Articles Posted in Telecommunications

Published on:

By

The Commission’s Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 Initiates a Two-Year Deadline for Providers of Advanced Communications Services and Manufacturers of Equipment Used in Advanced Communications Services to Comply with Disabilities Access Requirements.

The Federal Communications Commission (the “Commission”) recently adopted a Report and Order (“R&O”) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) implementing Section 104 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (the “CVAA”), codified as Sections 716, 717 and 718 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”). The purpose of the CVAA is to “ensure that people with disabilities have access to the incredible and innovative communications technologies of the 21st century.”

Prior to the passage of the CVAA, and pursuant to Section 255 of the Act, the Commission imposed disabilities access requirements on manufacturers of telecommunications equipment (including answering machines, pagers and telephones) and providers of telecommunications services. In 2007, the Section 255 requirements were extended to providers of interconnected VoIP services and manufacturers of VoIP equipment. The CVAA expands the Commission’s regulatory authority to historically unregulated providers of advanced communications services (“ACS”) and manufacturers of equipment used for ACS (collectively the “Covered Entities”) and codifies the requirement as it applies to interconnected VoIP.

ACS includes interconnected VoIP, noninterconnected VoIP, electronic messaging service and interoperable video conferencing services, which are defined as:

  • Interconnected VoIP: a service that (1) enables real-time, two-way voice communications; (2) requires a broadband connection from the user’s location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (“CPE”); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network (“PSTN”) and to terminate calls to the PSTN.
  • Noninterconnected VoIP: a service that (i) enables real-time voice communications that originate from or terminate to the user’s location using Internet protocol or any successor protocol; and (ii) requires Internet protocol compatible customer premises equipment” and “does not include any service that is an interconnected VoIP service.
  • Electronic Messaging Service: “means a service that provides real-time or nearreal-time non-voice messages in text form between individuals over communications networks. This service does not include interactions that include only one individual (human to machine or machine to human communications).
  • Interoperable Video Conferencing Services: services that provide real-time video communications, including audio, between two or more users. This service does not include video mail. The Commission has sought additional comment, pursuant to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, regarding the definition and application of “interoperable”.

The Commission clarified that the regulations implemented pursuant to the CVAA “do not apply to any telecommunications and interconnected VoIP products and services offered as of October 7, 2010.” The R&O also indicates that any regulated equipment or service offered after October 7, 2010 may be governed by both Sections 255 and 716.

The CVAA established, among other things, a phased compliance timeline due to the financial and technical burdens associated with developing and implementing technological changes required by the CVAA. Covered Entities must comply with Sections 716 and 717 within one year of the effective date. Section 718 compliance must be achieved within two years of the effective date or no later than October 8, 2013. The CVAA also includes long-term reporting obligations, enforcement procedures, limitations on liability for violations and finite compliance deadlines. The Commission decided that the rules, as implemented, would not include any safe harbors or technical standards at this time. Finally, the Commission determined that when implementing the CVAA, its rules should include opportunities for waivers and self-executing exemptions.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

8/15/2011

The FCC has announced that full payment of all applicable Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2011 must be received no later than September 14, 2011.

As of this date, the FCC has not released a Public Notice officially announcing the deadline for payment of FY 2011 annual regulatory fees. However, the FCC’s website indicates that the 2011 annual regulatory fees must be paid no later than 11:59 pm (EST) on September 14, 2011.

As reported in July 2010, beginning in 2011, the Commission has discontinued mailing assessment notices to licensees/permittees. It is the responsibility of each licensee/permittee to determine what fees are due and to pay them in full by the deadline. Information pertaining to the annual regulatory fees is available online at https://www.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html.

Annual regulatory fees are owed for most FCC authorizations held as of October 1, 2010 by any licensee or permittee which is not otherwise exempt from the payment of such fees. Licensees and permittees may review assessed fees using the FCC’s Media Look-Up website – http://www.fccfees.com. Certain entities are exempt from payment of regulatory fees, including, for example, governmental and non-profit entities. Section 1.1162 of the FCC’s Rules provides guidance on annual regulatory fee exemptions. Broadcast licensees that believe they qualify for an exemption may refer to the FCC’s Media Look-Up website for instructions on submitting a Fee-Exempt Status Claim.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

By Glenn S. Richards and Christine A. Reilly

In a series of actions within the last five days, the FCC has focused its enforcement attention on cramming — the unauthorized placement of fees onto a consumer’s monthly phone bill by its own phone provider or an unaffiliated third party. These charges could be for telecommunications products and services but could also be for cosmetics or diet products. At an event in Washington, DC on June 20th, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced the launch of a major new effort to educate consumers about cramming and plans for a proceeding that will empower consumers to better protect themselves from cramming. The FCC estimates that up to 20 million Americans may be victims of cramming each year.

