BloostonLaw Telecom Update Published by the Law Offices of Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendergast, LLP [Selected portions reproduced here with the firm's permission.] www.bloostonlaw.com | Vol. 12, No. 13 | April 1, 2009 |
Obama Taps Strickling For Top NTIA Post President Obama has announced his intention to nominate Lawrence E. Strickling as Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, Department of Commerce, and Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Mr. Strickling is a technology policy expert with more than two decades of experience in the public and private sectors. As Policy Coordinator for Obama for America, Strickling oversaw two dozen domestic policy committees and was responsible for technology and telecommunications issues. Prior to joining the campaign, Strickling was Chief Regulatory and Chief Compliance Officer at Broadwing Communications for three years. His private sector experience also includes serving in senior roles at Allegiance Telecom and CoreExpress, Inc. and as a member of the Board of Directors of Network Plus. In government, Strickling served at the FCC as Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau from 1998 to 2000. Prior to that, Strickling was Associate General Counsel and Chief of the FCC's Competition Division. Prior to joining the FCC, Strickling was Vice President, Public Policy at Ameritech. Before Ameritech, he was a litigation partner at the Chicago law firm of Kirkland & Ellis. Strickling earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School and is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in economics. He serves on the Board of Visitors at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, as Chairman of the Board of Trustees at the University of Chicago's Court Theatre, and on the Board of Directors of Music of the Baroque in Chicago. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and John Prendergast. INSIDE THIS ISSUE - FCC seeks comment on extending Part 36 freeze until June 30, 2010.
- NTCA seeks Part 36 waiver.
- Obama taps Strickling for top NTIA post.
- FCC sets schedule for 2009 annual access tariff filings.
- FCC announces revised application fee schedule.
- FCC seeks comment on international comparison requirements in Section 706 report.
FCC Seeks Comment On Extending Part 36 Freeze Until June 30, 2010 The FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), seeking comment on extending until June 30, 2010, the current freeze of its Part 36 category relationship and jurisdictional cost allocation factor rules. Jurisdictional separations is the process by which incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) apportion regulated costs between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. Historically, one of the primary purposes of the separations process has been to prevent incumbent LECs from recovering the same costs in both the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions. (See below for an explanation of the jurisdictional separations process.) Comments in this CC Docket No. 80-286 proceeding will be due 14 days after publication of the item in the Federal Register, and replies will be due 21 days thereafter. On May 16, 2006, the FCC extended the existing freeze for three years or until such comprehensive reform can be completed, whichever came first. Now, pending comprehensive reform, however, the FCC tentatively concludes that the existing freeze should be extended on an interim basis to avoid the imposition of undue administrative burdens on incumbent LECs. The FCC asks commenters to consider how costly and burdensome an extension of the freeze, or a reversion to the pre-freeze Part 36 rules, would be for small incumbent LECs, and whether an extension would disproportionately affect specific types of carriers or ratepayers. Incumbent LECs have not been required to utilize the programs and expertise necessary to prepare separations information since the inception of the freeze almost eight years ago. If the Commission does not extend the separations freeze, and instead allows the earlier separations rules to return to force, incumbent LECs would be required to reinstitute their separations processes, and they may no longer have the necessary employees and systems in place to do so. Given the imminent expiration of the current separations freeze, it is unlikely that incumbent LECs would have sufficient time to reinstitute the separations processes necessary to comply with the earlier separations rules. The FCC seeks comment on this tentative conclusion. The FCC also tentatively concludes that extending the jurisdictional separations freeze on an interim basis is a reasonable way to apportion costs. It notes that, as the Supreme Court found in Smith v. Illinois, extreme precision is not required in the separations process. The FCC tentatively concludes that the extended freeze will be implemented as described in the 2001 Separations Freeze Order. Specifically, price cap carriers will use the same relationships between categories of investment and expenses within Part 32 accounts and the same jurisdictional allocation factors that have been in place since the inception of the current freeze on July 1, 2001. Rate-of-return carriers will use the same frozen jurisdictional allocation factors, and will use the same frozen category relationships if they had opted previously to freeze those as well. The FCC seeks comment on these tentative conclusions as well. Background: Incumbent LECs perform jurisdictional separations by apportioning the regulated costs in each category between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions in accordance with the Commission's Part 36 separations rules. After the costs are jurisdictionally separated, incumbent LECs apportion the interstate regulated costs among the interexchange services and rate elements that