BloostonLaw Telecom Update
Published by the Law Offices of Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy &
Prendergast, LLP
www.bloostonlaw.com
Vol. 17, No. 5
February 5, 2014
FCC Issues Enforcement Advisory Indicating that CPNI Filings are Due March 1
The FCC has issued an Enforcement Advisory regarding this year’s CPNI Certifications, announcing that the
Certifications “are due March 1, 2014.” Because March 1 is a Saturday, by rule the filing deadline moves to the
following business day, i.e., Monday March 3. We suspect that the Bureau simply dusted off and reissued last
year’s Advisory, without noting that the due date falls on a weekend. However, unless and until the
Enforcement Bureau issues a correction, carriers will want to file by Friday, February 28th out of an abundance
of caution (which is a good idea anyway, since the FCC’s filing system often slows to a crawl on the actual
deadline because of the volume of traffic). Because of the risk of an unsuccessful filing attempt on the last
day, it is prudent for clients not to wait until the deadline to file CPNI certifications that have frequency been
subject to substantial forfeitures for late filing.
Please note, that BloostonLaw will respond to any requests concerning the filing of the CPNI report within 24
hours of receipt. If you do not receive a response within this timeframe, please contact the office to ensure that
your request has been received.
BloostonLaw Contacts: Gerry Duffy, John Prendergast, and Sal Taillefer.
In this Issue
Headlines
FCC Initiates Rural Next Generation Network Experiments for Price Cap, Rate-of-Return Areas
FCC Adopts a Variety of Other TDM-to-IP Transition Experiments
FCC Adopts Policy Statement and Proposes Rules for Text-to-911 Service
FCC Issues Report on VoIP Numbering Trials, Seeks Comment
FCC Extends Reply Comment Date for Public Knowledge Petition on CPNI
FCC Updates List of Eligible Areas for Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I Support
FCC Solidifies 600 MHz Incentive Auction Timeline
Law and Regulation
Tentative Agenda for February Open Meeting Issued
FCC Seeks Comment on NECA 2014 Average Schedule Formulas
Representative Henry Waxman Announces Retirement
FCC Seeks Comments on Form 477
House Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on Broadband Stimulus
Industry
AT&T System Restricts Content Access, Proposes Fees for “Bandwidth Abuse”
Deadlines
BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 1
February, 2014
Headlines
FCC Initiates Rural Next Generation Network Experiments for Price Cap, Rate-of-Return Areas
Of the several IP Transition experiments adopted by the FCC last week, the one likely to have the most
interest for, and impact upon, our RLEC, CLEC and wireless clients is the program of Next Generation Network
Experiments in Rural America (WC Docket No. 10-90). The stated purpose of these experiments is to test how
“tailored economic incentives” can advance the deployment of wireline and wireless IP networks in rural, highcost areas. The FCC is looking to see what types of viable business models (including models involving onetime or continuing USF support) can support the deployment of fiber or other next generation wired technology
in rural areas. The FCC is also exploring the conditions under which consumers will prefer next generation
wireless services over wireline alternatives.
The rural experiment presents opportunities for clients to obtain CAF funding to deploy broadband in
nearby unserved or underserved price cap areas, and/or in unserved or underserved portions of their
own service areas. Particularly since RLECs and CLECs already have their switching/routing and
middle mile arrangements in place, they may be able to propose interesting experiments to expand
their broadband networks in a cost-effective manner while improving the economies of scale in their
existing broadband areas.
If you are interested in exploring how your company can participate in this process, please contact us
as soon as possible. Initial Expressions of Interest are due March 7, 2014. Formal proposals and
grants are expected during 2014, but the scope and amounts of potential grants are yet to be
determined.
The FCC has indicated that these experiments will “focus” upon the deployment of last mile broadband
networks (and not encompass middle mile projects) in rural areas that lack Internet access service that delivers
3 Megabits per second downstream and 768 kilobits per second upstream. Note that the “focus” wording
means that the FCC has left the door open for grant-supported experiments in areas with 3/768 or better
service, although it appears most experiments will be in areas lacking at least 3/768 service. In price cap
areas, the experimental areas will be one or more Census tracts, whereas in rate-of-return areas, the FCC is
proposing in a further rulemaking to use Census blocks.
The FCC is proposing to fund these experiments with a portion of the current unallocated $230 million balance
in the Connect America Fund (CAF). In its further rulemaking, it has asked whether $50 million, $100 million,
or some other amount should be allocated for the rural experiments. It has also asked whether the ultimate
aggregate amount should be allocated expressly between price cap and rate-of-return areas, and/or between
grants of one-time support and grants of recurring support. The FCC has indicated that the amount of
experimental funding granted for a particular area will be limited to the amount calculated by the model being
developed for the price cap carriers in the CAF Phase II proceeding. While recognizing that the Rural
Associations have indicated that adjustments need to be made to that model before it can be used by rate-ofreturn carriers, the FCC has asked in the further rulemaking how the model might be used in the selection or
funding of areas in the rate-of-return portion of the experiment.