In a series of Notices of Apparent Liability (NAL) released last week, the FCC issued fines between $1.5 and $4.2 million against four telephone service providers for cramming. These charges usually range from $1.99 to $19.99 per month and may go undetected for months. To reinforce its concerns about cramming, the FCC also released an Enforcement Advisory stating that “it has acted on four major investigations involving cramming” which it said is an “unjust and unreasonable” practice under Section 201(b) of the Communications Act. The Advisory also stated that the telecom providers “had apparently engaged in constructive fraudulent activity as part of a plan to place charges on consumers’ phone bills for services that the consumers neither requested nor authorized.”

According to a News Release issued last week, the four telecom providers, all headquartered in Pennsylvania, defrauded consumers by billing them for unauthorized dial-around services (a form of long distance service that allows a customer to use a different carrier than the one presubscribed to the telephone number). According to the News Release, 99.9% of the billing charges levied by the alleged violators were bogus. In one NAL, the FCC stated that one of the telecom providers billed “as many as 18,571 consumers monthly, during which time no more than 22 consumers (or 0.1 percent) ever actually used its service.”

According to the NALs, all four telecom providers employed identical Internet-only solicitation and online enrollment for services utilizing the same billing aggregator. The telecom providers practiced the same method of customer verification, which did not include sending “reply required” confirmation e-mails. When consumers later challenged the monthly charges, the telecom provider stated that as part of its customer verification process, it merely confirmed that the consumer’s name and/or address contained on the online enrollment form matched the telephone number provided on the online enrollment form, or confirmed that the IP address provided on the online enrollment form was within a 100 mile radius of the name, address and telephone number included in the online registration.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

While we await release of the text of today’s Net Neutrality order from the FCC, it strikes me as useful to take a step back and apply a broader perspective to what can be learned from the debate that led to it. While lawyers get a rush when they think they have come up with the perfect legal argument to support their client’s cause (and we’re fun at parties too!), those of us working in Washington have to concede that legal arguments are often secondary to the politics involved. Certainly, the FCC’s order will not be the last word in the Net Neutrality debate, with a number of prominent members of Congress already promising a legislative rebuke, and the near certainty of the courts being called upon to assess the FCC’s authority to adopt such rules.

In spite of the millions spent on lawyers and lobbyists on both sides of this issue, the result was in many ways preordained by the real champion in this debate, linguistics. Much of the battle was won when proponents summarized their position as being in favor of “Net Neutrality”, a term that is sufficiently innocuous yet catchy enough to crystallize the debate as being between those who want a neutral/fair apportionment of the Internet’s capabilities, and those who, well, don’t. Opponents were put instantly on the defensive, trying to explain why a neutral Internet wouldn’t be a good thing.

While other terms were also bandied about in the early days of the debate (like “broadband discrimination” or “traffic prioritization”), none had the simple positive ring (and alliteration) of Net Neutrality. “Internet Indifference” might have been a good candidate as well, but no one seems to have thought of it at the time.

Added to this linguistic head start is the fact that the concept itself is simply easier to explain in positive terms than in negative ones. Stories on the Washington Post’s website today described Net Neutrality as a regulation that “ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users” and which marks “the government’s strongest move yet to ensure that Facebook updates, Google searches and Skype calls reach consumers’ homes unimpeded.” Based on that description, readers would be hard pressed to conclude that Net Neutrality is a bad thing, and much of the mainstream press used terms similar to the Post’s in describing today’s action by the FCC.

Taking the contrary position, there are two big problems with arguing that Net Neutrality is “an intrusive government interference into the management of broadband networks that will impede the evolution of new models of business on the Internet while requiring Internet innovators to first consider and navigate government regulations before implementing new Internet services.” First, it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue like the Post’s description of Net Neutrality. Second, it requires several additional explanations of exactly how Net Neutrality regulations would have that effect. It isn’t necessarily obvious from the statement alone.

The point of this is not to debate the merits of Net Neutrality itself, but to note that taking the time to carefully craft and package a proposal before presenting it (to the FCC or any other part of the government, including Congress) frames the debate in your favor. It is not an irrefutable advantage, but claiming the linguistic high ground forces opponents to expend far more of their resources fighting their way uphill, while the proponent conserves its legal and political resources waiting at the top. Many opponents will falter before they reach the top, and those that do make it will be exhausted from the climb.

