FCC library was closed to public indefinitely starting Wed. (Dec. 5) because Commission was using portion of it to house employees temporarily. Individuals seeking access to material in library can contact staff of FCC Reference Information Center. FCC spokeswoman said agency was moving employees into library because it already had “space problems” in new Portals building. She said building was designed years before FCC moved into it and was based on employee levels at that time. Along with full-time employees, agency usually has contractors and interns in building, she said.
Don’t write off local competition because it takes time for rival services to take hold, several veteran regulators said at conference Thurs. sponsored by Competition Policy Institute. Robert Atkinson, former executive at pioneer CLEC Teleport and later on FCC staff, told audience “it took 10 years to get the technology and economics right” for Teleport to be successful in late 1980s. Current situation is “better than you think and worse than it could be,” said Atkinson, now exec. dir. of Columbia Institute for Tele-Information. Best way to view state of competition now is to look “granularly” by geographic area and type of customer, he said. “There’s more competition in New York and less in Montana,” Atkinson said. Competition may come from “names we don’t recognize” such as gas and electric distribution businesses, he said, adding that he expects cable to be much bigger in local telephony: “I'm very optimistic about competition in certain markets.”
Despite move by FCC to put ultra-wideband (UWB) order on agenda for Dec. 12 meeting (CD Dec 6 p8), chances that item will be approved then are seen as slim, industry observers said Thurs. Sources have indicated that in areas of UWB policy where federal agencies can’t reach agreement, Commission will allow more time beyond Dec. 12 for coordination on final item. Commerce Secy. Donald Evans told FCC Chmn. Powell Nov. 30 that additional 60 days were needed to complete final analysis to ensure protection of critical govt. operations and safety of life services. “This additional time seems eminently reasonable given the stakes of the proceeding and the high demands placed on our national defense and transportation agencies during this extraordinary time in our nation’s history,” Evans said in letter obtained by Communications Daily. Sen. Burns (R-Mont.) wrote to Powell Dec. 4 citing “significant alarm” raised by aviation industry on impact of UWB interference with “critical” safety-of-flight operations. “Potential interference with aviation operations is entirely unacceptable in light of recent aviation tragedies,” Burns wrote.
Two House Judiciary subcommittee panels expressed doubt Congress could move NextWave legislation by year-end, as required by recent settlement on bankrupt company’s return of wireless licenses to the govt. Senate Commerce Committee leaders went step further, declaring that panel won’t touch NextWave case until next year. NextWave has agreed (CD Nov 19 p1) to surrender its C- and F-block licenses for $5.85 billion after taxes, while govt. will get $10 billion from spectrum re-auctioned in Jan.
Correction: Quote attributed to FCC Comr. Copps (CD Dec 6 p2) should have been attributed to Dan Meyer, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Gen. Counsel. Meyer said potential cumulative environmental risk of wireless towers was that “actual spectrum auction will have to be reviewed.”
Broadcasters would be required to give up wireless frequencies in Ch. 63, 64, 68 and 69 regardless of whether 85% of households had digital TV sets by 2006 under bill (HR- 3397) introduced by Rep. Harman (D-Cal.). She said FCC’s 85% threshold mandate left “big loophole” for broadcasters, since they wouldn’t have to vacate spectrum if threshold wasn’t met: “Our bill directs the FCC to assign the frequencies Congress promised to public safety agencies by the end of 2006.” Bill is co-sponsored by Reps. Ballenger (R-N.C.), Frelinghuysen (D-N.J.), McIntyre (D-N.C.), Moran (D-Va.), Weldon (R-Pa.).
