|7th Circuit Holds State Cannot Substitute
Tariff Filings for Negotiations to Set Prices and Terms for Interconnection
8/12. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its split
opinion [18 pages in PDF] in Wisconsin
Bell v. Bie, a case regarding the
interconnection provisions of §§ 251 and 252 of the Communications Act.
Avie Bie is a Commissioner of the
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW).
Wisconsin Bell (Ameritech) is the
incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) in the state of Wisconsin. The PSCW
ordered Wisconsin Bell to file tariffs setting forth the price and other terms
on which competitors can interconnect with its local telephone network.
The Telecom Act of 1996 provides that the competitors can
require the local phone company to negotiate, in good faith, an agreement
authorizing interconnection on mutually agreeable terms. And then, if
negotiations fail, the competitor can seek arbitration by the state regulatory
commission. Thus, the PSCW provided for a tariff, rather than a contract, route
to obtaining inteconnection rights.
Also, the Court noted that the PSCW "ruled that the rates in the
tariffs that it has required Wisconsin Bell to file must be based on the cost of
the tariffed services as determined in accordance with cost-accounting
procedures prescribed by the commission; specifically, the rates must be based
on ``the sum of the Total Element Long Run Incremental Cost (TELRIC) and a
reasonable allocation of forward-looking joint and common costs.´´"
Wisconsin Bell filed a complaint in U.S.
District Court (WDWisc)
against Avie Bie and the other PSCW Commissioners challenging the order. The
District Court held that the order is barred by the Telecom Act of 1996. This
Richard Posner wrote the opinion of the Appeals Court, affirming the
District Court. Judge Easterbrook joined. Judge Cudahy wrote a lengthy dissent.
Judge Posner first summarized the rationale and the framework of
the interconnection provisions of 47 U.S.C. §§
telephone companies such as Wisconsin Bell have a degree of monopoly power
because of the cost to a competitor of duplicating the grid of telephone wires
and switching equipment that constitutes a local telephone network. The
competitor will find it difficult to compete unless it is interconnected with
the local network. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides a machinery for
encouraging interconnection. The competitor can require the local phone company
to negotiate, in good faith, an agreement authorizing interconnection on
mutually agreeable terms. If negotiations fail, the competitor can seek
arbitration by the state regulatory commission, and the commission’s arbitral
decision can be challenged in federal district court on the ground that the
decision fails to comply with 47 U.S.C. §§ 251 or 252, sections that establish
pricing and other standards for interconnection."
Posner wrote that the issue is "whether a state may create an
alternative method by which a competitor can obtain interconnection rights."
He concluded that the PSCW's tariffing requirement is preempted
by the Act. Nor is it saved by 47 U.S.C. § 261 (b), which provides that there is
no preemption "if such regulations are not inconsistent" with the Act.
Judge Posner reasoned that "The requirement has to interfere with the
procedures established by the federal act. It places a thumb on the negotiating
scales by requiring one of the parties to the negotiation, the local phone
company, but not the other, the would-be entrant, to state its reservation
price, so that bargaining begins from there. And it allows the other party to
challenge the reservation price, and try to get it lowered, by challenging the
tariff before the state regulatory commission, with further appeal possible to a
state court -- even though Congress, in setting up the negotiation procedure,
explicitly excluded the state courts from getting involved in it. At the very
least, the tariff requirement complicates the contractual route by authorizing a
Judge Posner also commented on the legislative process and statutory
interpretation. He wrote that "The commission and WorldCom argue that by
providing an alternative means of obtaining interconnection, the state's tariff
requirement promotes the procompetitive policy of the federal act. But to
identify the policy underlying a statute and then run with it is a dangerous
method of interpretation; it is likely to run roughshod over the compromise
between interest groups that enabled the statute to be passed in the first
This is Wisconsin Bell, d/b/a Ameritech v. Avie Bie, et al. and WorldCom,
Nos. 02-3854 and 02-3897, appeals from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, D.C. No.
01-C-0690-C, Judge Barbara Crabb presiding.
|USPIRG Seeks Broad Regulation of Cable
8/12. The U.S. Public Interest Research
Group (USPIRG) released a
report [90 pages
in PDF] titled "The
Failure of Cable Deregulation: A Blueprint For Creating a Competitive,
Pro-Consumer Cable Television Marketplace". See also, USPIRG
release and summary.
The report states that "Since enactment of the 1996 Act that deregulated cable rates,
consumer cable prices have been rising at three times the rate of inflation and
even faster for basic and expanded basic service, which is the choice of the
overwhelming majority of cable subscribers. These rates have risen by more than
It asserts that "Cable price increases have been restrained by competition only
when a wireline competitor, often referred to as an overbuilder, enters a market
to challenge the incumbent. Where such overbuilder competition exists, the
effect is dramatic: The General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that cable rates
are 17 percent lower where there is an overbuilder in a franchise area. By
contrast, national competition from satellite providers – notwithstanding their
increasing market share – has not resulted in lower cable rates."