In the case of Net Neutrality, vast resources were arrayed on both sides of the debate, but the political and public popularity engendered by the phrase “Net Neutrality” and the easily understood arguments on its behalf proved to be insurmountable today. It is safe to say, however, that opponents of Net Neutrality regulations are already regrouping for their next charge in Congress and in the courts, and that today’s skirmish was merely the first of many to come.

Published on:

By

The FCC has opened a rulemaking proposing reforms to its broadband health care initiatives for rural and tribal areas. The FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking originally released in July was published in the Federal Register today, which establishes the deadline for submitting Comments and Reply Comments in the proceeding. Comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are due on September 8, 2010. Reply Comments are due on September 23, 2010.

Chief among the proposals contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are:

• Creating a health infrastructure program that would support up to 85% of the construction costs of new regional and statewide broadband networks serving public and non-profit health care providers where broadband is currently unavailable or insufficient;
• Creating a health care broadband services program that would subsidize 50% of the monthly recurring costs of access to broadband services for eligible public or non-profit rural health care providers; and
• Expanding the class of health care providers eligible to receive these funds to include skilled nursing facilities, renal dialysis centers and facilities, and certain off-site administrative offices and data storage centers that perform support functions for health care providers.

We discussed the details of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a recent Client Advisory. Health care providers, as well as rural and tribal communities interested in improving their broadband access for local health care services, should get involved in this proceeding. It is important to provide the FCC with real world examples of the needs and problems faced in providing modern health care services in your community so that those needs are taken into account as the FCC attempts to craft its rural health care initiative.

Published on:

By

5/18/2010
Prepaid “cards, codes and other devices” redeemable solely for telephone services are exempt from a new federal law that goes into effect August 22, 2010. However, if they can also be redeemed for related technology services, these products will (at least in most instances) be subject to provisions restricting fees, prohibiting expiration in less than five years, and imposing strict disclosure requirements if fees are charged or the products expire.

On March 23, 2010, the Federal Reserve Board (“Board”) issued its Final Rule implementing Title IV of the federal Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, which was signed into law by President Obama on May 22, 2009 (collectively, the “CARD Act”). The CARD Act amends the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), and the Final Rule amends the EFTA’s implementing regulation, Regulation E. It takes effect August 22, 2010. It applies to prepaid card products sold to a consumer on or after August 22, 2010, or provided to a consumer as a replacement for such product. State laws that are consistent with the CARD Act are not preempted, which means the CARD Act provides a minimum floor. State laws that provide greater protection for consumers are not inconsistent with the CARD Act.

The CARD Act restricts most fees and expiration dates on prepaid cards, and requires various disclosures if fees are charged or the products expire. This Advisory, one of several Advisories on the CARD Act, focuses on the exemption for cards, codes and other devices useable solely for telephone services (referred to collectively as “Prepaid Calling Cards”).1 Companies that offer or issue Prepaid Calling Cards may be surprised to learn that if these products are also redeemable for related technology services, they will not qualify for this exemption. All persons involved in issuing or distributing Prepaid Calling Cards should review and potentially revise their disclosures, as well as their redemption policies and procedures.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The press is buzzing with news, leaked late yesterday and announced today in a document entitled The Third Way: A Narrowly Tailored Broadband Framework, that FCC Chairman Genachowski is proposing to reclassify the transmission component of broadband Internet access as a “telecommunications service” subject to FCC regulation. As almost everyone in the telecom world knows, the US Court of Appeals recently found that the FCC does not have direct jurisdiction to impose “network neutrality” rules as long as it classifies broadband as just an “information service.”

With the Chairman’s support, three of the five FCC Commissioners now favor reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service, a first step towards adopting network neutrality rules.

For broadcasters, the net effect of net neutrality rules isn’t as easy to assess as it may at first seem. As producers and distributors of broadband and mobile services, net neutrality rules should assure broadcasters that their content will not be blocked or unfairly degraded by broadband network operators. Broadcasters that provide mobile news apps and operate rich media web sites have the same general interest in nondiscriminatory network access as do Internet behemoths like Google, Amazon and eBay.

On the other hand, broadband providers have argued convincingly that their networks are extremely expensive to build and that they must have flexibility to manage Internet traffic on their networks to assure a good quality of service to their subscribers. If the FCC limits broadband operators’ ability to manage traffic, those operators may have to upgrade their infrastructure, raising costs to web publishers and end users alike.

Mobile network operators assert that network neutrality rules could have proportionally greater adverse effects on them. Mobile network capacity is generally more costly and less robust than that of copper and fiber networks. If network neutrality rules increase the load on mobile networks and limit the ability of network operators to manage that traffic, their arguments that they need more spectrum to meet growing demand may be more convincing.