FCC Wed. turned back petition for rulemaking filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) that had sparked strong opposition from wireless, wireline and undersea cable operators. Commission unanimously adopted order, although Comr. Copps issued separate statement saying PEER had raised “important questions” about how FCC carried out environmental duties mandated by Congress. PEER had asked FCC to change how environmental rules were applied to undersea cables, fiber lines, wireless towers. Group of govt. employees concerned about environment wanted agency to conduct rulemaking to ascertain whether it needed to create Office of Environmental Compliance and separate joint rulemaking with other agencies. Companies ranging from Verizon to Global Crossing had balked at PEER petition, telling FCC such action wasn’t needed and unjustifiably would add to regulatory burdens. Commission rejected PEER arguments that due to explosive growth in wireless and wireline infrastructure since Telecom Act, agency should take fresh look at cumulative impacts of spectrum auctions, tower registrations, undersea cable landing licenses, Sec. 214 authorizations. PEER doesn’t offer “rationale for treating all actions as actually or potentially damaging to the environment,” FCC said. “We do not believe that the evidence of environmental harm proffered by PEER reflects any environmental processing failings by the Commission.” Even if PEER successfully pointed to such shortfalls, “a few examples in no way justify the complete overhaul of the Commission’s long-standing environmental rules across all service areas,” it said. PEER had challenged FCC environmental rules that implemented National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which required federal agencies to account for environmental impact of projects they oversaw. PEER had urged FCC to require applications for all Commission actions involving submarine cables, fiber lines and spectrum requiring communications towers to file environmental assessment for public utility facility. Private utility would have to file environmental impact statement. PEER defined public utilities as supplying last-mile connections while private utilities would be parts of network needed to transmit over long distances. FCC said its regulations implementing NEPA already identified 9 types of actions that could have significant environmental impact and evaluate through environmental assessment all actions that involved projects that fit into those categories. In its May 2000 petition, PEER had cited growing number of cases in which laying of fiber cable had damaged coral beds and harmed habitat of endangered marine species. PEER said that in other cases, buildings and towers could have significant effect on environment and historic areas. Copps said that “while this proceeding did not provide adequate record evidence for a restructuring of our policies at this time, the Commission should undertake a thorough review of our obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.” He said that as part of Chmn. Powell’s recently launched review of FCC procedures, assessment of agency’s responsibilities under NEPA and National Historic Preservation Act should be included. Copps said FCC should: (1) Determine whether it had devoted enough resources to meet its environmental responsibilities under those laws. (2) Examine how accessible such proceedings were to “nontraditional stakeholders” such as small businesses. PEER Gen. Counsel Daniel Meyer told us group planned to file petition for reconsideration at FCC by early Jan. “I do take Commissioner Copps’s separate statement as an indication the Commission knows it’s not addressing environmental concerns from environmentalists in an appropriate manner,” Meyer said. He said one example of types of cumulative environmental impacts that FCC must consider involved wireless towers that hadn’t complied with Sec. 106 review under National Historic Preservation Act. Assessing cumulative impacts of towers, Copps said, “the danger is the actual spectrum auction will have to be environmentally reviewed. That would be a nightmare for industry.” Lack of uniformity in compliance and enforcement means that most of industry has been erecting towers without environmental review, he said.
FCC dismissed must-carry complaint against DirecTV filed by Johnson Bcstg of Katy, Tex. Johnson said DirecTV was providing local service in Houston market where it operated KNWS (Ch. 51, Katy), but refused to carry signal. Johnson alleged DirecTV denied its request for mandatory carriage because of mistaken belief that request was late-filed. Station admits it posted its election letter via certified mail, return receipt requested, on July 2, one day past election deadline, but believed its request still was timely because July 1 fell on Sun. when U.S. Post Office normally was closed for business. DirecTV asked for summary dismissal of complaint on jurisdictional grounds, arguing exclusive remedy for failure of satellite carrier to meet carriage obligations was civil matter for federal court and because KNWS didn’t meet election deadline as required by FCC rules.
