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. 35 | x October 7, 2009 |
 Enforcement of Red Flag Rules Takes Effect Nov. 1 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) last summer granted a three-month enforcement delay—until November 1—of its Red Flag Rules to give creditors and financial institutions more time to review FTC guidance and develop and implement written Identity Theft Prevention Programs. The delay applies to entities under the jurisdiction of the FTC and does not affect the Address Discrepancy or Card Issuer Rules. 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 Nov. 1, 2008. But the FTC will not enforce the rules until November 1, 2009, meaning only that a business will not be subject to enforcement action by the FTC if it delays implementing the program until Nov. 1, 2009. 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” (accounts 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. |
INSIDE THIS ISSUE - FCC seeks comment on middle, second mile access on broadband deployment.
- FCC seeks comment on allowing LECs that lose lines to increase LSS.
- FCC seeks comment on cost estimates for connecting anchor institutions to fiber.
- FCC extends reply comment deadline for wireless innovation and investment NOI.
- FCC extends reply comment deadline for mobile competition NOI.
|
FCC Seeks Comment On Middle, Second Mile Access On Broadband Deployment As it develops its National Broadband Plan (NBP), the FCC has asked for additional comment on the impact of middle and second mile access on broadband availability and deployment. The Commission noted that terms like “backhaul,” “transport,” “special access,” and “middle mile” are sometimes used interchangeably, but each of these terms is distinct. To avoid confusion, the FCC said, “middle mile transport” refers generally to the transport and transmission of data communications from the central office, cable head-end, or wireless switching station to an Internet point of presence. “Second mile transport” refers generally to the transport and transmission of data communications from the first point of aggregation (such as a remote terminal, wireless tower location, or HFC [hybrid fiber-coaxial] node) to the point of connection with the middle mile transport. The FCC recognizes that broadband service providers purchase middle and second mile transport service from other providers, self-provide, or utilize some combination in order to provide end users with broadband connectivity to the Internet. Network Components of Broadband Connectivity. To provide broadband service to consumers and small businesses in an area, a broadband Internet service provider needs to have adequate, reasonably priced, and efficiently provided access to both second mile and middle mile connectivity. On a per-end user connection basis, how much middle mile and second mile capacity is needed to provide adequate broadband Internet access to that end user connection? How does the needed capacity for middle mile connectivity vary by the number of customers or usage characteristics of the customer base in a particular location? How does this capacity vary based upon the usage patterns or demands of particular end user customer segments? What are the technology options for providing adequate middle mile and second mile connectivity for the next 5-10 years? Availability and Pricing of Middle and Second Mile Connectivity. A number of different regulatory frameworks apply to the pricing and availability of point-to-point transmission services that may be used by purchasers for middle mile and second mile transport. For example, a purchaser may obtain DS3 or OCn connectivity out of a tariff or contract, and in certain situations DS1 and DS3 connectivity may be available as an unbundled network element. Packet-switched connectivity using Fast Ethernet or Gigabit Ethernet technology may be available under tariff, contract tariff, or de-tariffed service, depending on the service provider. For purposes of the National Broadband Plan, however, what matters is whether sufficient connectivity is adequate, reasonably priced, and efficiently provided in all areas of the country. As a result, the FCC is seeking comment on the price, cost, and availability of middle mile and second mile connectivity, with a focus on rural, unserved, and underserved areas. What is the price of purchasing middle mile and second mile connectivity, broken down by relevant geographic area and technology (e.g., DS3, microwave, OCn, Fast Ethernet, Gigabit Ethernet)? How much do these prices vary by length of the circuit? Precisely how do these prices for middle mile connectivity vary by category of supplier (e.g., incumbent LECs, competitive access providers, wireless providers, interexchange carriers, Inter-net backbone providers) and by the different regulatory treatment of that connectivity (e.g., when available as an unbundled network element, when available as a tariffed service subject to rate-of-return or price cap regulation, when subject to pricing flexibility, or when subject to no ex ante rate regulation)? Precisely how do these prices for middle mile connectivity vary by category of purchaser (e.g., wireless broadband service provider, cable system, local telephone company)? How large are discounts from tariffed rates for middle mile and second mile connectivity obtained from incumbent local exchange companies? For example, the results of a recent special access buyer and seller survey conducted by the National Regulatory Research Institute regarding incumbent LEC special access services reported discounts from tariff “rack rates” for DS3 connectivity range from 44-68% for channel termination, 7% for fixed dedicated transport, and 68% for variable (e.g., mileage) dedicated transport charges. How accurate are these discount estimates? What commitments do customers need to make in order to obtain these discounts? Does the availability of discounts vary by geography or density zone, and if so, by how much? Do these discounts vary when competitive alternatives are present, and if so, by how much? What discounts from tariff “rack rates” or list prices are available for other services, such as OCn, Fast Ethernet, or Gigabit Ethernet? Do these discounts vary by the regulatory treatment of the