form the cost basis for the incumbent LECs’ interstate access tariffs. Incumbent LECs perform this interstate costs apportionment in accordance with Part 69 of the Commission's rules. The intrastate costs that result from application of the Part 36 rules form the foundation for determining incumbent LECs’ intrastate rate base, expenses, and taxes. The jurisdictional separations process itself has two parts. In the first step, incumbent LECs assign regulated costs to various categories of plant and expenses. In certain instances, costs are further disaggregated among service categories. In the second step, the costs in each category are apportioned between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. These jurisdictional apportionments of categorized costs are based upon either a relative use factor, a fixed allocator, or, when specifically allowed in the Part 36 rules, by direct assignment. For example, loop costs are allocated by a fixed allocator, which allocates 25 percent of the loop costs to the interstate jurisdiction and 75 percent of the costs to the intrastate jurisdiction. The Commission undertakes rulemakings regarding jurisdictional separations in consultation with the Federal- State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations. As the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has stated “any shift in the allocation of jurisdictional responsibility lies at the heart of § 410(c)’s consultation requirement,” the FCC said. In 1997, the Commission initiated a proceeding seeking comment on the extent to which legislative, technological, and market changes warranted comprehensive reform of the separations process, noting that the current network infrastructure is vastly different from the network and services used to define the cost categories appearing in the Commission's current Part 36 rules. The Commission invited the Joint Board to develop a report identifying additional separations issues that the Commission needed to address, and on December 21, 1998, the state members of the Joint Board filed a report identifying such issues and proposing an interim jurisdictional separations freeze to reduce the impact of changes in telephone usage patterns and resulting cost shifts from year to year. On July 21, 2000, the Joint Board issued its 2000 Separations Recommended Decision recommending that, until comprehensive reform can be achieved, the Commission freeze Part 36 category relationships and jurisdictional allocation factors for incumbent LECs subject to price cap regulation and freeze allocation factors only for incumbent LECs subject to rate-of-return regulation. In the 2001 Separations Freeze Order, the Commission adopted the Joint Board's recommendation to impose an interim freeze of the Part 36 category relationships and jurisdictional cost allocation factors, pending comprehensive reform of the Part 36 separations rules. The Commission concluded that this freeze would provide stability and regulatory certainty for incumbent LECs by minimizing any impacts on separations results that might occur as a result of circumstances not contemplated by the Commission’s Part 36 rules, such as growth in local competition and new technologies. Further, the Commission found that a freeze of the separations process would reduce regulatory burdens on incumbent LECs during the transition from a regulated monopoly to a deregulated, competitive environment in the local telecommunications marketplace. Accordingly, the Commission froze all Part 36 category relationships and allocation factors for price cap carriers and all allocation factors for rate-of-return carriers. Under the freeze, price cap carriers calculate: 1) the relationships between categories of investment and expenses within Part 32 accounts; and 2) the jurisdictional allocation factors, as of a specific point in time, and then lock or “freeze” those category relationships and allocation factors in place for a set period of time. The carriers use the “frozen” category relationships and allocation factors for their calculations of separations results and therefore are not required to conduct separations studies for the duration of the freeze. Rate-of-return carriers are only required to freeze their allocation factors, but had the option to freeze their category relationships at the outset of the freeze. The Commission ordered that the freeze would be in effect for a five-year period beginning July 1, 2001, or until the Commission completed comprehensive separations reform, whichever came first. In addition, the Commission stated that prior to the expiration of the separations freeze, the Commission would, in consultation with the Joint Board, determine whether the freeze period should be extended. The Commission further stated that any decision to extend the freeze beyond the five-year period in the 2001 Separations Freeze Order would be based “upon whether, and to what extent, comprehensive reform of separations has been undertaken by that time.” 2006 Separations Extension and Further Notice: Following the adoption of the 2001 Separations Freeze Order, on December 18, 2001, the state members of the Joint Board filed a paper outlining options for comprehensive separations reform upon expiration of the freeze. On December 20, 2001, the Common Carrier Bureau sought comment on the Glide Path Paper. On February 5, 2002, the Joint Board held an en banc hearing to discuss options for comprehensive separations reform that were proposed in the Glide Path Paper. On May 27, 2004, the state members of the Joint Board filed a letter with the federal members of the Joint Board asking that a data request be issued to incumbent LECs to better analyze the impact of the separations freeze, and in March 2005, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register seeking comment regarding the estimated burdens of responding to a data request