FCC is set to take up order on ultra-wideband devices (UWB) at Dec. 12 agenda meeting, as parts of Bush administration call for additional time before final decision. As part of extensive agenda for last meeting of year, Commission will consider first report and order to revise Part 15 on UWB devices. FCC Chmn. Powell has told Congress in last year that he anticipated action on item by year-end. Move to put UWB on agenda followed letter Fri. from Commerce Secy. Donald Evans asking for 60 additional days to complete analysis of UWB systems. Evans said he believed more time was needed to complete evaluation of UWB to ensure it would protect critical govt. operations and safety of life systems (CD Dec 4 p5). Deputy Defense Secy. Paul Wolfowitz had asked Evans to back delay in final decision until at least Feb., citing concerns over how critical govt. systems such as GPS would be affected (CD Nov 29 p1). But FCC staffer said that move to put item on agenda preserves Commission’s options to still potentially vote on order at meeting. One possibility is that issues that have been fully coordinated between Commerce Dept. and FCC in next week could still be voted on at meeting, while others that are still in conflict would be put off until Feb. timeframe as requested by Evans, staffer said. Putting it on agenda “gives us more options” over next week, staffer said. Any outstanding issues over which final coordination aren’t reached in time would be put off until next year, as requested by Evans, staffer said. Also on agenda are reallocation and service rules for lower part of 700 MHz band, TV Ch. 52-59. FCC plans to consider report and order on rules to reallocate those channels under Balanced Budget Act of 1997. On common carrier side, FCC will consider: (1) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to begin “comprehensive examination” of appropriate regulatory framework for ILEC provision of broadband services. Item stems in part from SBC petition for ruling that it was nondominant in providing advanced services and for forbearance from dominant carrier regulation for those services. (2) Triennial review of unbundling obligations of ILECs. Commission will consider NPRM to look at definitions and rules for access to ILEC unbundled network elements. (3) Order on plans for nationwide 1,000-block number pooling and “other strategies to ensure that numbering resources are used efficiently.” Commission also is expected to consider technology-specific number overlays. In mass media area, agency will consider NPRM on new equal employment opportunity rules for broadcast and cable. U.S. Appeals Court, D.C. had overturned earlier rules.
“It is time for the Administration to end its silence on telecom deregulation and take a stance squarely in favor of eliminating disincentives to investment in broadband infrastructure for all technologies, including cable and wireless as well as telephony,” group of economists wrote Tues. Addressed to Commerce Secy. Donald Evans, Treasury Secy. Paul O'Neill, White House Council of Economic Advisors Chief Glenn Hubbard and President Bush’s economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey, economists said IT investments fueled as much as 25% of gross domestic product growth in 1990s but had led economic decline in last year. Economists -- Brookings Institution senior fellow Robert Crandall, Discovery Institute senior fellow George Gilder, Manhattan Institute senior fellow Thomas Hazlett, Kudlow & Co. Chmn. Lawrence Kudlow, Citizens for a Sound Economy counselor James Miller, Cato Institute Chmn. William Niskanen and senior fellow Alan Reynolds and Progress & Freedom Foundation Pres. Jeffery Eisenach -- specifically urged Administration to back pro- Bell deregulatory bill sponsored by House Commerce Committee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.) and ranking Democrat Dingell (Mich.). Just last week, senior Commerce Dept. official expressed Administration reluctance to choose sides in Tauzin-Dingell debate (CD Dec 3 p2). Noting that Bells had interconnection obligations with broadband providers and limits on where they could transmit data, economists said “these regulatory burdens, particularly mandatory facilities-sharing requirements, reduce the incentives of telecom companies to invest in new or modernized facilities, including those needed to provide affordable broadband services to homes and small businesses.” Tauzin-Dingell addresses only part of regulatory burdens facing broadband deployment, economists said, and “widespread diffusion of high-speed Internet access [could result in] between $100 billion and $500 billion per year in increased consumer and producer surplus.” “The Internet, in its current form, has reached a plateau in terms of functionality and value to consumers. There is only so much one can do with a static Web page accessed at dial-up speeds.” They said barriers to IT investment needed to be removed so services such as streaming music and video, voice- over-Internet-protocol, next-generation games and other services could grow. Despite current struggles of many IT companies, however, economists said focus should be on deregulation, not industry bailouts: “We would be the last to argue that government should step in to subsidize or provide other special assistance to any particular economic sector of the economy.” Economists sent copies to House and Senate leadership as well as FCC Chmn. Powell.