The FCC has invited a wide range of entities and consortia (including state and regional authorities, research
and education networks, municipalities, Tribal governments, cable operators, CLECs, ILECs, fixed and mobile
wireless providers, wireless Internet service providers and electric utilities) to participate in these experiments.
As reported last week, the FCC is particularly interested in whether electric utilities and others can and will
deploy rural broadband networks without requiring continuing universal service support. Where an entity
proposes a funded experiment for an area that already receives at least 3/768 service, the FCC has
determined that the existing service provider can challenge the validity of the experiment, but only after the
FCC has granted the formal proposal for the experiment.
The FCC has adopted a March 7, 2014 date for the filing of non-binding Expressions of Interest (EOIs) in
conducting experiments in price cap areas. The status and legal consequences of these EOIs is not clear
BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 2
February, 2014
because they appear: (1) not to require filing entities to proceed with the submission of formal proposals for
their experiments; (2) not to be required as a precondition for the filing of such formal proposals; and (3) to be
able to be filed after March 7 “on a rolling basis.” The FCC is proposing to use similar EOIs in the rate-ofreturn portion of the experiments, although it appears that the FCC will set the applicable “due date” in the
further rulemaking. EOIs are expected to identify the entity, service area, technology, service offerings, pricing,
supporting governmental entities, funding type (one-time or continuing), and estimated funding requested.
At a currently unspecified time after the EOI filings, the FCC will require the filing of formal proposals for
experiments. These second stage filings have not yet been described fully by the FCC. They will likely contain
detailed and binding elaborations of the information provided in the EOIs, plus additional information relevant
to the FCC’s selection process. In the further rulemaking, the FCC is proposing and seeking comment upon
selection processes and factors, including cost-effectiveness, one-time only funding, scalability and ability to
meet increasing broadband speed requirements, leveraging of state and Tribal government funding, service to
Tribal lands, and service to small businesses and community anchor institutions.
The FCC asserts that the rural experiments will not delay its implementation of the CAF Phase II mechanism
for price cap carriers, or its ongoing “reform” of the rate-of-return USF mechanisms. However, initial reading of
the IP experiments order indicates that there are substantial questions regarding the relationship of the rural
experiments to developing unsubsidized competitor policies, as well as to whether the experiments interfere
with the rights of refusal granted to price cap carriers and preclude the grant of similar options to rate-of-return
carriers. Nonetheless, barring complications from judicial or legislative efforts, we expect the FCC to proceed
with and implement its rural IP experiments during 2014 and early 2015.
BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak.
FCC Adopts a Variety of Other TDM-to-IP Transition Experiments
In addition to the rural Next Generation Network Experiments, the FCC has adopted programs for (1) voluntary
service-based experiments; (2) research on impact of the IP technologies upon persons with disabilities; and
(3) development of a numbering testbed to study number assignment and database issues in an all-IP world.
The FCC also began an ongoing data initiative to improve its collection of information regarding the evolution
of technologies.
Voluntary Service-Based Experiments
The voluntary service-based experiments are the FCC’s response to AT&T’s November 2012 petition seeking
“trials” in connection with the TDM-to-IP transition. Proposals for the initial set of experiments are due
February 20, 2014; comments are due March 21 and replies March 31; and the FCC expects to approve or
reject the various individual proposals within the initial set by the end of May 2014. The FCC will accept
additional proposals after February 20, but will cease considering such proposals one year after it acts upon
the initial set of proposals.
Proposals for service-based experiments must provide “detailed” information concerning: (1) the purpose of the
experiment; (2) the metrics for measuring its success; (3) the experimental scope (e.g., whether it involves
geography and/or service offerings); (4) the technical parameters, and how they will affect customers, other
service providers and/or product and service offerings; (5) the timelines for the experiment; and (6) what
temporary regulatory relief is required to conduct the experiment. Experiments will be required to protect
public safety, emergency preparedness and response, and national security functions; maintain universal
access, including for persons with disabilities, elderly, low-income households, Tribal land residents, and
others likely to be affected differently than the general population; retain wholesale service and interconnection
arrangements used by competitors and other service providers; and protect customer privacy, truth-in-billing,
slamming, cramming and local number portability protections. In addition, experimenting carriers will have to
provide clear, timely and sufficient notices to customers, and furnish simple and easy-to-use means for
customers to provide their feedback regarding experiments. Finally, the experimenting entities will have to
specify the data they will collect from both affected customers and a control group, and provide such data to
the FCC.
BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 3
February, 2014
BloostonLaw believes that only AT&T and perhaps several other proponents of “trials” are far enough along in
developing proposals to be able to file them by February 20. Interested clients would be prudent to see what
types of experiments and proposals are granted within the initial set before preparing their own proposals.
Whereas it would be very useful to have RLEC and CLEC and small wireless provider data in the FCC record
when it makes various future determinations regarding the IP transition, we realize that these experiments
require substantial effort and expense for planning, execution, analysis and reporting and that such unfunded
projects are a major burden in a time of increasing broadband investment needs and decreasing revenue
streams.
Research for Persons with Disabilities
The FCC permitted its Managing Director to enter into research partnerships with federal agencies other than
the National Science Foundation, and adopted an initial research budget of $3 million. It authorized the
funding of research and development projects that: (a) explore the impact of IP-based technologies and
services on persons with disabilities; (b) ensure that Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) is functionally
equivalent to voice telephone services; and (c) improve the efficiency and availability of TRS.
Research and Development of Numbering Testbed
The FCC is seeking to develop a numbering testbed to enable research into numbering issues in an all-IP
network unencumbered by the constraints of the existing public network. This initiative will consist of: (1) a
small, non-production system for prototyping; and (2) one or more workshops to allow a cross-industry and
collaborative group of technical experts (with particular emphasis upon software engineers) to sketch and
prototype a system for managing numbering resources and obtaining information about such resources.
Ongoing Data Initiative
The FCC has also proposed an Ongoing Data Initiative that goes beyond the various experiments to gather a
record to support its determinations regarding various IP transition issues.
First, the FCC seeks to improve its consumer feedback data by: (a) enhancing its consumer compliant intake,
analysis and reporting and by making it easier to search its consumer complaints database; (b) working
cooperatively with states, localities and Tribal governments to gather and share consumer complaint and
inquiry data; and (c) making it easier to access and use the consumer data the FCC collects, without adversely
impacting privacy interests.
Second, the FCC is looking to improve the ways that it collects and makes available information on Next
Generation 911 deployment from public safety agencies, carriers and vendors. It wants to use such data to
develop and share lessons learned and best practices without impairing confidentiality concerns.
Third, the FCC wants more generalized data to help it determine where various areas are along the TDM-to-IP
transition path; how core values (public safety, universal access, competition, and consumer protection) are
being affected; what matters most to consumers and industry participants; and what trade-off are most
acceptable.
Finally, the FCC wants to develop partnerships with public and private stakeholders to gather and analyze data
on the needs, implications and impacts of the IP transition upon health care providers and their patients.
BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak.
FCC Adopts Policy Statement and Proposes Rules for Text-to-911 Service
In order to improve access to 911 services to persons who aren’t able to reach emergency call centers by a
voice call, the FCC last week adopted a Policy Statement and NPRM (FCC 14-6) that seeks to make text-to911 services generally available by the end of the year in areas where 911 call centers are equipped to receive
BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 4
February, 2014
texts. Comments on the NPRM will be due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, and reply
comments will be due another 30 days after the comments.
The Commission’s action comes in the wake of voluntary commitments by the nation’s four largest wireless
carriers to make text-to-911 services available to their customers by May 15, 2014.
According to the Policy Statement, every CMRS carrier and every provider that enables a consumer to send
text messages using numbers from the North American Numbering Plan should support text-to-911
capabilities. Therefore, the FCC intends to pursue a technologically-neutral approach that provides platformindependent norms for all stakeholders, based on high-level functional standards set by the relevant
stakeholders in industry and the public safety community. The FCC encouraged stakeholders to develop
implementation details on a consensual basis in a manner that enables fact-based monitoring of progress by
the relevant industry bodies, 911 and public safety authorities, and regulatory agencies, and encouraged
CMRS and interconnected text providers that are not parties to the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement to work
with the public safety community to develop similar commitments to support text-to-911 in a timely manner.
The NPRM seeks further comment on certain aspects of the technical provision of text-to-911 by text
providers, with particular emphasis on interconnected text providers, including: the timeframe for
implementation of text-to-911 capability; the timeframe for interconnected “over-the-top” text providers; overthe-top text-to-911 message delivery models; costs; relay services; PSAP implementation; roaming; liability
protection; waivers; and others.
BloostonLaw Contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, and Cary Mitchell.
FCC Issues Report on VoIP Numbering Trials, Seeks Comment
On January 31, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) issued a Report on the results of the six-month
technical trial in which interconnected VoIP providers were permitted to reserve telephone numbers for their
end users directly from the numbering administrators rather than indirectly through a separate
telecommunications carrier. The WCB concluded that, based upon the results of the trial, it is technically
feasible for interconnected VoIP providers to obtain telephone numbers directly from the numbering
administrators. Comments on the Report are due March 3.
