Selected portions of the BloostonLaw Telecom Update, a newsletter from the Law Offices of Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendergast, LLP are reproduced in this section with the firm's permission. 
Headlines Comments Filed Re TDM-to-IP Transition That Will Be Critical for Future of Wireline and Wireless Carriers On January 28, initial comments were submitted in GN Docket No. 12-353, the proceeding in which the voice, data and video industries will discuss, debate and negotiate technical and regulatory issues regarding the approaching transition of the public network from Time Division Management (TDM) infrastructure to Internet Protocol (IP) platforms. The proceeding was initiated by rulemaking petitions: (a) from AT&T seeking vague "trial runs" involving "retirements" of certain TDM facilities and services and their "replacement" with IP-based alternatives; and (b) from the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association ("NTCA") requesting a "smart regulation" review of FCC regulations and incentives affecting IP migration and investment. This proceeding is critical to the future of our wireline and wireless clients. With the substantial abandonment by Verizon and AT&T of wireline IP markets in urban and suburban areas in favor of CATV DOCSIS systems and with the shift by Verizon and AT&T toward 4G and other wireless IP services, the TDM-to-IP transition is likely to reach critical mass much sooner than once expected. In particular, the digital subscriber line (DSL) and fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) networks of rural telephone companies (RLECs) are becoming islands increasingly separated from their traditional Verizon and AT&T connections that are going to have to interconnect and exchange more and more VoIP and other IP traffic with CATV networks. A threshold issue in the FCC rulemaking is how the agency will define an "IP" or "all IP" network, and what related facility, service and/or capacity standards (if any) it will impose. Of particular interest to RLECs (which generally have deployed soft switches that are compatible with both TDM and IP) and their customers is whether (or, at least, how long) TDM equipment will be able to be used from both a regulatory and an operational standpoint. Interconnection will be a major and very complex issue in an IP world. At the outset, carriers that presently communicate with the outside world via access tandem networks operated by price cap carriers need to closely monitor the plans of such larger carriers to convert from TDM to IP, and the impact of such conversions upon the continuing availability and costs of their existing tandem switching and routing arrangements (or the replacement alternatives). On a longer term basis, rural and other smaller carriers will need to address the availability and cost of peering and other direct and indirect IP interconnection alternatives, as well as the availability, capacity and costs of middle mile transit. With minutes being replaced by packets, terminating access rates for TDM voice moving to bill-and-keep and much of intercarrier compensation (ICC) converted from rate-of-return to an incentive mechanism, there is not a lot of hope for a significant ICC revenue stream in an IP world. Before engaging in a campaign for IP ICC, rural carriers need to obtain accurate estimates of their existing and future IP traffic flows to determine whether any such IP ICC would be likely to entail substantial in-flows or out-flows. Carriers may also want to consider port-and-link arrangements if they can be simplified to the extent necessary to be accepted by the FCC and to render negotiation and/or tariffing feasible. Many clients are aware that AT&T's "trial run" proposal is part and parcel of its federal and state campaigns to get rid of Carrier of Last Resort (CoLR) and other common carrier regulation, at least in those areas where it will not be receiving Universal Service Fund (USF) support. A lot of wireline and wireless carriers agree with AT&T that CoLR and USF should be tied together so as to avoid unfunded mandates. However, in the RLEC industry, CoLR has an honored and successful record, and many carriers would much prefer both continued CoLR obligations and sufficient USF support rather than eliminating both as AT&T desires. "Sufficient" USF support is the key. Whereas some rural wireline and wireless networks need to upgrade their networks to reach the FCC's current wireless-based 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream standard, rural customers are soon going to demand much larger bandwidths in order to use the applications being developed for urban and suburban areas where the Genachowski FCC is encouraging 100 Mbps-to-1 Gbps speeds. Whereas the CATV industry is already pushing back against increased USF support for the rural areas that it has largely declined to serve, support significantly in excess of the FCC's current $4.5 billion budget is necessary if Rural America is going to be able to participate in the 21st Century economy and society. Finally, rural carriers have some common interests with AT&T with respect to the need to reduce regulation and regulatory costs in an IP world. In a milieu of disappearing ICC, budgeted and benchmarked USF, capped corporate operations expense and burgeoning IP bandwidth needs, the FCC should reduce regulatory and reporting requirements so that more of the increasingly stretched carrier revenues are available for infrastructure upgrades and service improvements. Dominant carrier regulation of RLECs, equal access requirements and semi-annual Form 477 reports are examples of requirements that can be eliminated or reduced without significant adverse impact upon the public interest. CTIA Seeks Blanket Waiver for Temporary Towers from FCC Public Notice Requirements CTIA — The Wireless Association has requested that the FCC amend its interim antenna tower rules to exempt temporary antenna towers from the local and national public notice requirements for environmental processing. If approved by the FCC, the exemption would apply to antenna towers that are (a) in use for less than 60 days, (b) less than 200 feet tall, (c) require the filing of a Form 7460-1 with the FAA because they are within