|FCC Announces UNE Report and Order
|2/20. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) adopted, but did not release, a
report and order regarding the Section 251 unbundling obligations of incumbent
local exchange carriers (ILECs). The FCC issued only a short
press release [2 pages in PDF] and an
attachment [4 pages in PDF] following a divisive meeting.
Highlights of Order. The following is a summary of the major
components of the FCC's order:
Fiber to the Home. The Order provides that there is no unbundling
requirement for fiber to the home (FTTH) loops.
Hybrid Loops. The Order provides that there is no unbundling requirement for
a transmission path over hybrid loops utilizing the
packet switching capabilities of their DLC systems in remote terminals. However,
ILECs must still provide unbundled access to a voice grade equivalent channel
and high capacity loops utilizing TDM technology, such as DS1s and DS3s.
Copper Loops. The Order provides that ILECs must
continue to provide unbundled access to copper loops and copper subloops.
Line Sharing. The Order eliminates line sharing as an unbundled network
Switching. The FCC stated in its attachment to its release that "The
Commission finds that switching -- a key UNE-P element -- for business customers
served by high-capacity loops such as DS-1 will no longer be unbundled based on
a presumptive finding of no impairment. Under this framework, states will have
90 days to rebut the national finding. For mass market customers, the Commission
sets out specific criteria that states shall apply to determine, on a granular
basis, whether economic and operational impairment exists in a particular
market. State Commissions must complete such proceedings (including the approval
of an incumbent LEC batch hot cut process) within 9 months. Upon a state finding
of no impairment, the Commission sets forth a 3 year period for carriers to
transition off of UNE-P."
Commissioners. This was an order built upon shifting majorities.
Identifying each Commissioner's position on each component of the order is
difficult, because essentially, they only gave speeches regarding a press
However, on key points, this was the breakdown. Commissioners Martin,
Copps and Adelstein formed a majority on the switching and state authority
aspects of the order. Powell and Abernathy formed a vehement minority. The
thunder of their condemnation was directed at this aspect of the order.
On the issue of line sharing, Commissioners Martin, Copps and Adelstein again formed a
majority, with Powell and Abernathy dissenting. On other broadband issues
Commissioners Powell, Abernathy and Martin formed the majority, with Copps and
Adelstein dissenting in part. Thus, it appears that Martin was the critical
swing vote, and crafter of the order.
Each of the five Commissioners prepared statements explaining their votes. Most read
their statements in full, verbatim, at the meeting. See,
statement [PDF] of Michael Powell,
statement [PDF] of Kathleen Abernathy,
statement of Michael Copps,
statement [PDF] of Kevin Martin, and
statement [PDF] of Jonathan
Background. Unbundled network elements (UNEs) are those portions of
telephone networks that the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs, such as
BellSouth, SBC and
Qwest) must make available to competing carriers
(including AT&T and WorldCom) seeking to
provide telecommunications services.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that ILECs must provide access to
certain of their network elements at regulated rates.
The ILECs, and their supporters, have long argued that requiring them to give
their competitors access to their facilities at low rates gives the ILECs no
incentive to build new facilities. Competive LECs, and their supporters, have
argued that such access is necessary to spur competition.
§ 251(c)(3) provides that ILECs have "The duty
to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a
telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an
unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and
conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the agreement and the requirements of this section
and section 252 of this title. An incumbent local exchange carrier shall provide
such unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to
combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications service."
Section 251 unbundling requirements were created by the 1996 Act. 47 U.S.C. §
251(d)(1) requires that "Within 6 months after February 8, 1996, the Commission
shall complete all actions necessary to establish regulations to implement the
requirements of this section." More than 6 years later, the FCC is still at the
task. On two prior occasions, courts struck down the FCC's unbundling rules. The
order announced on February 20 is the FCC's third attempt. Two Commissioners,
Powell and Abernathy, and two key members of Congress, Reps. Tauzin and Dingell,
have already predicted that a key part of the order -- pertaining to the
switching -- will be struck down too.
FCC Meeting. The FCC approved this order at a meeting devoted solely
to this matter. An FCC staff member read a brief summary of the report and order
to the five Commissioners who sat behind the Commissioners' bench. Then each of
the five read a lengthy statement explaining their views. As is customary, there
was no debate or discussion. The Commissioners then voted. The item was
approved. The meeting ended. Chairman Powell then stepped to the right of the
bench to answer questions from reporters, while Commissioner Martin stepped to
the left of the bench to answer questions from reporters.