According to the Report, the trials did highlight some issues about interconnection and porting, but the WCB
found that those issues related to disputes about what a carrier’s obligation is to interconnect with or port to a
VoIP provider, rather than implicating technical concerns. Apparently, Vonage, Level 3, SmartEdgeNet, and
Millicorp reported being unable to reach agreement with CenturyLink for traffic exchange. CenturyLink was
requiring VoIP trial participants to interconnect via dedicated trunks, and the trial participants objected to this
requirement because it added unnecessary costs to the exchange of traffic and disincentivized interconnection
in IP format. The WCB found that these issues could be addressed and clarified by the FCC if and when it
implemented official direct access rules for VoIP providers, as trial participants were not permitted to obtain
direct access to additional numbers until that time.
BloostonLaw Contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Mary Sisak.
FCC Extends Reply Comment Date for Public Knowledge Petition on CPNI
On January 30, 2014, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) extended the time to file reply comments on the
December 11, 2013 Petition for a Declaratory Ruling filed by Public Knowledge and others. The Petition asked
the FCC to rule that under section 222, non-aggregate call records that have been purged of personal
identifiers but leave customers’ individual characteristics intact are protected as individually identifiable
customer proprietary network information, and that telecommunications providers are prohibited from selling or
sharing such records with third parties without customers’ consent. The reply comment deadline has been
extended to March 3, 2014.
BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 5
February, 2014
According to the Petition, non-aggregated call records that have been purged of personal identifiers are
nevertheless individually identifiable and are therefore be protected under section 222 of the Communications
Act. The Petition further states that AT&T already sells individually identifiable call records without customers’
consent, and AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile all reserve the right to share individually identifiable CPNI
with third parties without customers’ consent. Unsurprisingly, Verizon, AT&T, CenturyLink, Sprint, and CTIA
have filed comments urging the FCC to deny the Petition. The primary argument advanced by these entities
(though they have filed separately) is that the Petitioners’ interpretation of the statute is in conflict with its plain
meaning.
Carriers interested in filing reply comments in this proceeding should contact the firm as soon as possible.
BloostonLaw Contacts: Gerry Duffy, Mary Sisak, and Sal Taillefer.
FCC Updates List of Eligible Areas for Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I Support
The Wireless Telecommunications and Wireline Competition Bureaus have announced some last minute
changes to the list of eligible areas for Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I Auction (“Auction 902”). Auction 902 is a
reverse auction that will award up to $50 million in one-time support to extend mobile broadband service to
unserved tribal lands. The auction is currently scheduled for Tuesday, February 25, 2014.
The updated list removes certain census blocks in North Dakota, South Dakota and Alaska from eligibility for
bidding in Auction 902 as a result of support that was authorized in the initial Mobility Fund Auction (“Auction
901”). Also, for those blocks on which Auction 901 winning bidders have defaulted, the Bureaus have removed
asterisks in the list that previously identified the relevant census blocks as having received winning bids in
Auction 901, and these areas will be eligible for bidding in Auction 902.
The Bureaus had said that an updated list of bidding areas and geographic information system (GIS) data for
the eligible areas will soon be available as a downloadable shapefile on the Auction 902 website at
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/902/.
Bidding areas that have been removed or modified since the prior list was released on September 27, 2013,
include portions of the Bethel Census Area in Alaska corresponding to Akiak and Kwethluk tribal lands, and
portions of Sioux County, North Dakota corresponding to Standing Rock tribal lands. Bidding areas that have
been modified to remove census blocks no longer eligible for Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I support include eight
(8) bidding areas in the Bethel Census Area; one bidding area in Sioux County, North Dakota corresponding to
Standing Rock tribal lands, and two bidding areas in Corson County, South Dakota that also correspond to
Standing Rock tribal lands. Specific bidding areas are identified in Attachment B of the Bureaus’ Public Notice
DA 14-109.
Auction 901 was originally scheduled to take place in October 24th of last year, but was rescheduled for
December 19th in order to provide potential bidders additional time to review the first updated list of eligible
census blocks. The revised December 19th auction date was extended until February 25th as a result of
disruption to Commission operations due to the federal government shutdown.
BloostonLaw Contacts: Gerry Duffy, Mary Sisak, Sal Taillefer.
FCC Solidifies 600 MHz Incentive Auction Timeline
At the FCC Open Meeting on January 30th, the Incentive Auction Task Force delivered a presentation with a
projected timeline for the 600 MHz Broadcast Incentive Auction, which is scheduled to begin in mid-2015.
The broadcast television spectrum incentive auction will be the first such auction ever conducted and,
accordingly, requires a new and unique design. The incentive auction itself will be comprised of two separate
auctions -- a reverse auction and a forward auction. The lynchpin joining the reverse and the forward auctions
is the “repacking” process.
BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 6
February, 2014
Among the more important milestones, the FCC staff is expected to issue a Report and Order with policy
recommendations and proposed rules for the incentive auction in mid-2014. This R&O is likely to include its
decisions on geographic area licensing of the 600 MHz Band, which were the subject of recent comments and
reply comments filed by the Blooston Rural Carriers. The Blooston Rural Carriers urged the Commission to
make CMA licenses available in the 600 MHz Band spectrum because Economic Area (or “EA”) licenses in
most cases are too large for small and rural operators, and an alternative Partial Economic Area (or “PEA”)
proposal offered by the Competitive Carriers Association (“CCA”) offered little improvement over EA licensing
for carriers that offer service in the West and Midwestern states.
The mid-2014 Incentive Auction R&O is also expected to address methods of performing “feasibility checks”
during the repacking component of the upcoming incentive auction, and include the Commission’s proposed
methodology for predicting potential interference between broadcast television and licensed wireless services
after repacking is complete. The Incentive Auction Task Force has scheduled workshops on these topics that
are free and open to the public on Friday, February 21, 2014 at FCC Headquarters in Washington, DC. The
FCC is seeking further comment on these technical aspects of the Incentive Auction in an Inter-Service
Interference Public Notice DA 14-98 (with comments due February 28, 2014). Details relating to the repacking
component of the incentive auction were released in a Public Notice DA 14-3 that was released last month.
In the second half of 2014, the Task Force plans to release an Auction Comment Public Notice and a
Procedures Public Notice that will provide additional details and seek comment on how the specific parts of the
auction will actually function. Work on development and testing of the feasibility checkers, as well as software
to conduct the forward and reverse auctions, will be ongoing throughout 2014 and the first half of 2015, with
demonstrations planned for early 2015.
It is not too early to begin planning and budgeting for the 600 MHz Band Incentive Auction now and we urge
our clients to let us know if we can assist these efforts in any way. Because of its favorable propagation
characteristics, we believe the 600 MHz Band spectrum is especially well suited for the provision of advanced
wireless services in rural areas. Accordingly, to ensure that rural and independent telephone companies have
a meaningful opportunity to acquire 600 MHz band licenses, we recommend that our clients plan participate in
comments on the proposed auction procedures later this year. Our clients may also want to explore the
possibility of forming joint ventures (i.e., bidding consortia) and/or partnerships or LLCs with other companies
in their area to pool resources and to bid for larger geographic areas, which may prove important if the FCC
does not adopt CMAs as the license size. Short-form applications to participate in Incentive Auction bidding
will be due in early 2015, with post auction applications and payments are expected for mid- to late-2015.
BloostonLaw Contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, John Prendergast, Cary Mitchell
BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 7
February, 2014
Law & Regulation
Tentative Agenda for February Open Meeting Issued
Last week, the FCC issued the tentative agenda for its February 20, 2014 Open Meeting. At the meeting, the
FCC will consider: (i) an Order, Declaratory Ruling, and FNPRM on the quality and technical compliance of
closed captioning on television programming to ensure that video programming is fully accessible to individuals
who are deaf and hard of hearing, and (ii) a Third NPRM to ensure accurate caller location information is
automatically provided to public safety officials for all wireless calls to 911, including indoor calls.
FCC Seeks Comment on NECA 2014 Average Schedule Formulas
On January 31, 2014, the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) issued a Public Notice seeking comment
on NECA’s proposed modification of average schedule formulas for interstate settlements, for the period
beginning July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015. Comments are due February 21; replies due March 7.
According to the Public Notice, the proposed settlement formulas reflect the same general structures and
methods as current formulas, but would effectively decrease settlement rates by about one percent, at
constant demand. Modifications to the average schedule formulas are based on a statistical sampling of the
costs and demand of comparable cost companies, and as a result the effects of these formula changes on
individual average schedule companies will vary depending on each company’s size and demand
characteristics. NECA calculates that 154 study areas are expected to experience increases and 181 study
areas are expected to experience decreases in settlement rates at constant demand.
BloostonLaw Contacts: Ben Dickens and Gerry Duffy.
Representative Henry Waxman Announces Retirement
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) announced Thursday that he will retire at the end of the Congressional
session. He will have served 40 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. Waxman is the 17th House
member (10 Republicans and 7 Democrats) to announce that he will not seek reelection in 2014.
First elected to the House in 1974 from a Los Angeles Congressional District, Waxman played a critical role in
enacting significant legislation during his Congressional tenure. This included laws to make infant formula
safer and more nutritious (1980), bring low-priced generic drugs to market (1984), clean the air (1990), provide
services and medical care to people with AIDS (1996), and Postal Service reform and modernization (2006).