related to separations and the separations freeze. On October 25, 2005, the state members of the Joint Board prepared an update to the Glide Path Paper. The Glide Path II Paper proposed six options, many the same as those presented in the original Glide Path Paper, for a separations policy following an anticipated June 30, 2006 expiration of the freeze. On December 13, 2005, the United States Telecom Association filed a white paper advocating that the Commission extend the separations freeze on an interim basis from July 1, 2006 until a permanent rule retaining, modifying, or terminating the separations freeze takes effect. USTelecom argued that the looming expiration of the freeze was causing significant uncertainty in the industry and forcing incumbent LECs to consider making substantial – but potentially unnecessary – investments in an effort to permit compliance with separations study requirements if the freeze were not extended. On May 16, 2006, in the 2006 Separations Freeze Extension and Further Notice, the Commission extended the freeze for three years or until such comprehensive reform can be completed, whichever came first. The Commission concluded that extending the freeze would provide stability to incumbent LECs that must comply with the Commission's jurisdictional separations rules pending further Commission action to reform the Part 36 rules, and that more time was needed to study comprehensive reform, including the recent filings by the Joint Board's state members and others. The Commission also sought comment on comprehensive separations reform, including the proposals raised in the Joint Board state members’ glide path papers. As it had in the 2001 Separations Freeze Order, the Commission concluded in the 2006 Separations Freeze Extension and Further Notice that it had the authority to adopt an interim separations freeze to preserve the status quo pending reform and provide for a reasonable allocation of costs. The Commission concluded that allowing the separations process to revert to the pre-freeze rules would create undue instability and administrative burdens while the Commission was considering comprehensive separations reform. The Commission also concluded that a comprehensive source of data to assess alternatives to a freeze was not then available. The Commission therefore concluded that extending the jurisdictional separations freeze on an interim basis was a reasonable measure to apportion costs. The Commission found that an extension would prevent the wasteful expenditure of significant resources by incumbent LECs to develop the ability to perform separations in a manner that likely would only be relevant for a relatively short time while the Commission considers comprehensive separations reform. The Commission also found that extending the freeze would provide significant stability to the jurisdictional separations process. As it had in the 2001 Separations Freeze Order, the Commission found that avoiding a sudden cost shift would provide regulatory certainty that offsets the concern that there may be a temporary misallocation of costs between the jurisdictions. The Commission also found that “maintaining the stability and regulatory certainty of the freeze will allow incumbent LECs to make investment decisions without fear that a reversion to the earlier rules would create radically different cost recovery requirements than they would currently expect.” The Commission also found that extending the freeze would avoid the imposition of undue administrative burdens on incumbent LECs. If the Commission had not extended the separations freeze, and instead allowed the earlier separations rules to return to force, incumbent LECs would have been required to reinstitute their separations processes. As the USTelecom White Paper noted in 2005, many incumbent LECs no longer had the necessary employees and systems in place to comply with the old jurisdictional separations process and would therefore have had to hire or reassign and train employees and redevelop systems for collecting and analyzing the data necessary to perform separations. The Commission found that it would have been unduly burdensome for incumbent LECs to commit the resources necessary to perform separations consistent with the prior rules when there is a significant likelihood that there would be no lasting benefit to doing so. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. NTCA Seeks Part 36 Waiver Concerning Allocation of General, Administrative Costs The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) has filed a petition requesting that the Commission clarify and/or waive Section 36.392 of the Commission’s jurisdictional separations rules concerning the allocation of general and administrative costs. Specifically, NTCA has requested a waiver to allow rate-of-return regulated incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to assign and allocate all costs associated with audits by the Commission’s Office of Inspector General and Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to the interstate jurisdiction. Interested parties may file comments on or before April 20, 2009, and reply comments on or before May 5, 2009. All pleadings are to reference CC Docket No. 80-286. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. FCC Sets Schedule For 2009 Annual Access Tariff Filings The FCC has established the procedures and deadlines for incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to file their 2009 access tariff revisions. Whereas price cap ILECs must file interstate access tariff revisions every year, rate of return ILECs need file such revisions only every other year. In addition, rate of return ILECs that file their own traffic-sensitive interstate access tariffs under Section 61.38 of the Commission’s rules are required to file in even-numbered years. Those filing pursuant to Section 61.39 of the Commission’s rules are required to file in odd-numbered years and are not required to submit supporting material with the revised tariff. Because 2009 is an odd-numbered year, only the price cap ILECs and the ILECs filing pursuant to section 61.39 are required to file revised access tariffs this year. Any rate-of-return ILEC subject to section 61.38 may elect to make a voluntary tariff filing at this time. ILECs are permitted to make their tariff filings on either 15 or seven days prior to the effective date of their tariffs, depending on the type of changes the tariffs propose. ILECs proposing to increase any of their rates file their tariff revisions on 15 days’ notice, while ILECs proposing to decrease all of their rates file their tariff revisions on seven days’ notice. The Commission’s rules require that annual access tariff filings must be filed with a scheduled effective date of July 1. Accordingly, the effective date for ILEC annual access tariffs filed on 15 days’ notice is June 16, 2009 and those filed on seven days’ notice is June 24, 2009. In accordance with the tariff filing schedule, petitions to suspend or reject tariff filings made on 15 days’ notice will be due June 23, 2009 and replies will be due June 26, 2009. Petitions to suspend or reject tariff filings made on seven days’ notice will be due by 12:00 p.m. (noon) Eastern Time on June 26, 2009, and reply comments will be due no later than 12:00 p.m. (noon) Eastern Time on June 29, 2009. Price cap ILECs are required to submit both a short form TRP and a long-form TRP. Section 61.49(k) of the Commission’s rules requires price cap carriers to file a short form TRP without rate detail information 90 days prior to the effective date of July 1. For this year’s filing, the FCC waives the 90 day requirement and permits the short form TRP to be filed on May 1, 2009. The FCC will issue a separate order that will provide the details of the price cap short form and regular TRPs. Comments on the short form TRP will be due on May 15, 2009. Reply comments will be due May 22, 2009. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. FCC ANNOUNCES REVISED APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE: Effective April 28, 2009, the application fees charged to licensees and permittees by the FCC will increase to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index-Urban (CPI-U). Section 8(b) of the Communications Act requires cost-of-living adjustments to the application fee schedule every two years after October 1, 1991. Increases in the dollar amount of all Section 8 application fees are based on the percentage change in the CPI-U from the date of enactment of the legislation. The new Schedule of Application Fees reflects the net change in the CPI-U of 4.9 percent, calculated from October 2005 through October 2007 in accordance with Section 1.1115 of Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules. Wireless Telecommunications Services application fees that have an associated regulatory fee that must be paid at the time of application filing are noted by an asterisk in the Schedule. Please refer to the most recent Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Fee Filing Guide for the total fee that is due for these specific services. Copies of all fee filing guides for each of the Bureaus/Offices that have fee-able services may be obtained on the Internet at www.fcc.gov/fees/appfees.html. Copies may also be obtained by calling Forms Distribution at (202) 418-3676 or toll free by calling 1-800-418-3676. You may also pick up the filing guides in the Commission Room TW-B200. All revenues generated by Section 8 Application Fees are deposited in the General Fund of the United States Treasury. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, and Richard Rubino. FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON IMPLEMENTING INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 706 REPORT: The FCC seeks comment on how it should implement the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), which imposes new broadband data collection and reporting obligations by requiring the Commission to include an international comparison in its annual Communications Act Section 706 broadband report and to conduct a consumer survey of broadband service capability. In short, the FCC must (1) include information comparing the extent of broadband service capability (including data transmission speeds and price for broadband service capability) in a total of 75 communities in at least 25 countries abroad for each of the data rate benchmarks for broadband service utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers; (2) choose communities for the comparison in a manner that will offer, to the extent possible, communities of a population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile that are comparable to the population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile of the various communities within the United States. The FCC also has to identify various other factors, including relevant similarities and differences in each community, including their market structures, the number of competitors, the number of facilities-based providers, the types of technologies deployed by such providers, the applications and services those technologies enable, the regulatory model under which broadband service capability is provided, the types of applications and services used, business and residential use of such services, and other media available to consumers. The Commission therefore invites parties to comment on how the Commission can effectively implement the international comparison of broadband service capability, including speeds and prices. It seeks comment on the criteria for the identification and selection of the communities to be included in the survey, on all possible sources of data it should examine, and any other