BloostonLaw Telecom Update Published by the Law Offices of Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendergast, LLP [Portions reproduced here with the firm's permission.] www.bloostonlaw.com |
| Vol. 12, No. 29 | x July 22, 2009 |
 Broadband Stimulus Applicants Should Be Aware of Compliance Requirements
The first of the Government’s public workshops clarified some of the nuances of the broadband grant/loan application process, and highlighted some of the obligations and potential pitfalls of being a stimulus money grantee. It will be important for our clients interested in seeking stimulus funding to be aware of the obligations they will be agreeing to as part of the application process, including such burdens as special bookkeeping procedures, hiring practices, equipment acquisition restrictions, reporting and audit requirements and restrictions on selling the funded facilities. For example, the workshop indicated that applicants/grantees must have an entirely separate ledger to record the use of federal funds, written procedures for procurement, and written codes of conduct for employees, officers, and agents. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) itself contains certain additional report ing duties, as well as requiring adherence to the Buy American provisions, §1606 Wage Rate Requirements, and the National Environment Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act environmental assessment requirements. Award recipients must follow further specified quarterly reporting and audit requirements based on the projects they are involved in, as outlined in the NOFA. The NOFA also imposes restrictions on the sale or lease of project assets. Under the rules, the sale or lease of any portion of the award-funded broadband facilities during the life of the asset is prohibited without the approval of the relevant agency. The NOFA appears to indicate that the agencies may not be able to approve a sale or lease until after the tenth year from the date of issuance of the grant, loan or loan/grant award, unless the sale was identified in the grant application (which is unlikely). BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy and Mary Sisak.
|
INSIDE THIS ISSUE - Clyburn, Baker sail through Senate nomination hearings.
- Verizon says it will allow small carriers in to handset deals with manufacturers.
- Comment sought on providing eligible entities access to aggregate Form 477 data.
- FCC issues Further Notice on remanded Access BPL issues.
- NTIA sets Aug. 31 for NOFA information collection requirement.
- VITAL MEETINGS & DEADLINES
Clyburn, Baker Sail Through Senate Nomination Hearings Mignon Clyburn and Meredith Attwell Baker appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee last week for their FCC nomination hearings. Democrat Clyburn, a South Carolina Public Service Commissioner, was introduced by her state’s Republican Senators, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, which virtually assures her bipartisan support for confirmation. Baker is also expected to be confirmed. Both were favorably reported out of the committee yesterday, July 21. All that remains is a Senate floor vote, which had not been scheduled at our deadline. Both nominees faced virtually no opposition. “I appear before you well aware of the formidable economic challenges our nation faces today,” Clyburn said. “I firmly believe, however, that we have at our disposal a communications sector that, if harnessed, should be a leader in our nation’s economic recovery and long-term sustainable economic growth. Our success will depend in large measure upon our ability to think creatively, spur innovation and work together to use communication technologies in a way that enables businesses to succeed and improve the lives of Americans. Clyburn said she would focus on consumer and public-interest issues, as well as affordable broadband service. She said she opposed the fairness doctrine "in any way shape or form," supported Internet “openness,” and had concerns about media consolidation. Baker, a former head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), also expressed concerns about the fairness doctrine and talked about the importance of broadband, including incentives to business. She said she would be wary of new network neutrality regulations in a marketplace that seemed to be working. She said she supported an open Internet, but that reasonable network management was necessary so that operators could block access to illegal content like porn and pirated copyright works. She said the current system of swift enforcement of openness violations was working. “I believe we can reap great benefits from a spectrum policy that unlocks the value of the public airwaves in more efficient, transparent and flexible ways,” Baker said. “The Spectrum Inventory bill that this Committee marked up last week, shows important leadership and is a first step to increasing wireless broadband use in innovative ways such as secondary markets, leasing, and test-beds. Improving the effective and efficient management of federal programs such as universal service must round this National Broadband Plan. In this time of profound economic challenge, we need to ensure that the communications sector continues to thrive and contributes meaning fully to an economic recovery, both in the near and long term.” Clyburn agreed that when she was talking about open ness, it applied to legal content. She said that network operators should have "reasonable tools" to control what goes over their networks. She said that whether network neutrality regulations were needed would depend on whether the market was competitive. If so, there might be no need, but if not, it warranted consideration. In what might not bode well for supporters of newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership, both Baker and Clyburn said they had concerns about concentration of control of broadcast ownership, according to Multichannel News and other media outlets. But Baker did point to a chang ing marketplace of increasing competition. "I do think that broadcasting and newspapers are still a very stable, traditional medium for people in an area to receive their information. So, I think if they are owned by one source, that does become troublesome." But she followed that quickly with the observation that, "we have a new media landscape where there is a wide variety of news sources, more than ever before, for people to receive that information." Clyburn said that she was "very wary of media