Mr. Waxman led Congressional investigations into tobacco industry marketing practices, the use of steroids in
professional sports, the 2008 near collapse of Wall Street, and the flawed intelligence used to justify the Iraq
war. President Obama called Congressman Waxman “one of the most accomplished legislators of any era.”
Rep. Waxman, along with and Representative Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), introduced a limited duration net
neutrality bill Monday that could pressure the Federal Communications Commission into action.
The bill, known as the Open Internet Preservation Act, is a response to the January 14, 2014 decision by the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Verizon v. Federal Communications
Commission, which vacated the FCC’s net neutrality rules. Those rules prevented Internet providers from
blocking or slowing access to certain websites.
If enacted, the proposed legislation would grant limited relief by temporarily putting back on the books the
FCC’s Open Internet Rules vacated by the Court “during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act and ending on the date when the Commission takes final action in the proceedings remanded to the
Commission in that decision;” and goes on to authorize the Commission to “continue to adjudicate cases
regarding violations of the rules … that occurred during such period.”
BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 8
February, 2014
BloostonLaw Contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and Bob Jackson.
FCC Seeks Comments on Form 477
Also on January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Notice in the Federal Register seeking Paperwork Reduction Act
(“PRA”) comments on revisions to a currently-approved information collection for FCC Form 477 (Local
Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting). PRA comments are due April 1.
FCC Form 477 gathers information on local telephone competition, including interconnected VoIP services,
and on the deployment of broadband Internet access services. Under the modifications to the Form, fixed
broadband service providers must report their deployment data on a census block basis, and provide the
maximum advertised speed for each technology they use to offer service in each census block. Mobile
broadband service providers must report their network deployment data on a service area basis, and provide
the minimum advertised upload and download data speeds for each deployed in each frequency band. While
providers of fixed voice services are not required to provide network deployment data on FCC Form 477,
mobile voice service providers must provide geospatial data showing their coverage boundaries by
transmission technology and by frequency band. The FCC also made several changes in the subscription data
required to be provided on FCC Form 477.
Unlike traditional FCC comments, PRA comments must focus on : (i) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the
information shall have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the Commission’s burden estimate; (iii) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (iv) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology; and (v) ways to further reduce the information burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
BloostonLaw Contacts: Gerry Duffy, Mary Sisak, and Sal Taillefer.
House Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on Broadband Stimulus
On February 4, 2014, the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology issued a notice
announcing it will hold a hearing on February 11, 2014 entitled “Lessons Learned from the Broadband
Stimulus.” The hearing will be webcast live at http://energycommerce.house.gov/.
At this time a list of witnesses is not yet available.
BloostonLaw Contacts: Ben Dickens, Gerry Duffy, and John Prendergast.
Industry
AT&T System Restricts Content Access, Proposes Fees for “Bandwidth Abuse”
According to a recent article in Fierce Wireless, AT&T Mobility has developed an application-aware
system that is designed to restrict customers from engaging in "non-permissible" bandwidth-intensive
activities, such as file sharing or movie downloading.
Fierce reports that in its patent application, AT&T said the system is designed to prevent a user "from
consuming an excessive amount of channel bandwidth by restricting use of the channel in
accordance with the type of data being downloaded to the user." Under the system, the carrier would
issue a customer a number of “credits” which are used up as data is consumed. If the credits are
running low and the customer’s data use fits into the “permissible” category, the user is provided a
BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 9
February, 2014
new lot of credits equal to the first. However, if the activity is “non-permissible,” then the user is
provided a lesser number of credits. AT&T also proposed levying extra fees or terminating access
entirely.
Although AT&T has not implemented this system and has not shown any signs that it will in the near
future, the patent application appeared just days after the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit struck down the FCC’s net neutrality laws, which would likely have
prohibited such a scheme because it discriminates traffic based upon content.
As Fierce Wireless also points out, it’s easy to see how this plan meshes with AT&T’s recently
announced sponsored data plan, which allows content providers to shoulder the cost of their
customers’ data usage for accessing their content.
Deadlines
MARCH 1: CPNI ANNUAL CERTIFICATION. Carriers should modify (as necessary) and complete their
“Annual Certification of CPNI Compliance” for 2013. The certification must normally be filed with the FCC by
March 1. Because March 1 is a Saturday this year, per FCC Enforcement Bureau, carriers who may not
be able to file on March 1 should plan to file by Friday, February 28.