FCC staff, including William Maher, Chief of the FCC's
Wireline Competition Bureau
(WCB), Brent Olson, Deputy Chief of the WCB's Competition Policy Division (CPD),
and Tom Navin, another Deputy Chief of the WCB's CPD, then held a
press conference. Reporters struggled to ask pertinent questions about the
content of the order, which they had not read, while FCC staff offered answers
about the content of the order, which they have not yet written.
The report and order itself has not been completed. FCC Wireline
Competition Bureau Chief William Maher was asked after the meeting when the
order would be publicly released. He provided no date. The only specificity
that he offered was that "I like to estimate things in terms of seasons."
Many major FCC NPRMs,
MOOs and ROs are released
about a week to ten days after they are approved at a Commission meeting. This
report and order may take longer. Commissioner Adelstein (at right), who is the
newest Commissioner, stated that
"The lights were burning brightly on the eighth floor late last night, and
offices reached some agreements on major issues at the eleventh hour -- and I
mean that literally, around 11:00. So we understandably haven't yet had the
opportunity to review all the language reflecting those cuts." He added that "I
am very uncomfortable voting on this item before the offices have seen the draft
order, because as we all know, the devil is in the details." Maher stated at the
press conference that the order will be "well over 300 pages".
|FCC Announces Decision on Switching
|2/20. The most contentious component of the
Communications Commission's (FCC) report and order regarding unbundled network
elements adopted on February 20 pertains to the switching element for
The FCC has not released the actual order. It did, however, issue a
press release [2 pages in PDF] and an
attachment [4 pages in PDF] that provide a cursory summary.
Commissioner Kevin Martin,
who joined with Commissioners Copps and Adelstein to form a majority on the switching
issue, explained his position. He stated that "Some of my
colleagues also wish to end the unbundling of all residential switching
immediately. I believe such action would be inconsistent with recent court
decisions and the state of competition in the market. It is true that there are
now a significant number of residential telephone customers that receive service
from a CLEC, but the overwhelming majority of these customers is currently
served through an incumbents’ switch. To declare an immediate end to the
unbundling of all switching in every market in the country would ignore the
Court’s mandate for a more granular analysis and effectively end residential
competition. Accordingly, I support the item’s approach to treat residential
switching as we do other network elements, removing unbundling obligations only
after a fact specific market analysis." (Emphasis in original.)
He added that "this
item provides an important role for the states". He elaborated that "states are
better able to make individual, factual determinations about particular
geographic markets than are federal regulators in Washington. And, just as we do
for other network elements, the Commission provides the states detailed
guidelines of what constitutes impairment."
(at right), seconded
this view. He stated that "we have instead managed to cobble together a majority
for a more reasonable process to conduct a granular analysis that takes into
account geographic and customer variation in different markets. We have
recognized that the States have a significant role to play in our unbundling
determinations. We have understood in many parts of this Order that the path to
success is not through preemption of the role of the States, but through
cooperation with the States. State Commissions with closer proximity to the
markets are often best positioned to make the fact-intensive determinations
about impairments faced by competitors in their local markets. I am therefore
pleased with our decision that States should have an active part in conducting
the granular analysis necessary to determine whether and where network elements
such as switching should be available as unbundled network elements."
Chairman Michael Powell and Commissioner
Kathleen Abernathy dissented.
Powell (at right)
delivered his most angry and eloquent speech yet. He first addressed the
importance of switching. He stated that "If switching is available, it is very
likely a carrier can resell the entire incumbent's network, at heavily
subsidized rates, set by regulators, without having to provide much in the way
of its own infrastructure."
He continued that "Facilities based competition means a competitor can offer
real differentiated service to consumers -- the switch is the brains of one's
network and to be without one is to be a competitor on life support fed by a
hostile host. Facilities based competitors own more of their network and can
control more of their costs, thereby offering consumers real potential for lower
prices. Facilities based competitors offer greater rewards for the
economy—buying more equipment from other suppliers (like Lucent, Corning and
Nortel) and creating more jobs (the reason CWA supports such a course). And,
facilities providers create vital redundant networks that can serve our nation
if other facilities are damaged by those hostile to our way of life."
He then fired at his opponents on the Commission. "The Majority apparently
is a big fan of UNE-P, because it
has contorted the letter and spirit of the statute and the court's
interpretation of our responsibilities in an effort to ensure its indefinite
preservation. What is remarkable about today’s decision is that one looks in
vein to find a clear or coherent federal policy in the choices made by the
"Today's decision clearly steps back from a pro-facilities policy, by favoring
extensive regulatory management of incumbent networks to supply the competitive
market. More distressing than giving facilities providers the back of their
hand, I see no meaningful federal policy put in its place, other than vague and
solicitous pronouncements about the states playing the lead role in making these
determinations and a commitment to ``competition,´´ no matter how anemic", said
Powell also discussed, at length, why he
believes that the courts will eventual overturn this aspect of the order.