factors or issues it should consider. Parties should also comment on the survey requirements, which do affect rural areas, and include: (A) the types of technology used to provide the broadband service capability to which consumers subscribe; (B) the amounts consumers pay per month for such capability; (C) the actual data transmission speeds of such capability; (D) the types of applications and services consumers most frequently use in conjunction with such capability; (E) for consumers who have declined to subscribe to broadband service capability, the reasons given by such consumers for declining such capability; (F) other sources of broadband service capability which consumers regularly use or on which they rely; and (G) any other information the Commission deems appropriate for such purpose. Comments in this GN Docket No. 09-47 proceeding are due April 10, and replies are due April 17. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak. APRIL 10: DTV EDUCATION REPORT. Because the DTV transition deadline has been extended, new 700 MHz licensees from Auction No. 73 are required to file a report with the FCC by concerning their efforts to educate consumers about the upcoming transition to digital television (DTV). Last summer, we explained that the FCC’s Part 27 rules require 700 MHz licensees that won licenses in Auction No. 73 to file quarterly reports on their DTV consumer outreach efforts through the Spring of 2009. However, in an apparent contradiction, the same rules do not impose any substantive consumer education requirements on 700 MHz license holders. This situation has not changed. The reporting rule simply states that “the licensee holding such authorization must file a report with the Commission indicating whether, in the previous quarter, it has taken any outreach efforts to educate consumers about the transition from analog broadcast television service to digital broadcast television service (DTV) and, if so, what specific efforts were undertaken.” Many licensees may not have initiated 700 MHz service as of yet. However, to the extent they are also an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) and recipient of federal USF funds, separate FCC rules found in 47 C.F.R. Part 54 (Universal Service) require ETCs to send monthly DTV transition notices to all Lifeline/Link-Up customers (e.g., as part of their monthly bill), and to include information about the DTV transition as part of any Lifeline or Link-Up publicity campaigns until March 31, 2009. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, and Cary Mitchell. APRIL 20: 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. MAY 1: ENFORCEMENT OF RED FLAG RULES BEGINS: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) last year suspended enforcement of the “Red Flag” Rules until May 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, must adopt written procedures designed to detect the relevant warning signs of identify theft, and implement an appropriate response. The Red Flag compliance program was to have been in place by Nov. 1, 2008. But the FTC will not enforce the rules until May 1, 2009, meaning only that a business will not be subject to enforcement action by the FTC if it delays implementing the program until May 1. 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 who use radios internally, 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 and Mary Sisak with any questions or to request the manual. MAY 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. 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 is due April 1. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens and Gerry Duffy. MAY 1: RATE INTEGRATION CERTIFICATION. Non-dominant interexchange carriers (IXCs), including facilities- based and resellers, that provide detariffed domestic interstate services must certify that they are providing such services in compliance with their geographic rate averaging and rate integration obligations. An officer of the company must sign this annual certification under oath. The FCC has issued the following guidelines: (1) Any carrier that provides interstate services must charge its subscribers in rural and high-cost areas rates that do not exceed the rates that the carrier charges subscribers in urban areas; (2) to the extent that a carrier offers optional calling plans, contract tariffs, discounts, promotions, and private line services to its interstate subscribers in one state, it must use the same ratemaking methodology and rate structure when offering such services in any other state; (3) an interstate carrier may depart from geographic rate averaging when offering contract tariffs, Tariff 12 offerings, optional calling plans, temporary promotions, and private line services; and (4) carriers may offer optional calling plans on a geographically limited basis as part of a temporary promotion that does not exceed 90 days. But this limited exception does not exempt optional calling plans from geographic rate averaging requirements. Clients with questions about the FCC's detariffing or rate integration requirements should contact us. We have a model rate integration certification letter that may be printed on your letterhead. Blooston- Law contacts: Ben Dickens and Gerry Duffy. MAY 31: FCC FORM 395, EMPLOYMENT REPORT. Common carriers, including wireless carriers, with 16 or more full-time employees must file their annual Common Carrier Employment Reports (FCC Form 395) by May 31. This report tracks carrier compliance with rules requiring recruitment of minority employees. Further, the FCC requires all common carriers to report any employment discrimination complaints they received during the past year. That information is also due on May 31. The FCC encourages carriers to complete the discrimination report requirement by filling out Section V of Form 395, rather than submitting a separate report. Clients