the glide slope to the nearest aircraft landing area and (d) do not require painting and lighting by the FAA. Additionally, CTIA also requests that these temporary antenna towers be exempt from the FCC's Antenna Structure Registration process. Last year, as an outgrowth of several years of litigation involving avian mortality, the FCC amended its rules, on an interim basis, to require both local and national public notice for any proposed antenna tower that would require the filing of an application for Antenna Structure Registration. Because the FCC did not exempt temporary antenna structures that are constructed for fewer than 60 days, licensees may have to delay service to those areas that may have an unexpected temporary need, whether it be for a special event or even after a disaster such as a forest fire, train derailment, or other large scale event that can cause existing communications facilities to become overwhelmed. This sort of scenario has played out several times over the recent past, most notably following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 when the public switched telephone network and wireless communications came to a virtual stand-still due to the volume of calls being attempted. Aside from these unexpected large-scale events, there is also the potential for unexpected temporary increases in local demand for service – that can be met through the deployment of temporary facilities. This includes unplanned visits by high-profile dignitaries and world leaders, spontaneous celebrations when a sports team wins a major championship and during political campaigns — especially the presidential campaign where stops are not publicized far in advance due to security concerns. Even if carriers have advance knowledge of a planned event, such as a NASCAR race, a State or County Fair, etc., they may not know the precise location where the tower is to be set up until just days before the event. CTIA has pointed out that the FCC's interim rules have had the unintended consequence of preventing carriers from addressing service issues in a timely manner – especially where the cause is either a loss of a cell site or a substantial temporary increase in demand. While the FCC's interim rules were designed to balance the impact on migratory birds and other potential environmental effects against the need to provide communications service rapidly, the current rules do not permit carriers to deploy temporary antenna structures to meet demands for service that may very well last for substantially less than the amount of time it takes to navigate the FCC's interim Antenna Structure Registration Process. Because of the temporary nature of these antenna structures, CTIA believes that these temporary towers would not have a substantial impact on avian mortality — especially since these facilities are less than 200 feet tall and would not be obstruction marked and lighted. Comments are due February 25, 2013 and Reply Comments are due March 12, 2013. FCC Provides Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning State and Local Government Action for Wireless Co-locations and Replacement of Facilities on Existing Towers The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 stated that state and local governments "may not deny and shall approve" any request from a wireless licensee to collocate, remove or replace transmitter equipment (including antennae, lines, etc.) on any tower or base station as long as the proposed action did not make a substantial change to the physical dimensions of the tower or base station. Unfortunately, because the legislation was not specific, many licensees and governments have asked the FCC to clarify matters such as what is a "substantial change"; what is a wireless tower or base station; may a state or local government require an application process even if they are required to grant the request, and if so, how long may the state or local government take to act on a request? What is a Substantial Change to Physical Dimensions of a Tower or Base Station?
The FCC is applying the definition of a "substantial increase" in size to the definition of "substantial change." The existing definition will provide guidance as to whether a co-location, removal or replacement of equipment substantially changes the dimensions of the antenna structure. As a result, the FCC has concluded that a "substantial increase" in the size of the tower will occur if the proposed antenna would: a increase the existing height of the antenna tower by more than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet (whichever is greater); or
b would require the installation of more than four (4) new equipment cabinets or more than one new equipment shelter; or
c would add something that would protrude from the tower more than 20 feet or is more than the width of the tower at the location that it is mounted; or
d require digging outside of the tower site, which is defined as the current boundaries of the real estate lot surrounding the tower and any existing access/utility easements related to the site.
In evaluating your proposal against the criteria listed above, it is important to note that there may be exceptions to the rule, including that antenna may exceed size limitations (a) if required for interference protection with existing antennae on the tower or (b) if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable. What is a Wireless Tower or Base Station?
The FCC defined a tower as "any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting an FCC licensed antenna and their associated facilities." In other contexts, the FCC treats "radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial cable, power supplies (including backup) and other associated electronics that are necessary for the transmitter to operate as being part of the base station. Because Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 applies to the "collocation, removal or replacement of equipment on a wireless tower or base station, the FCC has interpreted the term "base station" to include an antenna structure that holds an antenna as well as equipment cabinets and shelters that house the actual transmitters and associated equipment. May a State or Local Government Require an Application?