He also addressed its likely economic
consequences. He said that "I believe this decision will prove too chaotic for an
already fragile telecom market. In choosing to abdicate its responsibility to
craft clear and sustainable rules on unbundling to the State Public Utility
Commissions the Majority has brought forth a molten morass of regulatory
activity that may very well wilt any lingering investment interest in the
sector. And, I fear as much or more for CLECs as I do ILECs,
for the prolonged uncertainty of rights and responsibilities may prove stifling."
Powell also described this regulatory
regime as "Picasso-esque". He added that "I can
only imagine how a business plan gets written by a CLEC hoping to enter the
local market, not knowing now and not likely to know for years what they will
ultimately be entitled to and for how long."
Powell predicted that "The nation will now embark on 51 major state
proceedings to evaluate what elements will be unbundled and made available
to CLECs. These decisions will be litigated through 51 different federal district
courts. These 51 cases will likely be decided in multiple ways
-- some upholding
the state, some overturning the state and little chance of regulatory and legal
harmony among them at the end of the day. These 51 district court cases are
likely to be heard by 12 Federal Courts of Appeals -- do we expect they will all
rule similarly? If not, we will eventually be back in the Supreme Court of the
United States to resolve any conflicts -- the same
Court that vacated our excessively permissive unbundling regime in 1999."
He also criticized the majority for asserting a states rights argument. "To
explain their decision, the majority has cloaked itself in the drape of ``State's
Rights.´´ (a classic conservative mantra not generally associated with a
majority of democrats). This is a trivial misuse of a cherished constitutional
precept. Congress has established a federal statute and federal policy to
promote competition." (Parentheses in original.)
Powell also offered this concluding
remark. "I must also note that the impulse to leave much more telecom
policy to state commissions may run against the winds of technological
change. Communications is converging, distance is fading as a meaningful
construct in an internet, cyber-space world, mobility is ascending. These are
the circumstances that necessitate, at a minimum, a coherent national framework
of rules. States can play important roles in such a
regime, but I am of the view that primacy must rest with the national
Kathleen Abernathy (at
right) offered some similar perspectives. She stated that "I am deeply
disappointed by the Commission’s resolution of the unbundled switching (UNE-P)
issue. Rather than conducting the kind of impairment analysis mandated by the
statute and the courts, the Commission has essentially washed its hands of the
issue, delegating virtually unbounded authority to state commissions to make
their own impairment findings. Rather than creating a clear and predictable
regulatory environment, this decision will engender litigation in each of the 50
states and leave all carriers -- whether CLECs or ILECs -- guessing about what
their rights and obligations will be in the years to come. And rather than
promoting facilities-based competition, this decision creates the possibility
that UNE-P will remain ubiquitously available indefinitely, despite powerful
record evidence demonstrating that competitors can serve customers using their
own switches in many (if not most) areas."
She also quipped that "While
lawyers will thrive in this environment, the carriers will become mired in a
Industry Reaction. The incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) were
the losers in the switching component of the FCC order. Duane Ackerman, Ch/CEO
of BellSouth, stated in a release
that "If allowed to stand, today's switching decision will mean that regulation
continues to stifle capital investment and research and development in the
telecom industry. The decision will perpetuate the hostile environment for
He added that "Chairman Powell and Commissioner Abernathy did the right thing today by
standing firm on their principles -- to acknowledge where competition now exists,
to recognize how competition has now developed among technologies, and to adapt
government's role to reflect the fact of the market today. Their approach would
have created the environment for more jobs, more competition, innovation and
investment. We believe they will be vindicated in court."
Similarly, Tom Tauke, an SVP at
Verizon, stated in a
that the FCC "blew it". He said that "Rather than bringing stability,
certainty and clarity to the regulatory
structure for the industry, the commission left a void and handed off the
decision making to the states. This is a recipe for continued disarray in the
industry and more litigation."
He added that "The future of telecommunications is broadband, and on this issue the
commission appears to have moved in the right direction but may have important
details wrong. Moreover, the future investment in the wireline network is tied
to a strong financial base for the overall business."
Tauke also said that "I fully expect that Verizon will appeal portions of
this order. And Verizon
will continue its fight on all fronts -- Congress, courts, states and the FCC --
for real deregulation and real economic growth."
See also, Qwest
release and U.S. Telecom Association (USTA)
The winners in the switching component of the FCC's order are the providers
who seek access to incumbents' facilities at discounted rates. Wayne Huyard, of
WorldCom, stated in a release that "A majority of the
FCC has voted to preserve competition in the residential local market. This will
enable us to continue providing and, indeed, expanding our revolutionary
'all-distance' service, The Neighborhood. Commissioners Martin, Copps and
Adelstein are to be commended for crafting a reasonable compromise that
recognizes the key role state regulators have played in bringing consumers the
lower rates, better service, and innovative products that come only with
competition. We are confident that state commissions will continue to make the
responsible decisions necessary to keep their local markets open."
