Group of companies that provide competitive transport services to CLECs asked FCC to rule that Sec. 224 of Telecom Act permits them to extend fiber to CLECs colocated in ILEC central offices. Coalition of Competitive Fiber Providers (CCFP) asked agency in petition Thurs. to rule that Sec. 224, which requires ILECs to provide access to duct, conduit or rights-of-way, applies to central office facilities. Patrick Donovan, attorney representing coalition, said petition was significant because it raised issue on Sec. 224 that hadn’t been addressed before and could make it easier for competitive fiber providers to serve CLECs. It also could solve CLEC-ILEC cross-connect issue pending as part of U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., remand of FCC’s colocation order. FCC is considering whether CLECs can cross-connect in ILEC central offices under Sec. 251 of Act. Petition provides additional basis -- Sec. 224 -- for FCC to make affirmative decision, Donovan said. Coalition is composed of American Fiber Systems, Fiber Technologies, Global Metro Networks, Telergy, Telseon Carrier Services. Petition said FCC’s definition of conduit and duct was broad enough to encompass all wiring distribution systems used in ILEC central offices.
FCC sought comment on PCIA request for rule change on modifications in paging stations. Assn. asked that Commission treat as minor modifications expansions of paging composite interface contours (CICs) that occur solely beyond land border of U.S. or over large bodies of water. Comments are due April 16, replies May 1.
FCC said it was prepared to grant TRW’s application for 100 licenses to operate in 39 GHz band. Grants will be made upon payment of remaining balance of TRW’s winning bid by March 28.
U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., struggled Thurs. with how to balance bankruptcy law against FCC’s regulatory role to cancel PCS licenses of NextWave for missed payment. Before crammed courtroom, NextWave attorney Theodore Olson repeatedly cited section of bankruptcy code that bars any agencies from revoking licenses solely because licensee is bankrupt or hasn’t paid debt that is dischargeable. In one hour and 15 min. of oral argument, which ran beyond allotted time of 30 min., judges wrestled with how to reconcile Commission’s regulatory obligations to license spectrum against its role as creditor in bankruptcy proceedings. Judges David Tatel and David Sentelle pressed FCC attorney Daniel Armstrong on whether agency was asking court to read regulatory exception into Bankruptcy Code provision that bars license cancellation under some bankruptcy scenarios. “How would we do that? Congress didn’t write one,” Tatel said.
Sony Bcst. Pres. Edward Grebow will keynote MSTV meeting April 23 during NAB convention in Las Vegas. Session also will feature panel on broadcast spectrum, with Cox TV Pres. Andrew Fisher, Cingular Vp Brian Fontes, Senate Commerce Committee staffer Paula Ford, PCIA Pres. Jay Kitchen, FCC Chief of Staff Marsha McBride, Paxson Chmn. Lowell Paxson, House Telecom Subcommittee staffer Jessica Wallace.
FCC gave Columbia Communications authority Thurs. to launch and operate geostationary C-band replacement satellite used for communication services at 174.3 W.
Following recommendation by FBI’s Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) implementation section, FCC said Thurs. it was extending preliminary determination period for wireless carriers seeking extensions of deadline for complying with CALEA Sec. 103 to Sept. 30 from March 31. FCC said complexity of hardware and software that wireless carriers needed to comply with CALEA made it impossible for them to project accurately when they would be compliant. FCC said 7 wireless carriers that had filed extension petitions or supplements since June 30 had met requirements for preliminary determination that they warranted extension until Sept. 30. They are Americell, Concho Cellular, Glenn Ishihara, Guam Telephone, Nextel Partners, Pine Belt Cellular, Tex. RSA. Two others -- Copper Valley Telephone and Nev. Wireless -- didn’t satisfy requirements but can supplement their petitions, FCC said.
FCC conditionally granted authority to PUCs in Ind., Minn., Mo., Okla., Tenn., Vt., and W.Va. to institute thousand-block number pooling trials. It also conditionally granted W.Va. Commission authority to hear and address claims of carriers seeking numbering resources outside of rationing process and authority to maintain rationing procedure for 6 months following implementation of area code relief.
Opinions that emerged from last week’s ITU policy forum on IP telephony in Geneva (CD March 9 p3) largely addressed earlier concerns raised by U.S. and others that outcome not be too prescriptive, said Richard Beaird, acting deputy asst. Secy. of State for international communications and information policy. “We were willing to talk about studies; we weren’t willing to talk about conclusions to studies that haven’t taken place yet,” he told us. ITU forums don’t generate regulatory decisions but produce opinions for member countries to consider. Meeting that ended Fri. generated 4 opinions covering IP telephony, including Opinion D that called for “essential studies” by ITU to facilitate introduction of IP telephony, including interoperability considerations of implementing newer networks alongside circuit- switched infrastructure. Earlier versions of Opinion D, proposed by Syria with backing of countries such as Lebanon and Somalia, called on ITU to ensure there was way to measure traffic across IP telephony networks and backward compatibility between public switched telephone networks (PSTN) and IP-based systems. Version approved at forum Fri. eased off language that stirred concerns by U.S. and allies such as Canada and U.K. “At the end of the day, the opinions have a better tone from our point of view,” Beaird told us. “We have a basis for going forward on a number of studies and workshops. It’s important to bring the developing world along in this area.” Proposal for backward-compatibility in earlier versions of Opinion D had aroused particular concern. “Backward” was eliminated from final version to end confusion about exactly what would have been covered, said Helen Domenici, policy analyst with FCC International Bureau’s Telecom Div. One interpretation of original wording would have been that backward compatibility imposed same obligations on IP networks as typically were obligations of PSTN, she said. “It could have meant requiring a whole raft of regulations on the network,” Domenici said. Other opinions address general implications of IP telephony for telecom policies of ITU members, including regulatory frameworks of developing countries. Another opinion calls for actions to assist ITU members “in adapting to the changes in the telecommunication environment due to the emergence of IP telephony,” including case studies and cooperative actions. While participants in forum wrestled with how to define IP telephony, opinions ultimately steered clear of locking in definition. “This is a work in progress,” FCC International Bureau Chief Donald Abelson said, citing evolving nature of technology. “It’s difficult to lock in a precise definition.” Eric Lee, public policy dir. for Commercial Internet eXchange Assn., said resolutions generally marked compromises among participants “that while satisfying no one, didn’t do any damage.” In particular, day-long information session March 6, held before start of 3-day forum, helped bring international regulators up to speed on technology. “People came out more knowledgeable, even if they didn’t have specific policy questions answered,” he said.
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands filed request with FCC March 7 for expanded universal service option support for low- income consumers there. Marianas seek support similar to measures adopted in FCC Tribal Order for low-income subscribers living on tribal lands. In Tribal Order, agency adopted measures designed to promote increased subscribership levels in tribal communities, including enhanced Lifeline support, expanded Link Up support and additional criteria for eligibility for Lifeline and Link Up support. Comments are due at FCC by April 13, replies April 30.