At this stage, no one knows how any proposed network neutrality rules would treat mobile broadband operators. However, it is plausible that aggressive network neutrality rules could increase the load on mobile networks, and mobile operators are sure to argue that they will need more spectrum to respond.

With broadcast spectrum already squarely in the sights of the same FCC that is now proposing to impose network neutrality rules, broadcasters should pay close attention to this debate.

Published on:

By

For those tired of having their dinner conversations interrupted by others’ cell phone calls, or watching movies in a theater by the light coming off the screens of nearby texters, technology has provided a solution. Unfortunately it is illegal.

In a recent decision, the FCC fined a company called Phonejammer.com $25,000 for marketing jamming equipment in the U.S. through its website, www.Phonejammer.com. The FCC discovered the violations when its field agents, responding to complaints from a cellphone service provider in Dallas, and a County’s Sheriff’s office in Florida, traced the interference in each case to a local business, and discovered that the proprietor had purchased and was operating a Phonejammer unit acquired through the website. Unfortunately, the FCC’s decision does not indicate the type of businesses that were using the Phonejammer, so it is not clear if they were restaurants, theaters, or just businesses tired of their employees texting their friends all day.

Under the Communications Act, it is illegal to sell jamming equipment because of the harm done, both intentionally and otherwise, to electronic communications. While putting an end to loud cell phone calls in upscale restaurants, or to students texting in class, might sound appealing to managers of such places, the interference to communications cannot easily be confined to just that location. Of course, the problems with jamming are not limited to just unintentional interference to nearby areas. There are similar issues affecting the business location seeking to jam calls. You can imagine what would happen if a patron had a heart attack on the premises and the emergency response was delayed when other patrons’ cell phone calls to 911 couldn’t get through.

Because of these concerns, the U.S. has always strictly prohibited the marketing of jamming devices, and not even police are permitted to use jammers. To appreciate the extent of the government’s concern with jamming, note that jamming equipment is not permitted even in prisons, where smuggled cellphones have caused unrelenting headaches for prison officials, with some inmates continuing to manage criminal enterprises via cell phone while still in prison.

That may be about to change, however. The Senate last year passed S.251, the Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009, to permit targeted jamming of cell phone service within prisons. While it has not yet been approved by the House of Representatives, support for the idea has been strong. As with most well-intentioned ideas, however, the question is what unintended consequences will be involved, particularly if the jammers are not carefully monitored and regulated. For example, will a highway that passes a prison inevitably be a cellular dead zone for passing commuters, or will the technology, once permitted, be refined to largely eliminate unintended interference (if that is possible)? Again, it may be a minor annoyance to lose a call when driving by a prison, but a serious traffic accident in that area can make reliable cell phone service a life and death issue.

Published on:

By

Comments are due by March 1, 2010 and Reply Comments are due March 30, 2010 to the FCC’s proceeding to implement national emergency alert testing at least once a year and to collect station data from such tests.

In a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) concerning updating of the nation’s Emergency Alert System (“EAS”) to meet modern security concerns, the FCC proposes to require testing of the EAS on a nationwide basis. To date, the EAS has never been used to deliver a national EAS alert. While Part 11 of the FCC’s rules requires periodic testing of state and local EAS alerts by all radio and television EAS participants, no national test of the EAS has ever been conducted, and the current rules do not require such testing. As a result, it is not known whether the system would in fact function as required should the President issue a national alert. Accordingly, the FCC proposes to require EAS participants to take part in national EAS testing, as well as continue a modified schedule of the weekly and monthly EAS already in effect.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

December 2009
Earlier this week, the FCC released a Public Notice seeking “specific data on the use of spectrum currently licensed to broadcast television stations.” According to the Public Notice, in other proceedings related to the FCC’s development of a National Broadband Plan some commenters “have expressed concern that the United States will not have spectrum sufficient to meet the demand for wireless broadband services in the near future and have urged the Commission to make available more spectrum for commercial uses.” In response, the Public Notice states that “the FCC is reviewing various spectrum bands to understand if all or a portion of the spectrum within these bands could be repurposed for wireless broadband services.”

The Public Notice assumes that existing allocations are insufficient to meet the growing mobile broadband market, and that spectrum must be reallocated to meet this demand. The questions and issues posed in the Public Notice (re-printed below) are probing and complex, questioning whether broadcast television should be “diminished,” whether multiple broadcasters can “share” a 6 MHz channel, whether the FCC can reduce the amount of spectrum assigned to advanced television licensees and what actions, including adoption of receiver standards, the FCC might take to enable broadcasters to make more efficient use of their spectrum.

Continue reading →