Note that the annual certification should include the following three required Exhibits: (a) a detailed Statement
Explaining How the Company’s Operating Procedures Ensure Compliance with the FCC’S CPNI Rules to
reflect the Company’s policies and information; (b) a Statement of Actions Taken Against Data Brokers; and (c)
a Summary of Customer Complaints Regarding Unauthorized Release of CPNI. A company officer with
personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance
with the rules must execute the Certification, place a copy of the Certification and accompanying Exhibits in the
Company’s CPNI Compliance Records, and file the certification with the FCC in the correct fashion. Our
clients can forward the original to BloostonLaw in time for the firm to make the filing with the FCC by March 3, if
desired. BloostonLaw is prepared to help our clients meet this requirement, which we expect will be
strictly enforced, by assisting with preparation of their certification filing; reviewing the filing to make
sure that the required showings are made; filing the certification with the FCC, and obtaining a proofof-filing copy for your records. Please note, that BloostonLaw will respond to any requests concerning the
filing of the CPNI report within 24 hours of receipt. If you do not receive a response within this timeframe,
please contact the office to ensure that your request has been received.
Clients interested in obtaining BloostonLaw's CPNI compliance manual should contact Gerry Duffy (202-8285528). Note: If you file the CPNI certification, you must also file the FCC Form 499-A Telecom Reporting
Worksheet by April 1.
BloostonLaw contacts: Gerry Duffy
MARCH 3: COPYRIGHT STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FORM FOR CABLE COMPANIES. This form, plus
royalty payment for the second half of calendar year 2011, is due March 1. However, because March 1 is a
Saturday this year, the filing will be due Monday, March 3. The form covers the period July 1 to December 31,
2012, and is due to be mailed directly to cable TV operators by the Library of Congress’ Copyright Office. If you
do not receive the form, please contact Gerry Duffy.
MARCH 3: FCC FORM 477, LOCAL COMPETITION & BROADBAND REPORTING FORM. This annual
form is due March 1 and September 1 annually. However, because March 1 is a Saturday this year, the
March filing will be due Monday, March 3. The FCC requires facilities-based wired, terrestrial fixed wireless,
BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 10
February, 2014
and satellite broadband service providers to report on FCC Form 477 the number of broadband subscribers
they have in each census tract they serve. The Census Bureau changed the boundaries of some census
tracts as part of the 2010 Census.
Specifically, three types of entities must file this form:
(1) Facilities-based Providers of Broadband Connections to End User Locations: Entities that are
facilities-based providers of broadband connections – which are wired “lines” or wireless “channels”
that enable the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the Internet at
information transfer rates exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction – must complete and file the
applicable portions of this form for each state in which the entity provides one or more such
connections to end user locations. For the purposes of Form 477, an entity is a “facilities-based”
provider of broadband connections to end user locations if it owns the portion of the physical facility
that terminates at the end user location, if it obtains unbundled network elements (UNEs), special
access lines, or other leased facilities that terminate at the end user location and provisions/equips
them as broadband, or if it provisions/equips a broadband wireless channel to the end user location
over licensed or unlicensed spectrum. Such entities include incumbent and competitive local exchange
carriers (LECs), cable system operators, fixed wireless service providers (including “wireless ISPs”),
terrestrial and satellite mobile wireless service providers, BRS providers, electric utilities, municipalities,
and other entities. (Such entities do not include equipment suppliers unless the equipment supplier
uses the equipment to provision a broadband connection that it offers to the public for sale. Such
entities also do not include providers of fixed wireless services (e.g., “Wi-Fi” and other wireless
ethernet, or wireless local area network, applications) that only enable local distribution and sharing of a
premises broadband facility.)
(2) Providers of Wired or Fixed Wireless Local Telephone Services: Incumbent and competitive
LECs must complete and file the applicable portions of the form for each state in which they provide
local exchange service to one or more end user customers (which may include “dial-up” ISPs).
(3) Providers of Mobile Telephony Services: Facilities-based providers of mobile telephony services
must complete and file the applicable portions of this form for each state in which they serve one or
more mobile telephony subscribers. A mobile telephony service is a real-time, two-way switched
voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network using an in-network switching
facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless handoff of subscriber
calls. A mobile telephony service provider is considered “facilities-based” if it serves a subscriber
using spectrum for which the entity holds a license that it manages, or for which it has obtained the right
to use via lease or other arrangement with a Band Manager.
BloostonLaw contacts: Ben Dickens, and Gerry Duffy.
