Today: US Court Upholds FCC Order on ETC Price Cap Carrier Duties, FCC Issues Fine for Failure to Provide Information, WISPA Joins in "Open Internet" Rules Litigation
Court Upholds FCC Order on ETC Duties of Price Cap Carriers
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the FCC’s earlier orders that left price cap carrier’s eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) obligations in place for some areas where they are receiving frozen, legacy, voice-only high cost support and customers do not have other options for voice service. The Court said: “The FCC is shepherding the nation’s communications infrastructure into the Twenty-First Century, even as it seeks to ensure that hard-to-serve areas and individuals retain access at least to basic landline service. The Commission is owed deference as it temporarily holds in place preexisting requirements until the new systems are up and running. And the FCC has provided for sufficient case-by-case relief if and when Petitioners establish a need for it. There is no defect in the FCC’s challenged Orders. We therefore deny the petitions.” The Orders under challenge related to a request that the FCC forbear from requiring price cap carriers to provide voice service in areas where they do not receive Connect America Fund high-cost support. Inteserra Briefing Service subscribers see Briefings dated 1/8/15 and 1/14/16.
FCC Issues Fine for Failure to Provide Information
The FCC is proposing to assess a penalty of $235,668 against Aura Holdings of Wisconsin, Inc. for the willful and repeated failure to provide truthful and accurate information to the FCC. In this case, Aura apparently: (1) submitted false and misleading information in 10 different change in ownership applications using the FCC’s Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) system; (2) made a false and misleading statement to an FCC employee, claiming the Company owned an antenna structure that it did not own; and (3) failed to respond to a FCC order directing it to answer questions regarding the veracity of the information Aura provided in its change of ownership filings as well as its representations to an FCC employee.
Section 1.17(a)(2) of the FCC’s rules provides that no person shall, in any written statement of fact, “provide material factual information that is incorrect or omit material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading without a reasonable basis for believing that any such material factual statement is correct and not misleading.” The Communications Act authorizes the FCC to assess a forfeiture for violation of this section of up to $19,639 per violation or per day of a continuing violation. In this case, the FCC determined that the statutory maximum was warranted due to Aura’s apparently willful and repeated violations. Accordingly, it proposed a forfeiture of $19,639 for each apparent false filing; each apparent communication of false and misleading information ($216,029 in total for 11 instances); and Aura’s failure to respond to FCC inquiries (a significant upward adjustment from the usual base forfeiture of $4,000 for this infraction.)
WISPA Joins in "Open Internet" Rules Litigation
WISPA, the advocacy organization representing 800 + wireless internet service providers and related industry participants, has teamed with other business and consumer groups in supporting the FCC in a court case over the agency's recently adopted "Net Neutrality" rules. See the announcement here.
____________________________
The Regulatory Mix, Inteserra’s daily blog of telecom related regulatory activities, is a snapshot of PUC, FCC, legislative, and occasionally court issues that our regulatory monitoring team uncovers each day. Depending on their significance, some items may be the subject of an Inteserra Briefing.
INTESERRA SPRING 2018 SEMINAR "DEMYSTIFYING TELECOM AND INTERNET REGULATION" MAY 8 & 9