consolidation" and vowed to take a "close look at it," saying a variety of voices was "most important." BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and John Prendergast. Verizon Says It Will Allow Small Carriers Into Handset Deals With Manufacturers Verizon Wireless said it will give small wireless carriers—those with 500,000 or fewer subscribers—access to all of its exclusive devices from all of its handset partners six months after Verizon launches the phones, according to a letter Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam sent to Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Chairman of the House Telecom Subcommittee. The letter comes in the wake of promises from the FCC and the Department of Justice (DoJ) to investigate handset exclusivity arrangements (BloostonLaw Telecom Update, July 8). "Moreover, we have no objection to small carriers having full access to any manufacturer's portfolio of prototypes and products in development, without being informed which may have been selected by Verizon Wireless," McAdam said in the letter. "Obviously our pre-launch product selections are proprietary and must remain confidential between us and our vendors." In February, Verizon agreed to allow the Associated Carrier Group—which represents 25 CDMA carriers that have a combined 2.6 million subscribers—access to LG and Samsung phones six months after Verizon launched the devices. And, from now on, when Verizon strikes a deal with a manufacturer for exclusive access to a handset, it will allow the phone be sold after six months to any carrier with fewer than 500,000 customers. “Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design,” Verizon wrote. “When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors, we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device. Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time, money and production capacity to support a particular device.” Art Brodsky, a spokesman for Public Knowledge, a group that advocates for more digital openness, characterized Verizon’s move as a distraction, according to the New York Times. “It is a meaningless effort that is just a way to head off action from Congress or the FCC,” he said. Mr. Brodsky pointed out that fewer than 5 percent of wireless customers use carriers that fall below Verizon’s 500,000-customer cut-off. He also questioned why Verizon should be able to set the terms of these contracts. Mr. Brodsky argued that since the wireless carriers use public airwaves, they should be forced to let any custom er use any phone on any network. “I should be able to walk into Best Buy and pick up any phone I want and tether it to any carrier I want with any plan I want,” he said. Striking down exclusive contracts would not guarantee that popular phones would be available on every carrier, the Times said. Technical differences in the networks of the major United States carriers mean that cellphone makers must customize each phone’s design for individual carriers. The Rural Cellular Association (RCA) said Verizon's recent offer for exclusive handsets was inadequate, arguing the proposed compromise doesn't cover current and past exclusive arrangements. "While RCA is encouraged by Verizon Wireless' most recent exclusive handset proposal, RCA will continue to pursue modifications to the policy," RCA said, "the commitment does not go far enough to rectify the consumer and competitive harms caused by these agreements. More than 180 million of the nation's wireless customers are unable to benefit from the new policy." BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, Cary Mitchell, and Bob Jackson. COMMENT SOUGHT ON PROVIDING ELIGIBLE ENTITIES ACCESS TO AGGREGATE FORM 477 DATA: The FCC seeks comment on how to provide access to aggregated FCC Form 477 data under the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA). The Form 477 is the Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Form (see Page 6). Under a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the FCC seeks comment on how to interpret and implement sections 106(h)(1) and 106(h)(2) of the BDIA. On October 10, 2008, the BDIA became law. Section 106(h)(1) of the BDIA requires the Commission to “provide eligible entities access . . . to aggregate data collected by the Commission based on the Form 477 submissions of broadband service providers.” Section 106(h)(2) of the BDIA imposes certain confidentiality requirements on eligible entities that receive the FCC Form 477 “aggregate data.” Thus, the FCC seeks comment on how it should implement these statutory provisions. First, it seeks comment on how it should interpret the term “aggregate” in Section 106(h)(1). Particularly, to what extent does the adjective “aggregate” require the Commission to provide to eligible entities data that is more aggregated than the raw data submitted by Form 477 filers. The FCC also seeks comment on whether the confidentiality provisions of section 106(h)(2) indicate that the Commission should provide access to data that is more disaggregated than the Form 477 filing-based data that it makes available to the public in various periodic statistical reports released by the Wireline Competition Bureau. More generally, the FCC seeks comment on how much the Commission should aggregate the data that it provides to eligible entities, and what factors it should consider in determining the appropriate level of aggregation. The FCC also seeks comment on section 106(h)(2) of the BDIA, which requires eligible entities to treat “any matter that is a trade secret, commercial or financial information, or privileged or confidential, as a record not subject to public disclosure except as other wise mutually agreed to by the broadband service provider and the eligible entity.” In particular, the FCC seeks comment on whether that section is self-effectuating or whether the Commission should take any measures to ensure eligible entities’ compliance with section 106(h)(2). If parties believe that the Commission should adopt safeguards to ensure compliance with section 106(h)(2), then the FCC asks that they describe with specificity the nature of their proposed safeguards. This item will address whether and how the FCC should provide access to Form 477 data to “eligible entities” like RUS and public-private partnerships like ConnectKentucky and similar ventures. Such access would help these entities to prioritize their efforts and determine what areas have or do not have broadband service. However, the availability of Form 477 data to governmental