APRIL 1: FCC FORM 499-A, TELECOMMUNICATIONS REPORTING WORKSHEET. This form must be filed
by all contributors to the Universal Service Fund (USF) sup-port mechanisms, the Telecommunications Relay
Service (TRS) Fund, the cost recovery mechanism for the North American Numbering Plan Administration
(NANPA), and the shared costs of local number portability (LNP). Contributors include every
telecommunications carrier that provides interstate, intrastate, and international telecommunications, and
certain other entities that provide interstate telecommunications for a fee. Even common carriers that qualify
for the de minimis ex-emption must file Form 499-A. Entities whose universal service contributions will
be less than $10,000 qualify for the de minimis exemption. De minimis entities do not have to file the
quarterly report (FCC Form 499-Q), which was due February 1, and will again be due May 1. Form 499-Q
relates to universal and LNP mechanisms. Form 499-A relates to all of these mechanisms and, hence,
applies to all providers of interstate, intrastate, and international telecommunications services. Form
499-A contains revenue information for January 1 through December 31 of the prior calendar year. And Form
499-Q contains revenue information from the prior quarter plus projections for the next quarter. (Note: the
revised 499-A and 499-Q forms are now available.) Block 2-B of the Form 499-A requires each carrier to
designate an agent in the District of Columbia upon whom all notices, process, orders, and decisions
BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 11
February, 2014
by the FCC may be served on behalf of that carrier in proceedings before the Commission. Carriers
receiving this newsletter may specify our law firm as their D.C. agent for service of process using the
information in our masthead. There is no charge for this service.
BloostonLaw Contacts: Hal Mordkofsky, Ben Dickens, and Gerry Duffy.
APRIL 1: DISABILITY ACCESSIBILITY CERTIFICATION AND CONTACT INFORMATION. Equipment
manufacturers and service providers covered by Sections 255, 716 and/or 718 of the Communications Act
must certify by April 1 of each year that they have complied with the disability accessibility recordkeeping
requirements described in Section 717 during the previous calendar year. This certification must be made by
an officer of the covered entity via the FCC’s online certification system.
BloostonLaw Contacts: Gerry Duffy and Sal Taillefer.
LAW OFFICES
BLOOSTON, MORDKOFSKY, DICKENS,
DUFFY & PRENDERGAST, LLP
2120 L St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 659-0830
(202) 828-5568 (fax)
Harold Mordkofsky, 828-5520, [email protected]
Benjamin H. Dickens, Jr., 828-5510, [email protected]
Gerard J. Duffy, 828-5528, [email protected]
John A. Prendergast, 828-5540, [email protected]
Richard D. Rubino, 828-5519, [email protected]
Robert M. Jackson, 828-5515, [email protected]
Mary J. Sisak, 828-5554, [email protected]
D. Cary Mitchell, 828-5538, [email protected]
Salvatore Taillefer, Jr., 828-5562, [email protected]
If you would like to receive an e-mail version of the newsletter, contact Althea Pierce at 828-5521 or [email protected].
This newsletter is not intended to provide legal advice. Those interested in more information should contact the firm.
BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 12
February, 2014
Calendar At-a-Glance
February
Feb. 10 – Electronic filing deadline for Form 497 for carriers seeking support for the preceding month
and wishing to receive reimbursement by month’s end.
Feb. 11 – House Hearing: “Lessons Learned from the Broadband Stimulus.”
Feb. 14 – Comments are due on Use of Mobile Wireless Devices on Airborne Aircraft.
Feb. 14 – Comments due on American Tower Petition for Waiver of Periodic Inspection of Marking and
Lighting Alarm System Rules.
Feb. 18 – Effective date for new 911 reliability requirements.
Feb. 20 – Open Meeting.
Feb. 21 – Reply comments due on American Tower Petition for Waiver of Periodic Inspection of Marking and
Lighting Alarm System Rules.
Feb. 21 – Comments on NECA 2014 Average Schedule Formulas are due.
Feb. 28 – PRA comments on Rural Call Completion are due.
March
Mar. 1 – Annual CPNI Certification is due.
Mar. 3 – Copyright Statement of Account Form for cable companies is due.
Mar. 3 – FCC Form 477 (Local Competition & Broadband Reporting) is due.
Mar. 3 – Comments on the Wireline Competition Bureau’s VoIP Numbering Trial Report are due.
Mar. 3 – Reply comments on Public Knowledge’s Petition for Declaratory Ruling on CPNI are due.
Mar. 7 – Initial expressions of interest in rural broadband experiments are due.
Mar. 7 – Reply comments on NECA 2014 Average Schedule Formulas are due.
Mar. 10 – Electronic filing deadline for Form 497 for carriers seeking support for the preceding month
and wishing to receive reimbursement by month’s end.
Mar. 17 – Reply comments are due on Use of Mobile Wireless Devices on Airborne Aircraft.
Mar. 31 – FCC Form 525 (Delayed Phasedown CETC Line Counts) is due.
Mar. 31 – FCC Form 508 (ICLS Projected Annual Common Line Requirement) is due.
April
Apr. 1 – FCC Form 499-A (Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet) is due.
Apr. 1 – Annual Accessibility Certification is due.
Apr. 1 – PRA comments on Form 477 (Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting) are due.
BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 13
February, 2014