MARTIN URGES FCC ACTION TO ENCOURAGE BROADBAND BUILDOUT

Martin’s main message was that the FCC should now turn to broadband deployment and act on several outstanding issues that could have an impact on investment -- including classifying DSL as a Title 1 service, subject to less regulation. Martin said he thought it was important to have “a level playing field between cable and telecom.” Cable modem service got Title 1 classification, and telecom should be treated similarly, he said. In answer to a question, he said he thought the Commission could act on telecom even though a related cable modem decision was making its way through a court appeal: “I think that doesn’t preclude us from moving forward.”

Other actions that could help broadband deployment, he said, include: (1) Revising the TRO to make clear that “fiber to support multiple dwelling units gets the same treatment as fiber to support a single home.” The FCC has ruled that if an ILEC builds a fiber loop to the home, it doesn’t have to share that loop with competitors. When that rule was applied to apartment buildings, however, there was confusion because the Bells often don’t have access to the inside wiring of apartment buildings so they can’t always bring fiber to the individual apartments. The Bells have been asking for clarification that if they bring the fiber loop to the basement of a multiple dwelling unit, the no sharing rule is met. Martin said he thought the rule was clear but if there’s confusion it should be clarified. (2) Clarifying that Bells should have forbearance from Sec. 271 unbundling rules for broadband. (3) Clarifying whether the states can require unbundling DSL separately from voice services. “I'm not sure that is consistent” with FCC policy decisions, he said. Martin said telecom companies could offer DSL that way if they want, but he didn’t think they should be required to.

As for the TRO, Martin said officials at the agency were still trying to “digest” the court’s ruling. He said he and the other 2 commissioners in the majority were planning to seek an appeal but otherwise “I don’t know how the process will unfold.” Asked whether he would be willing to work with Chmn. Powell on a compromise to avoid the need for an appeal, he said this dispute wasn’t about personal differences between him and Powell, and all the commissioners did what they thought was right, but “I think the Commission will continue to defend its position” on the TRO.

In response to a question about his position on a wireless issue, the 800 MHz consensus plan, Martin said he didn’t think there had been an “official proposal” yet, though “there have been briefings” for commissioners. “To me, the most important thing is that we address public safety first,” Martin told reporters. “Rebanding is one way to address interference [but] there are other ways,” he said. However, since “there have been increasing concerns that other proposals would not address all the interference public safety is facing, ultimately some kind of rebanding may be the most… effective way to address those issues.” He called rebanding “a very effective tool in circumstances where there are overlapping… public service and commercial” uses.

Noting the Wall St. Journal’s critical editorial Thurs. about the FCC’s difficulty crafting TRO rules, Martin said at least the paper ran a flattering picture of him. The editorial said “apart from its steel tariffs, the Bush Administration’s biggest economic blunder has been the hash it has made of telecom regulation.” The editorial concluded: “Unfortunately, sensible telecom policy seems to have no champion inside the Administration… so Mr. Martin and Beltway lobbyists have been able to run the show… Now that the courts have given the White House an opportunity to change policies, there’s no more excuses for keeping President Martin in charge.”