entities such as NTIA or RUS would also appear to be a potential “gotcha” for clients who are applying for stimulus funds. Form 477 filers are required to report on speeds/availability of their broadband services by zip code, and it may not be evident from advertising or other public information exactly where any given carrier’s service is available. RUS or NTIA may use the Form 477 data to discredit an otherwise well-drawn stimulus proposal by pointing to other service providers who are claiming to provide service in an area that in reality appears to be unserved or underserved. And of course, service to some portion of a zip code may not translate into actual service throughout a proposed broadband service area. Given the timing of the item, and the need to complete a rulemaking (even on an expedited timetable), State and local agencies and other “eligible entities” probably will not have access to this data in time to use it for the first round of stimulus applications, but the data may very well be available to NTIA/RUS staff in reviewing applications. We therefore urge our clients to be thorough in their research of unserved and underserved areas and to conduct field studies whenever possible. Comments in this WC Docket No. 07-38; GN Docket Nos. 09-47, and 09-51 proceeding will be due seven days after publication in the Federal Register, and replies will be due five days later. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. FCC ISSUES FURTHER NOTICE ON REMANDED ACCESS BPL ISSUES: The FCC has issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to address certain issues from its Report and Order on rules for broadband over power line (BPL) systems and devices that was remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In the BPL Order, the Commission established technical standards, operating restrictions, and measurement guidelines for Access BPL systems to promote the development of such systems while ensuring that licensed radio services are protected from harmful interference. In ARRL v. FCC, in response to an appeal by the American Radio Relay League (an association of amateur radio operators), the court remanded the BPL Order to the Commission for further consideration and explanation of certain aspects of its decision. Specifically, the court directed the Commission to provide a reasonable opportunity for public comment on un-redacted staff technical studies on which it relied to promulgate the rules, to make the studies part of the rulemaking record, and to provide a reasoned explanation of the choice of an extrapolation factor for use in measurement of emissions from Access BPL systems. The FCC has placed the unredacted staff technical studies into the record of the proceeding and is requesting comment on the information in those studies as it pertains to the BPL decisions. The FCC is also placing into the record certain additional materials that contain preliminary staff research and educational information that was not previously available. In response to its remand of a portion of the BPL measurement procedure, the FCC is also providing an explanation of its reasons for selecting 40 dB per decade as the extrapolation factor for frequencies below 30 MHz. The FCC further explains why it believes the studies and technical proposal submitted earlier by the ARRL do not provide convincing information that the FCC should use an extrapolation factor that is different from that which the Commission adopted. As the several studies now available show and as the FCC has observed previously, there can be considerable variability in the attenuation of emissions from BPL systems across individual measurement sites that is not captured in the fixed 40 dB per decade standard. To ad dress this variability, the FCC is requesting comment on whether it should amend its BPL rules to 1) adjust the extrapolation factor downward to 30 dB or some other fixed value and, 2) as an alternative, also allow use of a special procedure for determining site-specific BPL extrapolation values using in situ measurements. The special in situ procedure the FCC is proposing is based on a concept under consideration by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) working group on power line communications technology electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). In addition, the FCC is clarifying that parties testing BPL equipment and systems for compliance with emissions limits in FCC rules may measure at the standard 30 meter distance rather than only the shorter distances recommended in the BPL measurement guidelines. The FCC requests comments on the unredacted staff studies, the FCC decision for selecting an extrapolation factor for BPL systems based on slant range method and its proposal to allow use of site-specific extrapolation factors as an alternative to the standard extrapolation factor. In the interim, the FCC will continue to apply the standard as adopted in the BPL Order. Comments in this ET Docket No. 04-37 proceeding are due 30 days after publication in Federal Register, and replies are due 15 days thereafter. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, and Cary Mitchell. NTIA SETS AUGUST 31 FOR NOFA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENT: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has announced approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of the collection of information requirements contained in the Notice of Funds Availability (NO-FA) for the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) published July 9. Comments on the collection of information requirement in the BTOP NOFA are due August 31. Commenters should reference RIN: 0660- ZA01. This does NOT affect the August 14 stimulus grant/loan application filing deadline. In the BTOP NOFA, NTIA requested comments on the collection of in formation specifically for the BTOP Infrastructure, Public Computer Center, and Sustainable Adoption programs. The comments requested will be used as a part of a request by NTIA, if it decides to use this collection past the approved emergency request clearance time period. At that time, NTIA would resubmit a collection of information request to OMB in accordance with the review process provided in the regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act. A specific comment deadline was inadvertently not included in the BTOP NOFA and is now announced—i.e., comments (on the information collection requirement) are due August 31. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak.