service? Does the availability of discounts vary by geography or density zone, and if so, by how much? Do these discounts vary when competitive alternatives are present, and if so, by how much? There are also more technical questions about DS1, DS3, or OCn for the purposes of second mile and/or middle mile transport; pricing and availability of Internet connectivity; economics and deployment issues—i.e., is the provision of a high-capacity fiber optic middle mile or second mile connection to a particular location a natural monopoly in some locations? If so, how can the Commission identify those locations and determine the cost of serving those locations? Nature of Competition and Availability of Alternatives. How do firms compete in providing middle mile and second mile transport services? Do firms compete on a circuit-by-circuit basis, by offering connectivity to specific points specified by the customer, or do firms “compete for the customer” by offering customers the ability to order a set of particular circuits at certain averaged or specified prices or terms? How does competition differ between middle mile transport and second mile transport services? Does the nature of competition vary between areas in which high-speed transport network facilities are already in place, as opposed to areas in which such facilities would need to be constructed in order to provide the connectivity requested by the customer? To what extent does a lack of competitive alternatives over some circuits that a particular customer demands affect or limit the ability of that purchaser to acquire or self-provide particular circuits for which alternatives may be available? Commenters in this GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51 and 09-137 (NBP Public Notice # 11) are due November 4. There is no reply date BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, John Prendergast, and Mary Sisak. FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON ALLOWING LECs THAT LOSE LINES TO INCREASE LSS: The FCC has issued an order and notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), addressing the effect of line loss on universal service Local Switching Support (LSS) received by incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) that are designated as eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs). Pursuant to the LSS mechanism, an incumbent LEC ETC serving 50,000 or fewer lines in a study area may recover a portion of its switching costs from the universal service fund. Under the Commission’s rules, as an incumbent LEC ETC’s access lines increase above certain thresholds, the amount of LSS it may receive decreases. In the order, the FCC denied the Coalition for Equity in Switching Support’s petition seeking clarification that the Commission’s rules also allow an incumbent LEC ETC’s LSS to increase if the carrier’s access lines decrease below those thresholds. The FCC found no basis in the rules or the record of the Commission’s proceedings to support the clarification the Coalition seeks. In the NPRM, however, the FCC tentatively concludes that the LSS rules should be modified to permit incumbent LEC ETCs that lose lines to increase their LSS, and seeks comment on these proposed rule changes. More specifically, the FCC noted that the Coalition had requested that the Commission amend its rules to permit an incumbent LEC ETC with declining numbers of access lines to use a higher DEM weighting factor in performing jurisdictional separations and calculating LSS. The FCC said it believes that public policy supports doing so. It therefore tentatively concludes that sections 36.125(j) and 54.301(a)(2)(ii) of the rules should be amended accordingly. The FCC emphasizes that this analysis applies only to its current consideration of a relatively minor change to an existing rule, and nothing herein is intended to reflect or prejudge its consideration of LSS as part of any comprehensive universal service reform. Comments in this WC Docket No. 05-337 proceeding will be due 14 days after publication of the item in the Federal Register, and replies will be due seven days thereafter. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON COST ESTIMATES FOR CONNECTING ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS TO FIBER: In developing a National Broadband Plan, the FCC is relying on a variety of data to fully evaluate the costs of deploying broadband infrastructure throughout the U.S. On October 5, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation filed a cost model and cost estimates of providing fiber optic connectivity to anchor institutions, such as public schools and libraries, community colleges, and hospitals. The FCC seeks comment related to this cost model. (1.) Are there other categories of buildings that should be considered anchor institutions? (2.) How well do the four categories of population density (dense urban, urban, suburban and rural) segment anchor institutions? Is there need to further divide, for example, the rural grouping (<1,000 persons per square mile) to treat more remote areas differently? (3.) How accurate is the assumption that 80% of anchor institutions lack fiber? Does it vary across the different population-density groups? Does it vary by type of anchor institution? (4.) To what extent are the cost estimates for bringing fiber to individual buildings accurate? - Are the average loop lengths a reasonable representation of the distance to currently available fiber access points for each density group?
- Are the costs for aerial and trenched deployment representative?
- Is the ratio of trenched to aerial deployment in the high-end cost estimate reasonable for urban and suburban areas?
- To what extent will aerial plant be available in urban and suburban areas? To what extent will it be possible to add fiber to existing utility conduits or make use of dark fiber, thereby reducing trenching costs, in urban and suburban areas?
- Is it reasonable to assume all-aerial installation in rural areas? Is the assumption about requiring 30% new poles accurate? Is the $2-4 per foot cost reflective of the cost of these new poles?
- Is the termination cost per building accurate? Is it reflective of both equipment of sufficient capacity and of the labor required to install it?
