March 2009
Cable and Telecommunications Policy Newsletter
In This Issue
REVIEW OF NEW FEDERAL BROADBAND INITIATIVES
BULLET DODGED? FCC POLE ATTACHMENT RULEMAKING
MARKETING USE OF CPNI DATA
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links
Greetings!

My office is pleased to present the March 2009 issue of my Cable and Telecommunications Policy Newsletter.  This free newsletter provides analysis and opinion on issues facing the cable and telecommunications industry.  Feel free to pass it on to your colleagues or anyone you think may have an interest in the contents.  You can do so easily be clicking on the "Forward e-mail link" at the bottom of this e-mail.

I would appreciate any feedback you have about the content and look of the newsletter.  If you have story ideas, feel free to contact me with them.

I hope you find the newsletter user-friendly and helpful.

Very truly yours,
Electronic Signature
Tony Mendoza

 
BROADBAND INITIATIVES UNDER
THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

President Obama signed the American Recovery and Rehabilitation Act (ARRA) into law on February 17, 2009.  The Act, also known as the "Economic Stimulus" legislation appropriates $7.2 billion for two broadband initiatives, an expansion of the RUS telecommunications loan program into broadband, and the creation of a new Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP). 
 
$2.5 billion was appropriated to the Rural Utility Service (RUS) for grants, broadband loans and guarantees.  The use of the RUS funds is subject to the following criteria:
 
  • At least 75% of the area to be served by an RUS project must be in a rural area "without sufficient access to high speed broadband service to facilitate rural economic development.
  • Priority shall be given to projects for broadband systems "that will deliver end users a choice of more than one service provider."
  • Priority shall be given to projects that provide service to the highest proportion of rural residents that do not have access to broadband service.
  • Priority shall be given to borrowers or former borrowers under existing RUS loan programs.
  • Priority shall be given to fully funded projects.
  • Priority shall be given to projects that can be completed if RUS funds are provided.
  • Priority will be given to projects that can commence promptly following approval of application for RUS funding.
  • RUS funded projects cannot overlap with the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (discussed below).
$4.7 billion was appropriated to a new Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP).  $200 million of these funds must be used for competitive grants to expand public computing centers.  $250 million must be used for competitive grants for "sustainable adoption of broadband service."  $10 million is allocated for program auditing and oversight.  $350 million is allocated for a nationwide broadband inventory map.  $3.5 billion of the funding is allocated to the National Telecommunications and Information Association (NTIA) for a "national broadband service development and expansion program."  The purposes of the BTOP program are to:
 
  • Provide access to broadband service to consumers residing in unserved areas of the U.S.
  • Provide improved access to broadband service to consumers residing in underserved areas of the U.S.
  • Provide broadband education, awareness, training, access, equipment and support to schools, libraries, healthcare providers, higher education institutions, other "community support organizations"; organizations that provide outreach, access, equipment, and support services to facilitate greater broadband use by low-income, unemployed, aged and "otherwise vulnerable populations"; and certain state and federal economic development programs (i.e. "Enterprise Zones")
The NTIA "may consult" states regarding identification of "unserved" or "underserved areas" and the allocation of funds within each state.  Each state must receive at least one BTOP grant.  All grant awards must be made before the end of 2010.  The NTIA must obtain assurances from grantees under the program that the projects supported by BTOP funds will be substantially completed within two (2) years after receiving a grant.
 
To be eligible for a BTOP grant, applicants must be:
 
  • A state or political subdivision;
  • A non-profit corporation; or
  • Another entity, including a broadband service or infrastructure provider provided that the NTIA finds by rule that such eligibility is in the public interest.
Applications for BTOP money must:
 
  • Explain in detail how funds will be used to carry out the purposes of the BTOP "in an efficient and expeditious manner," including a showing that the project would not have been implemented but for BTOP funding. 
  • Demonstrate that the applicant is capable of carrying out the project in a competent manner.
  • Disclose all other sources of federal or state government funding
  • Commit to adherence with the rule that the federal share of funding for the project cannot exceed 80% without waiver of such rule by the NTIA.
In awarding grants under the BTOP, the NTIA shall consider whether the project:
 
  • Will increase the "affordability of, and subscribership to, service to the greatest population of users in the area;
  • Will provide the "greatest broadband speed possible to the greatest population of users in the area";
  • Will "enhance service for health care delivery, education, or children to the greatest population of users in the area;
  • Will "not result in unjust enrichment as a result of support for non-recurring costs through another federal program for service in the area."
The NTIA will also give special consideration to "socially and economically disadvantaged" small businesses.
 
Finally, money is also allocated for the establishment of a national broadband plan that "shall seek to ensure that all people in the United States have access to broadband capability and shall establish benchmarks for meeting that goal."  The plan must include:
 
  • An analysis of the most effective and efficient mechanisms for ensuring broadband access by all people in the U.S.
  • A detailed strategy for achieving affordability and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and service by the public;
  • Status reports on the deployment of broadband service, including progress reports on BTOP projects;
  • A plan for the use of broadband infrastructure and services in "advancing consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth and other national purposes."
On March 9, 2009, the NTIA issued a "Joint Request for Information and Notice of Public Meetings" on behalf of the NTIA and RUS.  NTIA and RUS will be holding a series of meetings around the country beginning March 16, 2009 to hear from interested parties on how the NTIA and RUS should implement the ARRA broadband provisions.  The FCC will also participate in these meetings.  Written comments can be provided to the agencies through April 13, 2009.  The Notice poses many questions for discussion and written comment.  The full Notice, posted on the NTIA's web site, can be viewed by clicking here. The public meetings will be held around key themes related to the RUS and BTOP broadband programs, such as (i) definition of terms (e.g. "unserved, "underserved," "high-speed"); (ii) the role of states in the granting process; (iii) the relationship between the BTOP and RUS program; (iv) grant criteria (including what exactly is meant by a "shovel ready" project); (v) the role of for-profit providers as potential grant recipients.  The complete schedule and location of the meetings are provided on the Notice.