The report also addresses internet access over cable facilities. It states
that "Cable operators now also dominate the
broadband Internet market, comprising a huge new source of profits. Cable now
has nearly twice as many subscribers as its nearest broadband competitor, DSL
(digital subscriber line)."
It continues that "cable
operators have become a critical link in the public's ability to participate in
the Internet's growing virtual ``town square´´ of American discourse and civic
activities. The danger that cable's reign poses to the diversity and democracy
of the Internet is quite simple: Cable operators are not required to share their
networks with competitive Internet service providers (ISP's). Independent ISP's
will not be able to provide cable broadband Internet services because they will
not have access to cable wires, unless cable operators open their wires and
networks to competitors. They will either have to provide DSL reseller service
from phone companies or attempt to negotiate access with a cable operator, which
is at the discretion of such operators."
The report also states the "Cable operators have taken anti-competitive action to limit
access to certain streaming video content to prevent or limit broadcast quality
streaming video over their broadband Internet cable modem service as a means of
blocking current and future competition for video content. This has created
significant concern on behalf of many of the Internet’s leading content
providers and e-commerce websites. Some cable operators have also apparently
opted to condition the carriage of a video channel upon the provider’s agreement
not to distribute the same content over the Internet at all."
The report contains a long wish list of regulatory restraints on cable
To start with, "Congress must empower state public utility commissions (PUC) to regulate all
cable rates and charges for video services". Also, it recommends that the
"Preemptive provisions of the Act have thwarted attempts by local communities to
protect cable subscribers from the worst of the industry's depredations. These
preemptive provisions must be abolished ..."
In addition, "Consumers must be given the right to purchase every individual channel on an
á la carte basis at fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory prices."
The report also recommends requiring "reasonably priced leased-access rates"
similar to FCC rate setting for telecommunications services. It states that
"Cable operators have avoided their obligation to lease channel capacity to
independent programmers by setting the prices so high that no competing provider
could possibly pay current fees and remain commercially viable. In order to
promote competition with diverse and independent programming, reasonably priced
leased access must be adopted."
The report next recommends that the "existing federal program-access law must
be modified to eliminate loopholes that have allowed the cable industry to
continue these anti-competitive practices and undermine the emergence of
wireline competitors. Additionally, cable operators should be prohibited from
entering into exclusive contracts for equipment or other technical services that
prevent competitor access to such programming."
The report also states that "A public member representing subscribers should
be placed on the board of
directors of any cable operator with a greater than four percent market share of
cable households as a condition of franchise or FCC approval."
Finally, the USPIRG report recommends prohibiting "cable broadband content
restrictions". It states that "Cable operators have a long history of
restricting consumer access to content that cable operators disfavor. With the
cable industry's ongoing dominance of the broadband market, cable operators must
be prohibited from restricting consumer access to Internet content based on the
source or nature of the consumer's request."
Rob Stoddard, a SVP of the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association (NCTA), responded that "The wild and
unfounded claims of these Washington-based advocacy groups are recycled
arguments that fell out of favor a decade ago. The regulatory environment
envisioned by Congress in 1996 and maintained by the FCC has fostered the most
robust telecommunications marketplace in the world. It’s providing a better deal
for consumers, who are getting far more for their dollar. How odd that so-called
consumer groups would prefer to take all that away." See,
He also addressed broadband internet access. He stated that "The broadband
renaissance, and the marketplace competition it has spawned, has brought
unprecedented choice and value to tens of millions of Americans. Cable’s
investment of more than $75 billion in upgrades and rebuilds has facilitated the
transmission of more than 300 nationally-delivered video networks and popular
consumer services such as high-speed Internet access, video on demand, high
definition television, and competitive local telephone service. If these
self-appointed consumer representatives had their way, the majority of this
investment and innovation would have been stifled from the start."
|Wednesday, August 13
The House is in recess until September 3. Senate is in recess until
September 2. The Supreme Court is in recess.
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM. The Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB)
will hold a public forum to present the new application search interfaces that
will be available for the public to access Multipoint Distribution
Service/Instructional Television Fixed Service (MDS/ITFS) Application data.
notice [PDF]. Location: Room 4-B-516, 4th Floor, FCC, 445 12th Street, SW.