He added that the "FCC's rules regarding broadband are highly detrimental to
competition. This order prohibits competitors from accessing existing and future
fiber in Bell networks, stifling their ability to provide consumers with the
benefits of competitive choice."
Similarly, Jim Cicconi, AT&T General Counsel, stated in a release that
"We applaud the FCC Commissioners who forged a bipartisan compromise to
resolve contentious issues that have dogged this industry for more than half a decade.
While the decision grants the incumbent monopolies far more deregulation than
warranted, it also should permit AT&T and other carriers to continue to deliver
competitive voice and broadband services."
"On the positive side,
the majority of FCC Commissioners respected the role and expertise of the states
in fostering local telephone competition, and rejected radical proposals that
would have killed local competition and led inevitably to a remonopolization of
local and long distance telecommunications markets."
To FCC UNE Order
|2/20. Key members of the House
Commerce Committee, which has oversight over the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
praised the FCC's order as it pertained
to incenting broadband deployment, but condemned, and predicted the judicial
reversal, of the the FCC's order as it pertained to switching.
Rep. Billy Tauzin
(R-LA), the Chairman of the House
Commerce Committee, stated in a
"Today's decision is another body blow to the American economy
... Ironically, as President Bush campaigned around the country on
behalf of a promising new program to create more jobs and more opportunities, a
renegade Republican at the FCC assured the continuation of a tired old program
that will only create more layoffs and more misery for working families in the
He added that, "Clearly, this marks a low point for the FCC. Despite
Chairman Powell's best
efforts, and those of Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy, regulatory reform has
been stabbed in the back. A palace coup led by Commissioner Kevin Martin has
breathed new life into the dying era of big government control over U.S.
telecommunications policy. Market forces once again have been shackled by
"But there is some hope. Just like the rules crafted by Mr. Martin's
ideological brothers, Reed Hundt and Bill Kennard, I believe this latest
government interventionist policy is destined for the judicial junk pile. The
scheme adopted today abdicates the FCC's statutory responsibility and ignores
the pervasive deployment of circuit switching. Fortunately, the courts have a
better understanding of the Telecommunications Act than Mr. Martin and his
pro-regulatory soulmates at the FCC."
"Finally, today's decision once again points out the urgent need for Congress
to enact new legislation designed to promote real -- not phony -- competition in
the marketplace. Given the FCC's lack of leadership, I am now prepared to
immediately begin that debate", said Rep. Tauzin.
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the
ranking Democrat on the Committee, stated in a
that "Today’s action is a mixed bag for consumers. It appears that the
Commission has largely deregulated new investment in broadband networks, and I
applaud Chairman Powell for leading the charge on this effort. The Commission’s
action, which appears to mirror much of what we attempted to achieve last year
in the Tauzin-Dingell bill, should lead to the creation of thousands of new
jobs, greater investment in broadband technologies and services, and to the
ultimate benefit of millions of Americans through more choices and a more
competitive broadband marketplace."
"Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for that part of the decision
affecting the local phone marketplace. By effectively permitting the UNE-platform
to continue, the FCC appears to have sacrificed the cornerstone and intent of
the 1996 Act -- real competition among facilities based competitors. The
agency’s decision tosses aside regulatory certainty and the long-term, economic
stability of the local phone market for a short term, misguided solution that
has no grounding in law. I am confident that this portion of the opinion will be
overturned by the courts, and I hope they move quickly to do just that", said
Similarly, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI),
Chairman of the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet, stated in a release that "I am gravely disappointed with
today's ruling by the FCC. It was a
serious blow to the American economy. The FCC's ruling was a vote for the
status quo and will do little to help an industry that has lost over half a
million jobs. It just defies common sense."
However, Rep. Upton added that "There is still hope. The courts will have
a crack at this and Congress will
surely take a close look to correct the FCC's lapse in judgment. Chairman
Powell had it right. The wrangling behind Powell's back during the process was
inexcusable. This is a serious matter with American jobs and technology
advancement hanging in the balance. We must take the appropriate steps to
stimulate competition in the phone industry. Today's decision was a first step
-- the process has only just begun."
However, while Reps. Tauzin, Dingell and Upton might have the ability to report a bill
out of the Commerce Committee, and perhaps even obtain passage of it in the full
House, the Senate might well block any such legislation.
Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC), the
ranking Democrat on the Senate
Commerce Committee, opposed Senate consideration of the Tauzin Dingell bill
in the 107th Congress. It was never approved by his Committee. On February 20, he
expressed support for
the FCC's decision regarding switching and state regulatory authority. He stated
in a release that "I am encouraged by the statements of some Commissioners that
states will maintain a meaningful role in assuring local competition".
|Bush Signs FY03 Appropriations Bills
|2/20. President Bush signed
which contains eleven belated appropriations bills for fiscal year 2003. See,
|FCC Order Offers Broadband Regulatory Relief
|2/20. Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) report and order announced on February 20 provides regulatory relief to
companies building broadband facilities. FCC Chairman
Michael Powell stated that
"Today's decision makes significant strides to promote
investment in advanced architecture and fiber by removing impeding unbundling
obligations. The digital migration journey is one step further along." See,
The FCC has not yet released the order, and may not release it for some time.
However, it did issue a
press release [2 pages in PDF] and an
attachment [4 pages in PDF] that summarize the high
points regarding broadband.
The FCC stated in the attachment to its release that "Incumbent
LECs are not required to unbundle packet switching, including routers and DSLAMs,
as a stand alone network element. The order eliminates the current limited
requirement for unbundling of packet switching."
The FCC also stated: "Fiber to the Home (FTTH) Loops -- There is no unbundling
requirement for new build/greenfield FTTH loops for both broadband and
narrowband services. There is no unbundling requirement for overbuild/brownfield
FTTH loops for broadband services. Incumbent LECs must continue to provide
access to a transmission path suitable for providing narrowband service if the
copper loop is retired."
The FCC also stated: "Hybrid Loops -- There are no unbundling requirements for the
packet-switching features, functions, and capabilities of incumbent LEC loops.
Thus, incumbent LECs will not have to provide unbundled access to a
transmission path over hybrid loops utilizing the packet-switching capabilities
of their DLC systems in remote terminals. Incumbent LECs must provide, however,
unbundled access to a voice-grade equivalent channel and high capacity loops
utilizing TDM technology, such as DS1s and DS3s."
Finally, the FCC stated that "the Commission will no longer require that
line-sharing be available as an unbundled element".
The three Commissioner majority on the line sharing issue was made up of
Commissioners Martin, Copps and Adelstein. On the other broadband issues,
Martin, Powell and Abernathy formed the majority, while Copps
and Adelstein dissented in part.
Chairman Powell explained his dissent on the line sharing issue. "Most
of our policies to promote the goals of the
Telecommunications Act have produced little yield to date. However, line
sharing has clear and measurable benefits for consumers. It has unquestionably
given birth to important competitive broadband suppliers. That additional
competition has directly contributed to lower prices for new broadband
services. By some estimates, 40% of DSL providers use line shared inputs. The
decision to kill off this element and replace it with a transition of higher and
higher wholesale prices will lead quite quickly to higher retail prices for
He continued that "I also believe the argument that
removing line sharing is a form of positive regulatory relief to stimulate
broadband is ill-conceived. Line sharing rides on the old copper infrastructure
not on the new advanced fiber networks that we are attempting to push to
deployment. Indeed, the continued availability of line sharing and the
competition that flowed from it likely would have pressured incumbents to deploy
more advanced networks in order to move from the negative regulatory pole to the
positive regulatory pole, by deploying more fiber infrastructure. This decision
actually diminishes the competitive pressure to do so."
Craig Barrett stated in a release that "This was a difficult decision and I
applaud Chairman Powell and Commissioners Abernathy and Martin for taking a bold
step to promote and accelerate broadband deployment in this country. ... High
quality broadband offers a crucial competitive edge for the United States, and
it's important that we foster investment in this expensive infrastructure. The
FCC's action today restores the balance between risk and potential reward and
should encourage companies to deploy new last mile broadband facillities."
Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) P/CEO
Gary Shapiro stated
release that "We just moved one gigantic step closer to America's broadband destiny.
While the full report remains to be released, today's vote appears to be a
huge win for America's broadband thirsty consumers. The action taken by the
Commission today clarifies the regulatory structure of new broadband
investment, and lifts the cloud of doubt that has hovered over broadband since
passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
Shapiro added that "As a member of the High Tech Broadband Coalition (HTBC), CEA believes
excluding new broadband facilities from unbundling obligations is the best
approach to broadband deployment and facilities-based competition in the
United States. The Commission appears to agree with this belief -- its rule
adopted today mirrors HTBC's proposal. Americans now may look forward to an
endless array of exciting new bandwidth intensive products and applications to
be delivered via cable modem, DSL, fiber, satellite, wireless and innovations
yet to enter our minds."
