file amended compliant. In suit, Arthur Simon and John Galley said exclusivity agreements were contracts, combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, and bundling of transmission services with interface/content services constituted illegal tying arrangements in violation of Sherman Antitrust Act. As result of “illegal” tie, cable modem subscribers have been forced to pay “supracompetitive” prices and/or pay for unwanted service, they said. AT&T, Adelphia, Cablevision, Comcast, Cox, MediaOne and Time Warner head list of MSOs cited. Plaintiffs said issues that lent themselves to classwide action were: (1) Whether bundle of high-speed Internet transport and content services was one or 2 services. (2) Whether cable operators actually coerced customers to accept tie between 2. (3) Whether cable companies had market power. They said “injury in fact” could be proved on classwide basis. Cable companies said principal arguments in case related to market power. which varied greatly by region, precluding common proof. They also contended that variations in prices and terms argued against common proof of “injury of fact.” In denying class action certification, court said relevant geographic market was local cable franchise area because, in analyzing legality of tying arrangement, focus was on deal between seller and buyer rather than contract between sellers of tying and tied product. Competition in these markets clearly was relevant to whether cable companies had requisite market power to restrain trade and force their purchasers to buy unwanted product, court said. Court agreed with defendants that to prove injury, plaintiffs must produce evidence that prices would have been lower without tie. It ruled that common questions didn’t predominate for class action certification.
While countries such as Japan and Mexico are starting to remove obstacles to competition, serious problems persist, telecom companies and equipment makers told U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) office. USTR sought comments in Jan. as part of annual review on effectiveness of U.S. trade agreements involving telecom products and services, including World Trade Organization’s (WTO) basic telecom agreement. Commenters also pointed frequently to competition hurdles in European Union (EU) member states, urging U.S. in some cases to seek stricter implementation of existing EU directives. Concerns raised by telecom companies, which in part centered on interconnection rates, provide road map of lingering telecom market-opening issues that would face USTR under Bush nominee Robert Zoellick.
U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., ruling Tues. that rejected SBC’s advanced services subsidiary (CD Jan 10 p1) appeared to have raised more questions than it answered. Observers questioned Wed. whether decision might pressure Congress to revise Telecom Act to account for advanced services, how ruling would affect similar arrangement at Verizon and how it might play out under new Republican FCC. Court overturned trade-off FCC made with SBC: FCC allowed SBC to provide advanced services free of interconnection requirements if company formed separate affiliate to provide those services. In response to appeal filed by Assn. of Communications Enterprises (ASCENT), court ruled FCC didn’t have authority to forgo interconnection requirements of Sec. 251(c) just because SBC was providing advanced, rather than basic, services and using separate subsidiary. ASCENT represents competitive carriers, particularly those that resale ILEC service.