FCC Staff Says Some Interconnection Rules Could Be Eased

The Wireline Bureau report was among 6 released by FCC staff Wed. The others were the work of the Wireless, Enforcement, International and Consumer & Govt. Affairs bureaus, and the Office of Engineering & Technology. The Telecom Act requires the FCC to review regulations every 2 years to determine if they remain necessary. The Commission last summer asked for views on what rules might bear looking at. Many recommendations involved small sections of the agency’s massive body of rules.

Part 51 was written to carry out Secs. 251-2 of the Telecom Act, but carriers complained that the equal access obligation was left over from the 1984 AT&T divestiture, the bureau said: “Several commenters ask the Commission to eliminate carry-over equal access obligations… particularly any requirements that LECs read lists of interexchange carriers to their customers.” The rules were designed to make sure the Bells didn’t favor their former parent AT&T in recommending long distance providers. The FCC could take action in a proceeding started in 2002 to look at equal access, the staff said.

The network disclosure rules are still needed, but the FCC should consider a BellSouth argument that Internet filing fulfills the requirement, the bureau said. The report said the current rules still require subsequent carrier filings, bureau notices or both, when the carrier posts network disclosures on the Internet. “Disclosure of network changes facilitating network compatibility between incumbent LECs and other carriers” is still a laudable goal, the staff said. However, “given the Commission’s acknowledgment that network change disclosures may be unnecessarily complicated,” the BellSouth Internet proposal merits study, the bureau said. “BellSouth does not seek to modify the requirement that an incumbent LEC provide public notice” when it changes its network interface but “it argues that, if a carrier opts for the Internet notification method,” other notices “are unnecessary, costly, inefficient and redundant.”

The FCC itself has said TELRIC pricing rules may not be necessary any more and started a rulemaking several years ago, the bureau said. Industry recommendations to scale back the rules ought to be incorporated in that proceeding, the bureau said: “Verizon and USTelecom urge the Commission to eliminate or modify the rules related to… TELRIC. Both parties argue that the rules were adopted in 1996 and do not reflect the state of competition since then.”

Among other Wireline Bureau recommendations: (1) “Part 32 affiliate transaction rules require further review to determine whether they are necessary… in their current form.” Comments by USTelecom, AT&T and Verizon urging elimination or scaling back of these accounting rules could be included in an existing proceeding, the agency said. (2) A rule aimed at permitting entry by energy companies into telecom businesses should be eliminated because it’s no longer necessary. The section of the Public Utility Holding Company Act that barred energy companies from providing telecom without an FCC ruling was repealed in 2005, the report said. (3) Part 36, which deals with jurisdictional separations, remains necessary “in some form but merits further consideration for possible amendment.” The FCC could look at Part 36 in an ongoing proceeding, staff said. (4) USTelecom’s concerns about Part 42 recordkeeping requirements “have some merit.” The FCC should start a proceeding to consider eliminating a requirement that carriers maintain a master copy of records at their hq, “so long as the master index remains accessible to the Commission for review upon request.”

Wireless Bureau Targets Antenna Registration

The FCC Wireless Bureau recommended that the Commission start a rulemaking to examine revisions to its Part 17 rules for registering antennas. In Sept., PCIA asked the Commission to examine the rules, last revised in 1995. “Since the last substantive revision… lighting and monitoring technologies have developed rapidly and improved the tools available to the Commission to improve safety to air navigation and encourage investment in new and safer technology through regulation,” PCIA said. “Based on these technological advances, as well as the experiences of PCIA and its members with the current rules and changes in FAA requirements, PCIA has encouraged the FCC to revisit its Part 17 rules.”

“We see it as a positive,” said Anne Perkins, PCIA mgr.- industry affairs: “It’s a very important issue. It costs our members a lot of money every year and many of these regulations are out of date… Technology has changed and we're still hampered by these rules.”

The Enforcement Bureau said the rules it follows are all necessary, but it recommended the FCC start a proceeding to make sure Rule 1.80 forfeiture guidelines are up-to-date. The rule outlines who’s subject to forfeitures and how the agency decides the size of the fines.

The FCC should begin a more thorough review of its Part 25 satellite rules, culling obsolete provisions and making the rules simpler and clearer, said the International Bureau’s report. Most satellite and earth station application processing rules serve the public interest, but the ORBIT Act obsolesced some, it said, citing Sec. 25.210 on harmful analog interference. The Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) is correct to state that some Ka-band earth station rules no longer may be needed thanks to growing Ka-band competition, and Ka-band earth station testing requirements should be reviewed, the Bureau said. “The time may be ripe for an in-depth review” of FCC rules on special temporary authority for operation of satellites and earth stations, the Bureau said. It recommended that the FCC start a rulemaking on all SIA proposals, except for one demanding that staffers be assigned to help applicants fix incomplete applications rather than merely dismissing them.

An FCC inquiry will follow up on complaints that agency operators weren’t taking phone complaints about alleged violations of a Communications Act requirement that telecom equipment be accessible to disabled persons, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau said. The American Assn. of People with Disabilities (AAPD) had reported such behavior. The Bureau will “investigate AAPD’s allegations” and will “handle the matter administratively,” it said. AAPD also complained that consumers shouldn’t have to identify a handset maker by contacting the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachment (ACTA) if they believe a particular phone violates hearing aid compatibility rules. The Bureau will investigate that complaint as well, it said.