In contrast, AT&T's James Cicconi stated in a release that
"the FCC's order grants the Bell companies vastly more deregulation than
justified. The Bells will be permitted to deny competitors access to hybrid
fiber-copper loops, even for existing fiber and even in markets where customers
have no alternatives to the Bell companies' facilities, such as for small
business customers. The Bells will also be relieved of their existing line
sharing obligations and receive deregulation of new fiber to the home facilities. In
short, in one fell swoop, the FCC granted the Bell companies the broadband
deregulation they have so aggressively sought for some five years."
|Commentary: Republicans Split On FCC UNE
|2/20. Republican Commissioner
Kevin Martin sided with
Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein to form a majority on several key issues in
the FCC's UNE order. Some have construed this as apostasy by Martin. For
example, Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA)
called Martin a "Republican renegade" who led
a "palace coup".
The FCC is structured, not as part of a federal department controlled by the
President, but as an independent commission. It is headed, not by a single
person, but by a five member commission. While the Commissioners are appointed by
the President, and confirmed by the Senate, they serve fixed terms, rather than
at the pleasure of the President. Moreover, there must be party balance, with
the President's party receiving three of the five seats. Thus, a single vote
switch can alter outcomes.
However, while the FCC is structured as an independent body, it has rarely
performed in that manner on high profile issues. The three members of the
President's party typically form a solid voting block. Prior to the election of
President Bush, former Chairman Kennard and former Commissioners Ness and Tristani voted
together on important matters. Few took note when former Commissioner Furchtgott
Roth, a Republican appointee, dissented. Martin, who was an advisor Furchtgott
Roth, drafted some of those dissents.
With this UNE order, the Republican majority split on the issues of switching
and line sharing. Republican Kevin Martin voted with Democrats Michael Copps and
(at right) is a partisan Republican with strong loyalties to President Bush. He
worked on the Bush Cheney campaign, and traveled to Florida to work on the
election contest. His wife works for Vice President Cheney.
But then, there is essentially no Republican line to follow. The Bush
administration has no telecommunications policy. It barely has a broadband
policy. The administration took no public position on this UNE proceeding. President
Bush's most detailed statement came in a June 13, 2002 off the cuff
speech. He said that "This country must be aggressive about the expansion of
Bush also stated that "Hopefully, we're doing a pretty good job of working to
eliminate hurdles and barriers to get broadband implemented. I've fought off --
or worked with Congress, is a better way to put it -- to prevent access taxes on
the Internet. It ought to be a tax-free environment in order to encourage use.
And, of course, a lot of the action is going to come through the FCC. I know
that, you know that. And I'm confident that the chairman and the board is
focusing on policies that will bring high speed Internet service, will create
competition, will keep the consumers in mind, but to understand the -- kind of
the economic vitality that will occur when broadband is more fully accessible."
Neither this speech, nor any other public pronouncement of the Bush
administration, provided Powell, Abernathy and Martin with guidance or
instructions on how to write their UNE order.
Nor is there a clear Republican position in the Congress. Certainly,
Commission Martin went against the clearly and frequently stated policy
preferences of Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA), and others on the House Commerce Committee. However,
the House Republican leadership, like the Senate Republican leadership, has had
little to say. Moreover, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the Chairman of the Senate Commerce
Committee, has not been active on this issue like his House counterpart, Rep.
McCain did not even vote for the the Telecom Act of 1996.
In the absence of such instructions, the FCC Commissioners acted the way the
Congress intended when it created the Commission almost seventy years ago -- independently.
|Friday, February 21
|The House, Senate, and Supreme Court are in recess.
9:00 AM. The Alliance for Public Technology
(APT) will host a policy forum and awards luncheon. The scheduled speakers
include Rep. Sylvester Reyes (D-TX),
Bruce Mehlman (Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Technology Policy), Kyle
Dixon (Special Counsel to FCC Chairman Powell for Broadband Policy), and
William Kennard (former FCC Commissioner), and Brett Perlman (Commissioner of
the Texas Public Utilities Commission). The program, which is titled "2003
Broadband Forum: Delivering the Promise: Strategies for Universal Broadband
Deployment", begins at 9:15 AM. The luncheon is at 12:00 NOON. The policy
forum is free; the luncheon is a fundraiser. See,
APT notice. Location:
National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th
9:30 AM - 12:30 PM. The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) Public Safety National Coordination Committee will meet. See,
notice in the Federal Register, January 23, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 15, at Page
3252. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regarding
BellSouth's December 20, 2002
Petition for Forbearance [16 pages in PDF] from application of the separate subsidiary
provide international directory assistance service. BellSouth asked the FCC to
forbear from applying the structural separation requirements of
47 U.S.C. § 272
to allow BellSouth to provide international directory assistance service on an
integrated basis together with its local and nonlocal directory assistance
services. See, FCC
notice [2 pages in PDF]. This is CC Docket No. 97-172.