Related Links:

NTIA Joint Request for Information and Notice of Public Meetings (3.9.09)

FCC News Release Announcing Public Meetings and Inviting Comments (3.10.09)

 

 
DID CABLE AND CLECs DODGE BULLET
IN FCC POLE ATTACHMENT RULEMAKING?
 
It is not clear yet whether cable operators and CLECs dodged a bullet when Kevin Martin left the FCC without the Commission having issued new rules in the FCC's pole attachment rule amendment proceeding initiated in 2007.  In the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the matter, the FCC seemed predisposed to creating a unified pole attachment rate (a position with which all interested parties agree), and adopting the "telecommunications rate" formula for all communications pole attachers (a position on which interested parties vehemently disagree).  Under current law, cable operators pay substantially lower rates for pole attachments under the "cable rate" formula than CLECs are charged under the telecom rate formula.
 
The crux of the dispute centers on familiar regulatory economic arguments.  Utility companies believe that pole attachment rates should be based on embedded costs.  Under this theory, utility companies argue that cable companies and CLECs should be paying for a greater share of the "unusable" portion of poles.  This is consistent with the embedded cost argument that all who use poles should share equally in the historical cost of pole, including the cost of erecting the pole, and the cost of unused pole space necessary for clearance above grade.
 
Cable companies and CLECs argue that the rate for pole attachments should be based on the marginal cost - the incremental costs caused by the attacher's use of the space on the pole.  Cable companies and CLECs argue that the cable rate is based on marginal cost principles.  Cable companies and CLECs argue that utilities are already overcompensated for pole rents.  If the unified rate were increased to the telecom rate, utility owners would only result in a greater windfall to electric utilities.
 
Overlaid upon the economic arguments are policy arguments on both sides.  Cable companies and CLECs argue that increasing pole attachment rates will deter investment in broadband facilities.  Electric utilities argue that the current rate results in a subsidy from electric ratepayers to cable companies, raising the cost of energy to consumers.
 
It is unclear what the new FCC will do.  At minimum, cable companies and CLECs should have a better chance at prevailing with the departure of Chairman Martin, who went out of his way to rule against the cable industry.  Moreover, cable companies and CLECs have the sounder arguments on the issue.  Most regulatory decisions involving access to bottleneck facilities utilize a marginal cost approach in determining just and reasonable rents.  Electric utilities have recovered their embedded costs in poles multiple times over through electric rates, as well as through rents from pole attachers.  Moreover, electric utility arguments asserting the cable rate formula results in a subsidy from electric ratepayers to cable companies and CLECs is a red herring.  In the end, consumers will absorb any increases in cost for pole attachments.  Arguing that the cable rate results in a subsidy to cable companies was likely an argument based more on a desire to stir the emotions of the outgoing FCC Chairman, than on any sound economic argument.  However, the clock expired on the utilities' emotional appeal.  Given the weakness of the utilities' economic and policy arguments, and the Obama Administration's push for broadband investment, cable companies and CLECs may just have dodged Kevin Martin's last bullet.
MARKETING USE OF CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION (CPNI)
 
Federal law provides that a "telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use such information only for such purpose, and shall not use such information for its own marketing efforts."  Moreover, "a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of the telecommunications service from which such information is derived."

FCC rules govern the extent to which carriers may use or access data provided by a customer or a competing carrier to regain the business of a customer who has or who is in the process of switching to a competing carrier.  These rules allow carriers to use CPNI without a customer's prior consent if (a) the data is derived in the course of providing services to the customer; and (b) the data is used solely for marketing services to which the customer already subscribes, a rule known as the "Total Service Approach."
               
Under the Total Service Approach, the FCC distinguishes between proprietary data used for "win-back" marketing aimed at customers who have already switched to a new provider, and "retention marketing" aimed at "soon-to-be-former" customers.  All carriers may use CPNI to engage in winback marketing.  The FCC concluded such use is consistent with its Total Service Approach.  In its rulemaking order, the FCC reasoned that consumers are aware of and expect their former carrier has information about the services to which they formerly subscribed.  Further, the FCC reasoned that placing such a restriction on winback marketing might deprive those consumers of the benefits of competition.  The use of such CPNI, the FCC stated, "Does not impact customer privacy in any substantial respect because the former customer-carrier relationship previously enabled the carrier to use this same telecommunications usage information."

However, FCC rules also provide that carriers may not use CPNI in their marketing efforts to retain a customer that has not yet switched service providers "where the carrier gained notice of a customer's imminent cancellation of service through the provision of carrier-to-carrier service."  The FCC rulemaking order concluded that competition is harmed if any carrier uses carrier-to-carrier information, such as switch or PIC orders, to trigger retention-marketing campaigns.  Carrier change information is considered carrier proprietary data under federal law.  The FCC noted that Congress explicitly protected carrier information under statute by creating a duty to protect the confidentiality of such data, as well as a prohibition against the use of customer data obtained from another carrier for the use of the carrier's own marketing efforts.  However, the FCC also concluded that telecommunications carriers might use CPNI data in retention marketing efforts triggered by information independently obtained from their own retail operations.  In other words, if the carrier learns that a customer is intending to switch providers from its own retail operations, and not as a result of a PIC, switch, or number porting order submitted by the competing carrier, then the carrier is free to engage in retention marketing efforts with the customer.