JULY 31:
FCC FORM 507, UNIVERSAL SERVICE QUARTERLY LINE COUNT UPDATE. Line
count up dates are required to recalculate a carrier's per
line universal service support, and is filed with the Universal
Service Administrative Company (USAC). This information must
be submitted on July 31 each year by all rate-of-return
incumbent carriers, and on a quarterly basis if a competitive
eligible telecommunications carrier (CETC) has initiated
service in the rate-of-return incumbent carrier’s service
area and reported line count data to USAC in the rate-of-return
incumbent carrier’s service area, in order for the
incumbent carrier to be eligible to receive Interstate Common
Line Support (ICLS). This quarterly filing is due July 31
and covers lines served as of December 31, 2007. Incumbent
carriers filing on a quarterly basis must also file on September
30 (for lines served as of March 31, 2008); December 30 (for
lines served as of June 30, 2008), and March 31, 2009, for
lines served as of September 30, 2008). BloostonLaw contacts:
Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. JULY 31: FCC FORM 525, COMPETITIVE CARRIER LINE COUNT QUARTERLY REPORT. Competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (CETCs) are eligible to receive high cost support if they serve lines in an incumbent carrier’s service area, and that incumbent carrier receives high cost support. CETCs are eligible to receive the same per-line support amount received by the incumbent carrier in whose study area the CETC serves lines. Unlike the incumbent carriers, CETCs will use FCC Form 525 to submit their line count data to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). This quarterly report must be filed by the last business day of March (for lines served as of September 30 of the previous year); the last business day of July (for lines served as of December 31 of the previous year); the last business day of September (for lines served as of March 31 of the current year); and the last business day of December (for lines served as of June 30 of the current year). CETCs must file the number of working loops served in the service area of an incumbent carrier, disaggregated by the incumbent carrier’s cost zones, if applicable, for High-Cost Loop (HCL), Local Switching Support (LSS), Long Term Support (LTS), and Interstate Common Line Support (ICLS). ICLS will also require the loops to be reported by customer class as further described below. For Interstate Access Support (IAS), CETCs must file the number of working loops served in the service area of an incumbent carrier by Unbundled Network Element (UNE) zone and customer class. Working loops provided by CETCs in ser vice areas of non-rural incumbents receiving High Cost Model (HCM) support must be filed by wire center or other methodology as determined by the state regulatory authority. CETCs may choose to complete FCC Form 525 and submit it to USAC, or designate an agent to file the form on its behalf. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. JULY 31: REPORT OF EXTENSION OF CREDIT TO FEDERAL CANDIDATES. This report (in letter format) must be filed by January 30 and July 31 of each year, but ONLY if the carrier extended unsecured credit to a candidate for a Federal elected office during the reporting period. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, and Richard Rubino. AUGUST 1: FTC BEGINS ENFORCEMENT OF RED FLAG RULES. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has delayed enforcement of the “Red Flag” Rules for 90 days until August 1, 2009, to give creditors and financial institutions additional time to implement identity theft programs. Under the new rules, all businesses that maintain a creditor-debtor relationship with customers, including virtually all telecommunications carriers (but other companies as well), must adopt written procedures designed to detect the relevant warning signs of identity theft, and implement an appropriate response. The Red Flag compliance program was in place as of November 1, 2008. But the FTC will not enforce the rules until Au gust 1, 2009, meaning only that a business will not be subject to enforcement action by the FTC if it de lays implementing the program until August 1. The FTC announcement does not affect other federal agencies’ enforcement of the original Nov. 1, 2008, compliance deadline for institutions subject to their oversight. Other liabilities may be incurred if a violation occurs in the meantime. The requirements are not just binding on telcos and wireless carriers that are serving the public on a common carrier basis. They also apply to any “creditor” (which includes entities that defer payment for goods or services) that has “covered accounts” (ac counts used mostly for personal, family or household purposes). This also may affect private user clients, as well as many telecom carriers’ non-regulated affiliates and subsidiaries. BloostonLaw has prepared a Red Flag Compliance Manual to help your company achieve compliance with the Red Flag Rules. Please contact Gerry Duffy (202-828-5528) or Mary Sisak (202-828-5554) with any questions or to request the manual. JULY 31: SECTION 43.61(a) INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAFFIC REPORTS. All common carriers that provided international facilities-based and facilities-resale switched and private line services, or pure switched resale services, during calendar year 2007, are