Extended extended deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
response to its
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [15 pages in PDF] in its proceeding
titled "In the Matter of Digital Broadcast Copy Protection". This NPRM
proposes that the FCC promulgate a broadcast flag rule, and seeks comment on
this, and related questions. This is MB Docket No. 02-230. See,
FCC release [PDF] and
Order [PDF] of October 11, 2002 extending deadlines. See also,
Order [PDF] of January 3, 2003. Due to snowfall in Washington DC, the
extended deadline of February 18 was further extended to February 21. See,
February 19 order
|Monday, February 24
|The Senate will return from its one week recess at 12:00 NOON. The
Supreme Court will return from the recess which it began on January 27.
3:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Federal State Joint
Conference on Accounting Issues will hold a public meeting. See,
FCC notice [MS Word]. Location: FCC,
Commission Meeting Room (Room TW-C305), at 445 12th Street, SW.
Deadline to submit comments to the The
National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) regarding the state uniform commercial code exception
to the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce (E-SIGN) Act. The
Act provides, at §101, for the acceptance of electronic signatures in interstate
commerce, with certain enumerated exceptions. §103 of the Act provides that the
provisions of section 101 shall not apply to "the Uniform Commercial Code, as in
effect in any State, other than sections 1-107 and 1-206 and Articles 2 and 2A".
The Act also requires the NTIA to review, evaluate and report to Congress on
each of the exceptions. The E-SIGN Act is codified at
15 U.S.C. § 7001,
et seq. The exceptions are codified at
15 U.S.C. § 7003.
notice in the Federal Register, December 24, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 247, at
Pages 78421 - 78423.
|Tuesday, February 25
|The House will return from its one week recess at 2:00 PM.
TO BE DECIDED WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT.
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(DCCir) will hear oral argument in Rice v. FCC, No. 01-1474. Judges
Ginsburg, Sentelle and Randolph will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave.,
12:15 PM. The FCBA's Cable Practice
Committee will host brown bag lunch. The speakers will be House Commerce
Committee counsel. RSVP to Wendy Parish at
firstname.lastname@example.org. Location: NCTA, 1724 Massachusetts Ave., NW, 2nd Floor
3:00 PM. The House Homeland Security Committee will hold its
organizational meeting. Press contact: Kate Whitman at 202 225-5611. Location:
Room 2359, Rayburn Building.
|Wednesday, February 26
|10:00 AM. The House Commerce
Committee's Telecom and Internet Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled "Health
of the Telecommunications Sector: A Perspective from the Commissioners of the
notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
10:30 AM. U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
Zoellick will testify before the House Ways and Means Committee about
the administration's trade agenda. Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.
12:15 PM. The FCBA's Online
Communications Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will
be "Patent Licensing: Surprising Revelations About the True Currency of a
Technology Based Economy". The speaker will be David Martin, CEO of
M.CAM. RSVP to Beatriz Zaloom at
Kelley Drye & Warren, 1200 19th St., NW, Suite 500.
Day one of a three day conference titled "Third Annual Privacy Summit"
hosted by the International
Association of Privacy Officers.
|Thursday, February 27
|9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(DCCir) will hear oral argument in Z Tel Communications v. FCC, No.
01-1461. Judges Ginsburg, Sentelle and Randolph will preside. Location: 333
Constitution Ave., NW.
10:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a hearing pertaining to its
"review of broadcast ownership regulation". See,
notice [MS Word]. Press contact: Rosemary Kimball at
202 418-0511 or email@example.com.
Location: Greater Richmond Convention Center, 403 N. Third Street, Ballroom
Building, Level 1, Meeting Room 15AB, Richmond, VA.
4:00 PM. Michael
Meurer (Boston University School of Law) will present a paper titled
"Sharing Copyrighted Works". For more information, contact
Robert Brauneis at
202 994-6138 or
firstname.lastname@example.org. Location: George Washington University Law
School, Faculty Conference Center, Burns Building, 5th Floor, 720 20th Street,
NW. This event had been scheduled for February 18, but was postponed due to
|Friday, February 28
|12:15 PM. The FCBA's Mass Media Practice
Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The speaker will be Ken Ferree,
Chief of the FCC's Media Bureau. RSVP to Wendy Parish at
email@example.com. Location: NAB, Conference
Room, 1771 N Street, NW.