Day one of a three day conference hosted by the
American Intellectual Property Law Association
(AIPLA) titled "2003 Practical Patent Prosecution Training for New Lawyers".
notice [PDF]. Location: Arlington, VA.
|Thursday, August 14
Deadline to submit comments to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its
document [12 pages in PDF] titled "Draft Federal Information Processing
Standard (FIPS) 199 on Standards for Security Categorization of Federal
Information and Information Systems". The NIST states that this document
"defines requirements to be used by Federal agencies to categorize information
and information systems, and to provide appropriate levels of information
security according to a range of risk levels." For more information,
contact Ron Ross at 301 975-5390 or
notice in the Federal Register, May 16, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 95, at
Pages 26573 - 26574.
|Monday, August 18
10:15 AM - 12:00 NOON. The American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion titled "Trade
in Services: Is More Liberalization Possible in
the Doha Round?". The speakers will be Stephen Canner (U.S. Council for
International Business), James Mendenhall (Office of the U.S. Trade Representative), and
Robert Vastine (U.S. Coalition of Services Industries). See,
Location: AEI, 12th Floor, 1150 17th Street, NW.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI)
pertaining to the possibility of incorporating receiver performance specifications
into the FCC's spectrum policy. This NOI follows the recommendations of the FCC's
Spectrum Policy Task Force (SPTF)
report [PDF] of November 15, 2002. See,
"FCC Announces NOI Re Receiver Performance Standards" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert
No. 624, March 17, 2003. See also,
notice in the Federal Register, May 5, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 86, at Pages 23677 -
23686. This is ET Docket No. 03-65, FCC 03-54. For more information, contact
Hugh Van Tuyl at the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) at 202 418-7506 or
|Tuesday, August 19
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed
rulemaking, released on April 30, 2003, regarding changes to its rules
implementing the FCCs policy to carry forward unused funds from the schools
and libraries universal support mechanism (aka e-rate subsidies) in subsequent
funding years. See,
notice in the Federal Register, June 20, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 119, at Pages
36961 - 36967.
|Wednesday, August 20
12:00 NOON. Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), will
give a speech titled "Leading the Department of Homeland Security: Progress
and Challenges of Transition during the War on Terrorism". See,
Location: Lehrman Auditorium: Heritage
Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave NE.
|GAO Report Faults EOUSA IT Management
8/12. The General Accounting Office (GAO)
released a report [60
pages in PDF] titled "Information Technology: Executive Office for U.S.
Attorneys Needs to Institutionalize Key IT Management Disciplines".
This report examines, for the House
Judiciary Committee, the extent to which
the Executive Office for United States
Attorneys (EOUSA), which is responsible for managing the information
technology (IT) resources for the U.S. Attorneys' Offices (USAO), has
institutionalized key IT management capabilities critical to achieving the
Department of Justice's (DOJ) strategic goal of improving the integrity,
security, and efficiency of its IT systems.
The 93 USAOs prosecute criminal cases for the federal
government, prosecute and defend civil cases in which the U.S. is a party, and
collect debts owed to the federal government that are administratively
uncollectible. The EOUSA provides administrative and operational support to the
The report finds that the "EOUSA has
partially defined and implemented certain IT management disciplines". However,
"it has yet to institutionalize any of these disciplines, meaning that it has
not defined existing policies and procedures in accordance with relevant
guidance, and it has yet to fully implement what it has defined. In particular,
while EOUSA has developed an enterprise architecture -- a blueprint for guiding
operational and technological change -- the architecture was not developed in
accordance with certain best practices.
In addition, the report states that "while
the office has implemented certain process controls for selecting, controlling,
and evaluating its IT investments, it has not yet implemented others that are
necessary in order to develop an effective foundation for investment management.
Further, it has not implemented important management practices that are
associated with an effective security program. In contrast, it has defined --
and is implementing on a major system that we reviewed -- most, but not all, of
the management practices associated with effective systems acquisition."
The report concludes that "Institutionalization of these IT
management disciplines has not been an agency priority and is not being guided
by plans of action or sufficient resources. Until each discipline is given the
priority it deserves, EOUSA will not have the IT management capabilities it
needs to effectively achieve the department’s strategic goal of improving the
integrity, security, and efficiency of its IT systems."
|Cato Paper Addresses Middle East Free Trade
8/6. The Cato Institute released a
paper [16 pages in
PDF] titled "The Trade Front: Combating Terrorism with Open Markets". See also,
President Bush has announced plans to create a U.S. middle east free trade area
within a decade.
The paper, written by Cato's Brink Lindsey, argues that "The fact is,
though, that negotiating FTAs will take time. Relatively few
countries in the region are ready to begin serious talks. Hammering out all the
details of a mutually acceptable agreement with those that are prepared to take
the plunge -- and then guiding that agreement through approval by Congress -- will be
a complex, contentious, and time-consuming process. A U.S.-Middle East
free-trade area, however desirable, is a policy goal for the long term."
The paper also argues that "The biggest prize in FTA negotiations -- the hardest to attain,
but offering the richest rewards -- is liberalization of trade in services.
Services are the dominant contributor to GDP throughout much of the Muslim world
and are frequently the largest employer. Yet in those critical service
industries that constitute the backbone of a modern economy -- transportation,
utilities, telecommunications, financial services, distribution -- competition,
whether foreign or domestic, is typically stunted or nonexistent. As a result,
productivity in those industries is abysmal by world standards -- and thus the
potential benefits of liberalization are immense."
|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