(5.) What incremental inside-wiring, or campus-wiring, costs should be added to these estimates? For what type of institutions in what geographies? (6.) To what extent will right-of-way issues lead to incremental costs not reflected in these estimates? How will right-of-way issues impact the timeline of build-out to these institutions? (7.) Should operating expenses be a consideration when calculating cost for connecting anchor institutions to fiber? What operating expenses would be associated with running these networks, and how would those vary by type of institution and geography? (8.) To what extent will providing fiber to these institutions improve the build-out economics in currently un- or under-served areas? (9.) To what extent will providing fiber to these institutions directly assist last-mile build-outs in currently un- or under-served areas? For example, will bringing fiber to local schools generally provide shorter loop lengths to surrounding homes, or is the location of the communications plant relative to the school and community the primary driver? How will that vary by population density?
Comments in this GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, and 09-137 (NBP Public Notice # 12) proceeding are due October 28. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. FCC EXTENDS REPLY DEADLINE FOR WIRELESS INNOVATION & INVESTMENT NOI: The FCC has extended the reply comment deadline until November 5 for its Wireless Innovation and Investment Notice of Inquiry (NOI) (BloostonLaw Telecom Update, September 16). The NOI seeks comment broadly on all ideas that will foster wireless innovation and investment. In particular, the NOI focuses on spectrum availability and use, wireless networks, devices, applications, and business practices. The NOI also seeks comment on how the public has used wireless services and technology to solve real-world problems in areas such as health care, energy, education, and public safety. GN Docket Nos. 09-51 and 09-157. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, Cary Mitchell, and Bob Jackson. FCC EXTENDS REPLY DEADLINE FOR MOBILE COMPETITION NOI: The FCC has extended the reply comment deadline until October 22 for its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) that seeks to enhance its analysis of competitive conditions in the mobile wireless market (BloostonLaw Telecom Update, September 16). As a companion and extension to its Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Reports, this new Mobile Wireless Competition Report seeks to do the following: First, the FCC inquires about which analytic framework and data sources will most clearly describe competition in the mobile wireless market. Second, it adjusts the inquiry to include new market segments not covered thoroughly in previous reports, such as device and infrastructure segments. Third, it inquires about vertical relationships between “upstream” and “downstream” market segments, and how these relationships affect competition. WT Docket 09-66. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, Cary Mitchell, and Bob Jackson. NTIA AWARDS FIRST FOUR STATE BROADBAND DATA GRANTS: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has awarded the first four grants under its State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program to fund activities in California, Indiana, North Carolina, and Vermont. The data will be displayed in NTIA’s national broadband map, a tool that will inform policymakers' efforts and provide consumers with improved information on the broadband Internet services available to them. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is awarded approximately $1.8 million; the Indiana Office of Technology (IOT) is awarded approximately $1.3 million; the Rural Economic Development Center, Inc. (e-NC Authority) is awarded approximately $1.6 million; and the Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI) is awarded approximately $1.2 million to collect and verify the availability, speed, and location of broadband across the states of California, Indiana, North Carolina, and Vermont, respectively. This activity is to be conducted on a semi-annual basis between 2009 and 2011, with initial data coming available in November 2009 to inform broadband policy efforts. Awardees are to present the data in a clear and accessible format to the public, government, and the research community. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, John Prendergast, and Mary Sisak. STATE REGULATORS UNVEIL WEB PORTAL AS COLLABORATIVE COMPILATION OF BROADBAND PROGRAMS: State utility regulators unveiled a new Web portal that will serve as an interactive compilation of State and federal programs dealing with broadband expansion and other advanced telecommunications services projects. The Website—www.BroadbandBestPractices.org—is being developed by the State members of the Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Services. It is being maintained by the National Regulatory Research Institute, an independent research agency specializing in utility and regulatory practices. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners provided the site a financial grant to help in its development. BroadbandBestPractices.org will provide a searchable reference guide to broadband expansion programs across the country. With nearly $7 billion in broadband funding opportunities available in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Website will be a tool for State and federal policymakers, consumer advocates, industry officials, and the general public seeking to learn about different broadband programs and related information. Users will be able to research different projects and add information about their own in a collaborative fashion. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, John Prendergast, and Mary Sisak. GENACHOWSKI SPELLS OUT WIRELESS GOALS: At the CTIA IT & Entertainment Show in San Diego last week, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski outlined four goals to assist the wireless industry. These include: (1) Finding new spectrum. Genachowski said. "Spectrum is the oxygen for mobile broadband networks." Genachowski said the agency would look at reallocating spectrum, encouraging efficient spectrum usage and potentially freeing up more spectrum for unlicensed use.
(2)
Aiding in the deployment of networks
by streamlining the process of tower
siting.
(3) Promoting an "open Internet" through network neutrality regulations. "I believe it is essential to ensure the Internet remains open," Genachowski said, adding that "questions remain open" about how to implement the guidelines for wireless. (4) Ensuring a transparent and competitive market for consumers.
BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, Cary Mitchell, and Richard Rubino. |
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. 
I don't think it would be an understatement to say the 
Motorola's Android-based entry, 
II 1 G EEx ia IIA T4 