required to file the report regardless of the amount of traffic they provided. Facilities-based services are provided using international transmission facilities owned in whole or in part by the carrier providing the service. Facilities-resale services are provided by a carrier utilizing international circuits leased from other reporting international carriers. International facilities-based and facilities-resale switched message telephone and private line services data must be filed on a country-by-country, region and world total basis. International switched tele graph, telex and other miscellaneous services data may be filed on a region and world total basis only. Carriers that provided international pure switched resale services for the calendar year may file world totals only. Blooston Law contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. JULY 31: CARRIER IDENTIFICATION CODE (CIC) REPORTS DUE. Carrier Identification Code (CIC) Reports must be filed by July 31 of each year. These reports are required of all carriers who have been assigned a CIC code by NANPA. Failure to file could result in an effort by NANPA to reclaim it, although according to the Guidelines this process is initiated with a letter from NANPA regarding the apparent non-use of the CIC code. The assignee can then respond with an explanation. (Guidelines Section 6.2). The CIC Reporting Requirement is included in the CIC Assignment Guidelines, produced by ATIS. According to section 1.4 of that document: At the direction of the NANPA, the access providers and the entities who are assigned CICs will be requested to provide access and usage information to the NANPA, on a semiannual basis to ensure effective management of the CIC resource. (Holders of codes may respond to the request at their own election). Access provider and entity reports shall be submitted to NANPA no later than January 31 for the period ending December 31, and no later than July 31 for the period ending June 30. It is also referenced in the NANPA Technical Requirements Document, which states at 7.18.6: CIC holders shall provide a usage report to the NANPA per the industry CIC guidelines … The NAS shall be capable of accepting CIC usage reports per guideline requirements on January 31 for the period ending December 31 and no later than July 31 for the period ending June 30. These reports may also be mailed and accepted by the NANPA in paper form. Finally, according to the NANPA website: If no local exchange carrier reports access or usage for a given CIC, NANPA is obliged to reclaim it. The semiannual utilization and access reporting mechanism is described at length in the guidelines. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. AUGUST 3: FCC FORM 499-Q, TELECOMMUNICATIONS REPORTING WORKSHEET. All telecommunications common carriers that expect to contribute more than $10,000 to federal Universal Service Fund (USF) support mechanisms must file this quarterly form. (Normally this form is due on August 1, but because August 1 falls on a Saturday this year, the next business day is Monday, August 3.) This filing requirement applies to wireline and wireless carriers (including CMRS, paging, and other commercial service providers), as well as re sellers. It also applies to certain Private Mobile Radio Service (PMRS) licensees, such as for-profit paging and messaging, dispatch and two-way mobile radio services. The FCC has modified this form in light of its recent decision to establish interim measures for USF contribution assessments. The form contains revenue information from the prior quarter plus projections for the next quarter. Form 499-Q relates only to USF contributions. It does not relate to the cost recovery mechanisms for the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund, the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA), and the shared costs of local number portability (LNP), which are covered in the annual form (Form 499-A) that was due April 1. For-profit private radio service providers that are “de minimis” (those that contribute less than $10,000 per year to the USF) do not have to file the 499-A or 499- Q. However, they must fill out the form and retain the relevant calculations as well as documentation of their contribution base revenues for three years. De minimis telecom carriers must actually file the Form 499-A, but not the 499-Q. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. AUGUST 3: FCC FORM 502, NUMBER UTILIZATION AND FORECAST REPORT: Any wireline or wireless carrier (including CMRS and paging companies) that have received number blocks—including 100, 1,000, or 10,000 number blocks—from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), a Pooling Administrator, or from another carrier, must file Form 502 by August 3. (Normally, this filing would be due August 1, but this year August 1 falls on a Saturday, and agency rules require the filing be submitted the first business day thereafter.) Carriers porting numbers for the purpose of transferring an established customer’s service to another service provider must also report, but the carrier receiving numbers through porting does not (for the reporting period in which the port occurs). Resold services should also be treated like ported numbers, meaning the carrier transferring the resold service to another carrier is required to report those numbers but the carrier receiving such numbers should not report them. New this year is that reporting carriers are required to include their FCC Registration Number (FRN). Reporting carriers file utilization and forecast reports semiannually on or before February 1 for the preceding six-month reporting period ending December 31, and on or before August 1 for the preceding six-month reporting period ending June 30. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. AUGUST 31: COPYRIGHT STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. The Copyright Statement of Accounts form plus royalty payment for the first half of calendar year 2009 is due to be filed September 1 at the Library of Congress’ Copyright Office by cable TV service providers. BloostonLaw contact: Gerry Duffy. SEPTEMBER 1: FCC FORM 477, LOCAL COMPETITION AND BROADBAND REPORTING FORM. In its June 12, 2008 WC Docket No. 07-38 Form 477 Report & Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to improve data collection, the Commission modified Form 477 to require broadband providers to report the number of broadband connections in service in individual Census Tracts. In order to generate an even more complete picture of broadband adoption in the United States, it proposed additional methods to add to the data reported by Form 477 filers, including a voluntary household self-reporting system, and a recommendation to the Census Bureau that the American Community Survey questionnaire be modified to gather information about broadband availability and subscription in house holds. To further improve the quality of collected data, the FCC adopted three additional changes to FCC Form 477. First, it now requires broadband service providers to report data on broadband service speed in conjunction with subscriber counts according to new categories for download and upload speeds. These new speed tiers will better identify services that support advanced applications. Second, it amended reporting requirements for mobile wireless broadband providers to require them to report the number of subscribers whose data plans allow them to browse the Internet and access the Internet con tent of their choice. Finally, it required providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to report subscribership information on Form 477. Then, on reconsideration, it added a requirement that filers include the percentage of residential broadband connections. Who Must File Form 477: Three types of entities must file this form. (1) Facilities-based Providers of Broad band Connections to End User Locations: Entities that are facilities-based providers of broadband connections – which are wired “lines” or wireless “channels” that enable the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the Internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction – must complete and file the applicable portions of this form for each state in which the entity provides one or more such connections to end user locations. For the purposes of Form 477, an entity is a “facilities-based” provider of broadband connections to end user locations if it owns the portion of the physical facility that terminates at the end user location, if it obtains unbundled network elements (UNEs), special access lines, or other leased facilities that terminate at the end user location and provisions/equips them as broadband, or if it provisions/equips a broadband wireless channel to the end user location over licensed or unlicensed spectrum. Such entities include incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers (LECs), cable system operators, fixed wireless service providers (including “wireless ISPs”), terrestrial mobile wireless service providers, satellite mobile wireless service providers, MMDS/BRS providers, electric utilities, municipalities, and other entities. (Such entities do not include equipment suppliers unless the equipment supplier uses the equipment to provision a broadband connection that it offers to the public for sale. Such entities also do not include providers of fixed wire less services (e.g., “Wi-Fi” and other wireless ethernet, or wireless local area network, applications) that only enable local distribution and sharing of a premises broad band facility.) (2) Providers of Wired or Fixed Wireless Local Tele phone Services: Incumbent and competitive LECs must complete and file the applicable portions of the form for each state in which they provide local exchange service to one or more end user customers (which may include “dial-up” ISPs). (3) Providers of Mobile Telephony Services: Facilities-based providers of mobile telephony services must complete and file the applicable portions of this form for each state in which they serve one or more mobile telephony subscribers. A mobile telephony service is a real-time, two-way switched voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network using an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless handoff of subscriber calls. Obvious examples include cellular, PCS, and “covered” SMR carriers, but may include services provided on other wireless spectrum such as AWS, BRS and 700 MHz if configured to fit the above definition. A mobile telephony service provider is considered “facilities-based” if it serves a subscriber using spectrum for which the entity holds a license, that it manages, or for which it has obtained the right to use via lease or other arrangement (e.g., with a Band Manager).
BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak.
SEPTEMBER
30: FCC FORM 507, UNIVERSALSER VICE QUARTERLY
LINE COUNT UPDATE. Line count updates
are required to recalculate a carrier's per
line universal service support, and is filed
with the Universal Service Administrative
Company (USAC). This information must be submitted
on July 31 each year by all rate-of-return
incumbent carriers, and on a quarterly basis
if a competitive eligible telecommunications
carrier (CETC) has initiated service in the
rate-of-return incumbent carrier’s service
area and reported line count data to USAC
in the rate-of-return incumbent carrier’s
service area, in order for the incumbent carrier
to be eligible to receive Interstate Common
Line Support (ICLS). This quarterly filing
is due July 31 and covers lines served as
of December 31, 2007. Incumbent carriers filing
on a quarterly basis must also file on September
30 (for lines served as of March 31, 2008);
December 30 (for lines served as of June 30,
2008), and March 31, 2009, for lines served
as of September 30, 2008). BloostonLaw contacts:
Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. SEPTEMBER 30: FCC FORM 525, COMPETITIVE CARRIER LINE COUNT QUARTERLY REPORT. Competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (CETCs) are eligible to receive high-cost support if they serve lines in an incumbent carrier’s service area, and that incumbent carrier receives high cost support. CETCs are eligible to receive the same per-line support amount received by the incumbent carrier in whose study area the CETC serves lines. Unlike the incumbent carriers, CETCs will use FCC Form 525 to submit their line count data to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). This quarterly report must be filed by the last business day of March (for lines served as of September 30 of the previous year); the last business day of July (for lines served as of December 31 of the previous year); the last business day of September (for lines served as of March 31 of the current year); and the last business day of December (for lines served as of June 30 of the current year). CETCs must file the number of working loops served in the service area of an incumbent carrier, disaggregated by the incumbent carrier’s cost zones, if applicable, for High Cost Loop (HCL), Local Switching Support (LSS), Long Term Support (LTS), and Interstate Common Line Support (ICLS). ICLS will also require the loops to be reported by customer class as further described below. For Interstate Access Support (IAS), CETCs must file the number of working loops served in the service area of an incumbent carrier by Unbundled Network Element (UNE) zone and customer class. Working loops provided by CETCs in service areas of non-rural incumbents receiving High Cost Model (HCM) support must be filed by wire center or other methodology as determined by the state regulatory authority. CETCs may choose to complete FCC Form 525 and submit it to USAC, or designate an agent to file the form on its behalf. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. OCTOBER 1: STATE CERTIFICATION OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE SUPPORT. State regulatory commissions must certify by October 1 that eligible rural carriers are using universal service support for the intended purposes. State commissions must file this annual certification with the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) stating that all federal high-cost support provided to rural incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (CETCs) serving lines in rural ILEC service areas "will be used only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended." Failure of a state commission to provide certification will mean that non-certified carriers in that state will not receive high-cost support for the first quarter of 2008. If you have any doubts about your state's status, contact your state commission immediately. Carriers not subject to state jurisdiction must certify directly to the FCC and USAC. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. OCTOBER 1: LOCAL SWITCHING SUPPORT FORMS. All incumbent eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) serving study areas with 50,000 or fewer access lines must file projections for Local Switching Support (LSS) with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) no later than October 1 in order to receive LSS in calendar year 2006. Average schedule companies must submit USAC Form LSSa, and cost companies must submit USAC Form LSSc. Whereas the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) normally files these forms for participants in its Traffic Sensitive Pool, carriers maintaining their own interstate access tariffs for traffic sensitive services (or services that are otherwise not included in the pool) must file the forms themselves. Contact the firm if you need assistance with these forms. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. OCTOBER 1: LOCAL SWITCHING SUPPORT FORMS. All incumbent eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) serving study areas with 50,000 or fewer access lines must file projections for Local Switching Support (LSS) with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) no later than October 1 in order to receive LSS in calendar year 2006. Average schedule companies must submit USAC Form LSSa, and cost companies must submit USAC Form LSSc. Whereas the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) normally files these forms for participants in its Traffic Sensitive Pool, carriers maintaining their own interstate access tariffs for traffic sensitive services (or services that are otherwise not included in the pool) must file the forms themselves. Contact the firm if you need assistance with these forms. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. OCTOBER 19: FCC FORM 497, LOW INCOME QUARTERLY REPORT. This form, the Lifeline and Link-Up Worksheet, must be submitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) by all eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) that request reimbursement for participating in the low-income program. The form must be submitted by the third Monday after the end of each quarter. It is available at: www.universalservice.org. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. NOVEMBER 1: FCC FORM 499-Q, TELECOMMUNICATIONS REPORTING WORKSHEET. All telecommunications common carriers that expect to contribute more than $10,000 to federal Universal Service Fund (USF) support mechanisms must file this quarterly form. This filing requirement applies to wireline and wireless carriers (including CMRS, paging, and other commercial service providers), as well as resellers. It also applies to certain Private Mobile Radio Service (PMRS) licensees, such as for-profit paging and messaging, dispatch and two-way mobile radio services. The FCC has modified this form in light of its recent decision to establish interim measures for USF contribution assessments. The form contains revenue information from the prior quarter plus projections for the next quarter. Form 499-Q relates only to USF contributions. It does not relate to the cost recovery mechanisms for the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund, the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA), and the shared costs of local number portability (LNP), which are covered in the annual form (Form 499-A) that was due April 1. For-profit private radio service providers that are “de minimis” (those that contribute less than $10,000 per year to the USF) do not have to file the 499-A or 499-Q. However, they must fill out the form and retain the relevant calculations as well as documentation of their contribution base revenues for three years. De minimis telecom carriers must actually file the Form 499-A, but not the 499-Q. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. VITAL MEETINGS & DEADLINES July 29 – Deadline for comments on Supplemental NOI regarding video competition report (2009 data) (MB Docket No. 07- 269). July 31 – FCC Form 507, Universal Service Quarterly Line Count Update, is due. July 31 – FCC Form 525, Competitive Carrier Line Count Quarterly Report, is due. July 31—Report of extension of credit to Federal candidates is due. July 31 – International Telecommunications Traffic Reports are due. July 31 – Carrier Identification Code (CIC) Reports are due. Aug. 1 – FTC enforcement of Red Flag rules takes effect. Aug. 3 – FCC Form 499-Q, Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, is due. Aug. 3 – FCC Form 502, Number Utilization and Forecast Report, is due. Aug. 3 – Deadline for comments on FNPRM regarding improving one business day porting interval process (WC Docket No. 07-244). Aug. 5 – Auction No. 86 (unassigned BRS Auction) Seminar. Aug. 5 – Auction No. 86 (unassigned BRS Auction) Short-Form Filing Window Opens. Aug. 14 – Deadline for applications for NTIA, RUS broadband stimulus program funding. Aug. 14 – Deadline for applications for NTIA mapping grants. Aug. 18 – Auction No. 86 (unassigned BRS Auction) Short-Form Filing Deadline. Aug. 19 – Deadline for reply comments on fixing omission in 4.9 GHz rules (WP Docket No. 07-100). Aug. 21 – Deadline for comments on NTIA’s NOI regarding implementation of CSEA regarding AWS-1 auction relocation issues (Docket No. 0906231085–91085–01). Aug. 27 – FCC Open Meeting. Aug. 28 – Deadline for reply comments on Supplemental NOI regarding video competition report (2009 data) (MB Docket No. 07-269). Aug. 31 – Deadline for reply comments on FNPRM regarding improving one business day porting interval process (WC Docket No. 07-244). Aug. 31 – Deadline for comments on NTIA BTOP NOFA information collection requirement (RIN: 0660-ZA01). Aug. 31 – Copyright Statement of Accounts is due. Sept. 1 – Auction No. 79, FM Construction Permits. |
Amy Tierney is a Web editor for TMCnet, covering unified communications, telepresence, IP communications industry trends and mobile technologies. To read more of Amy's articles, please visit her 
The Model 640 DAPT-XTRA Paging Terminal is a cost effective solution for small to medium-sized systems and private organizations offering a paging service based on bureau-type operator paging and/or direct telephone access. The 640 supports up to 1,500 users with up to 4 telephone lines. It also supports voice paging, voice prompts, talkback paging, and alphanumeric paging. 
Zetron's Remote Monitoring equipment provides monitoring and notification of unusual conditions and status changes. Messages are automatically transmitted over a radio or a public address system. Notification can be sent via speaker or radio announcement, telephone, cellular phone, or paging. 
NEW ALERT AND RINGTONE AMPLIFIER 
II 1 G EEx ia IIA T4 