who would like assistance in filing Form 395 should contact Richard Rubino. JUNE 30: ANNUAL ICLS USE CERTIFICATION. Rate of return carriers and CETCs must file a self-certification with the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) stating that all Interstate Common Line Support (ICLS) and Long Term Support (LTS) will be used only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended. In other words, carriers are required to certify that their ICLS and LTS support is being used consistent with Section 254(e) of the Communications Act. Failure to file this self-certification will preclude the carrier from receiving ICLS support. We, therefore, strongly recommend that clients have BloostonLaw submit this filing and obtain an FCC proof-of-filing receipt for client records. BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens and Gerry Duffy. JULY 10: DTV EDUCATION REPORT. New 700 MHz licensees from Auction No. 73 are required to file a report with the FCC concerning their efforts to educate consumers about the upcoming transition to digital television (DTV). Last summer, we explained that the FCC’s Part 27 rules require 700 MHz licensees that won licenses in Auction No. 73 to file quarterly reports on their DTV consumer outreach efforts through the Spring of 2009. However, in an apparent contradiction, the same rules do not impose any substantive consumer education requirements on 700 MHz license holders. This situation has not changed. The reporting rule simply states that “the licensee holding such authorization must file a report with the Commission indicating whether, in the previous quarter, it has taken any outreach efforts to educate consumers about the transition from analog broadcast television service to digital broadcast television service (DTV) and, if so, what specific efforts were undertaken.” Many licensees may not have initiated 700 MHz service as of yet. However, to the extent they are also an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) and recipient of federal USF funds, separate FCC rules found in 47 C.F.R. Part 54 (Universal Service) require ETCs to send monthly DTV transition notices to all Lifeline/Link-Up customers (e.g., as part of their monthly bill), and to include information about the DTV transition as part of any Lifeline or Link-Up publicity campaigns until March 31, 2009. BloostonLaw contacts: Hal Mordkofsky and Cary Mitchell. JULY 20: 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. FCC Meetings and Deadlines Apr. 8 – FCC open meeting. Apr. 10 – Auction 73 winners must file quarterly report covering DTV consumer education outreach efforts for period Jan.-Mar. 2009. Apr. 10 – Deadline for comments on international comparison requirements in Section 706 report (GN Docket No. 09-47). Apr. 11 – Deadline for FCC to act on Embarq forbearance petition regarding IP-to-PSTN voice traffic, or have it deemed granted (WC Docket No. 08-8). April 13 – Deadline for comments on NTIA/RUS broadband grant program [Docket No. 090309298–9299–01]. Apr. 13 – Deadline for comments on FCC’s consulting role on broadband grant program (GN Docket No. 09-40). Apr. 13 – Deadline for reply comments on petition asking whether creditors can send auto messages to certain wireless numbers (CG Docket No. 02-278). Apr. 17 – Deadline for reply comments on international comparison requirements in Section 706 report (GN Docket No. 0947). Apr. 20 – FCC Form 497, Low Income Quarterly Report, is due. Apr. 20 – Deadline for comments on NTCA petition requesting that FCC clarify and/or waive Part 36 jurisdictional separations rules concerning allocation of general and administrative costs (CC Docket No. 80-286). May 1 – FTC begins enforcement of Red Flag Rules. May 1 – Rate Integration Certification is due. May 1 – Deadline for price cap carriers to file short form Tariff Review Plan (TRP) associated with annual access tariff filing due July 1. May 5 – Deadline for reply comments on NTCA petition requesting that FCC clarify and/or waive Part 36 jurisdictional separations rules concerning allocation of general and administrative costs (CC Docket No. 80-286). May 13 – FCC open meeting. May 15 – Deadline for comments on price cap carriers’ short form TRP associated with annual access tariff filing due July 1. May 22 – Deadline for reply comments on price cap carriers’ short form TRP associated with annual access tariff filing due July 1. May 31 – FCC Form 395, Employment Report, is due. June 12 – DTV Transition. June 13 – DTV Analog Nightlight program begins and runs for 30 days until July 12. June 16 – Deadline for ILECs filing annual access tariffs on 15 days’ notice (carriers proposing to increase any of their rates). | 
NEW ALERT AND RINGTONE AMPLIFIER 
OK. WE ARE officially in a recession. Money is tight and getting tighter. Borrowing for business is becoming nearly impossible. This is probably one of the reasons we saw a lower than expected attendance at our recent conference in Scottsdale, which is unfortunate because the quality of the experience was excellent. If you missed it, you missed a myriad of opportunities to network and learn.
— FLEX is a registered trademark of Motorola Inc. 
Simply put, there is no better time to be a wireless subscriber off a contract. In fact, the barrage of phones may make consumers pine for hassle free wireless contracts. If I didn’t have a two-year contract I’d be a smartphone two-timer hopping from phone to phone every few months.
RIM and Apple had a collective 70 percent of the smartphone market in the fourth quarter and the two companies are running out of headroom in the U.S. I’d wager that both will take their lumps as new smartphones hit the market. Why?
Bottom line: Everything is an iPhone. Apple invented a category and now every carrier will have a copycat. These copycats only have to take a smidge of share from both Apple and RIM to raise a ruckus. 
