|
|
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,
 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|