2:00 NOON. Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the
U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR)
interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) regarding the operation and
implementation of the World Trade Organization's
(WTO) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). See,
notice in the Federal Register, February 3, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 22, at
Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) regarding the
[73 pages in PDF] of the FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force
(SPTF). The report recommends that "spectrum policy must evolve towards more
flexible and market oriented regulatory models." See, original
notice of extension [PDF].
EXTENDED TO MARCH 11.
submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (FNPRM), released
last month, regarding whether providers of various services and devices not
currently within the scope of the FCC's 911 rules should be required to
provide access to emergency services. This is CC Docket No. 94-102 and IB
Docket No. 99-67. See,
notice in the Federal Register, January 23, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 15, at
Pages 3214 - 3220. See also,
Deadline to submit to the Copyright
Office (CO) claims to royalty payments for digital audio recording devices
and digital audio recording media, collected during 2002. Such claims are made
in accordance with
Chapter 10 of the U.S. Copyright Law and
Part 259 of the Copyright
Office regulations. See,
CO notice with
links to online claim submission forms.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) regarding its
Consent Order with Educational
Research Center of America, Inc. (ERCA). On January 29 the FTC announced that
it filed an administrative
complaint against ERCA
alleging violation of the FTC Act. The complaint states that the ERCA
"collected personal information from high school and middle and junior high
school students through surveys ..." It further states that it "represented,
expressly or by implication, that information collected from students through
the Surveys is shared only with colleges, universities, and other entities
providing education-related services. ... In truth and in fact, information
collected from students through the Surveys is shared ... also with commercial
entities for marketing purposes." See,
FTC release and
notice in Federal Register, February 4, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 23, at Pages
|DOJ Recommends Approval of Qwest in Three
|2/20. The Department of Justice's (DOJ)
Antitrust Division issued its evaluation recommending that the
Communications Commission (FCC) approve Qwest's
application to provide in region interLATA services in the states of Oregon, New
Mexico and South Dakota.
The DOJ stated in a release that "in its evaluation, the Department deferred
to the FCC on an issue of statutory interpretation involving the
The DOJ elaborated that it "pointed out that issues had been raised regarding Qwest's
compliance with the requirements of Track A of the Telecommunications Act. Track
A requires Qwest to show the existence in the state of at least one competitive
local exchange carrier (CLEC) that provides telephone exchange service to
business and residential customers exclusively or predominantly over its own
facilities. Track A issues were raised regarding Qwest's application due to the
lack of wireline competition in New Mexico for residential customers by CLECs
using their own facilities or unbundled network elements. In its application,
Qwest presented evidence of residential competition by resellers in New Mexico,
along with evidence of a PCS company providing service in the state. The
Department deferred to the FCC's judgment in interpreting the Track A
requirements of the statute, at the same time pointing out that the FCC's
analysis of PCS competition in the state may not be predictive of the way in
which the Department would analyze the issue in an antitrust matter. In order to
evaluate the application under its standard–whether the market is fully and
irreversibly open to competition–the Department did not need to resolve the
issue of whether statutory Track A requirements were met."
|People and Appointments
|2/20. President Bush announced his intent to nominate McGregor Scott to
be the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, for a four year term.
White House release.
2/19. Lucent Technologies announced that its P/CEO, Patricia Russo, will become
Chairman. She will replace Henry Schacht, who will remain on the board. See,
|2/18. The U.S. District Court (WDOkla)
entered a default judgment against Garry Stroud in a civil action brought by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
alleging that Stroud engaged in fraud in violation of federal securities laws.
The SEC alleged that he conducted an internet investment scheme that fleeced
over 2,200 investors. The District Court ordered Stroud to pay $1,044,879 as
disgorgement and prejudgment interest, and $956,379 as a civil penalty. See,
2/20. The National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) published a
notice in the Federal Register stating that it is soliciting applications
for financial assistance for FY 2003 for its 2003
Summer Undergraduate Research
Fellowships (SURF) in several areas, including
electronics and electrical engineering and information technology. The NIST also
announced that it is soliciting applications regarding its
Electronics and Electrical
Engineering Laboratory Grants Program (EEEL). The NIST stated that the EEEL Grants
Program provides "grants and cooperative agreements for the development
of fundamental electrical metrology and of metrology supporting
industry and government agencies in the broad areas of semiconductors,
electronic instrumentation, radio-frequency technology,
optoelectronics, magnetics, video, electronic commerce as applied to
electronic products and devices, the transmission and distribution of
electrical power, national electrical standards (fundamental, generally
quantum-based physical standards), and law enforcement standards." SURF Program
proposals are due by March 24, 2003. EEEL Laboratory Grants Program proposals
are due by September 30, 2003. See, Federal Register, February 20,
2003, Vol. 68, No. 34, at Pages 8211-8226.
|About Tech Law Journal
|Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998 - 2003 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All