While under Section 6409(a) a state or local government may not deny and must approve an eligible facilities request, it does not address the question of whether the state or local government may require an application before action is taken. The FCC has concluded that state or local governments may require the filing of an application since it involves a request for a governmental approval. How Long May a State or Local Government Take to Act on the Request?
Again, Section 6409(a) does not provide a time-frame for action on an application even though it does contemplate that qualifying proposals will be approved. Since the FCC has previously found that 90 calendar days is a reasonable period of time to process collocation applications, the FCC has determined that the same timeline would be appropriate for the review of applications under Section 6409(a) since the state or local government is required to approve a covered request.
Law & Regulation REINS Act Introduced to Control Federal Regulations Rep. Todd Young (R-Ind.) introduced the "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act" to "rein in" excessive federal rules and regulations. The bill has 121 co-sponsors. The REINS Act would require any federal rule or regulation with an economic impact of $100 million or more to be approved by Congress before taking effect. A similar measure passed the House in the 112th Congress but never received a hearing in the Senate.
Industry StanaCard, LLC Assessed Unauthorized Transfer of Control Forfeiture On January 24, the FCC notified StanaCard, LLC, a provider of international prepaid calling cards, of its Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $21,000 for failing to give timely notice of a pro forma transfer of control of international Section 214 authority and apparently neglecting to obtain prior FCC approval for the substantial transfers of control of domestic and international Section 214 authority. On October 23, 2010, StanaCard's managing member, an 88.88 percent membership interest holder, transferred half of that membership interest to another party but did not notify the FCC that he had done so until February 15, 2011. Under the FCC's rules, this amounts to a "non-substantial" or "pro forma" transfer of control which does not require notice to the FCC in the domestic context, but does require such notice in the international context. On June 21, 2011, the managing member transferred not only the remainder of his membership interest but also his position as managing member to the same person without obtaining prior FCC approval. This amounts to a "substantial transfer" of control which requires prior application to the FCC for approval. BloostonLaw reminds clients to take care when conducting transactions of any type, and to be sure to observe the FCC's unauthorized transfer of control rules. Clients participating in any such transfers should consider seeking legal assistance before proceeding. Verizon Strikes $1.9 Billion Deal to Sell 700 MHz Licenses to AT&T With an interim 35% geographic build-out coming due for Auction No. 73 700 MHz licenses in a matter of months, Verizon has reached an agreement to sell 39 Lower 700 MHz B-Block CMA licenses in 18 states to AT&T in exchange for $1.9 Billion plus 10 MHz of AT&T's AWS-band spectrum in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Fresno and Portland. The transactions are subject to FCC approval and the parties anticipate closing in the second half of 2013. AT&T announced the deal to acquire 700 MHz spectrum covering 42 million POPs in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Friday. The Company said that the acquisition will complement its existing Lower 700 MHz B-Block holdings and help it to extend its Long Term Evolution (LTE) network to 300 million people by the end of 2014. In a parallel transaction, Verizon Wireless will sell Lower 700 MHz B-Block licenses covering the Charlotte, Greensboro and Raleigh-Durham markets to Grain Management, a Sarasota, Florida-based private equity firm, for $189 million. Verizon plans to lease from Grain Management AWS spectrum covering Dallas, Texas, which Grain is acquiring from AT&T. Our clients may recall that Verizon Wireless told the FCC in April 2012 it would sell all of its Lower 700 MHz A- and B-Block spectrum if the Commission granted regulatory approval to purchase $3.6 Billion of AWS spectrum nationwide from a joint venture of cable companies. The Verizon-SpectrumCo AWS transaction received FCC and DoJ approval last August. This most recent transaction with AT&T appears to be Verizon's attempt, at least in part, to make good on its divestiture promise. However, it does not include all of Verizon's Lower 700 MHz B-Block licenses, and it includes none of the Company's Lower 700 MHz A-Block holdings. As a result, and in the absence of additional transactions, Verizon may find itself in the same conundrum as small and regional A-Block licenses that are seeking extensions of the June 2013 build-out deadline due to a lack of interoperable 700 MHz band mobile equipment. FCC Seeks to Bring Gigabit Internet to One Community In Every State by 2015 FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is promoting the creation of "gigabit communities" to create a critical mass of markets with ultra-fast Internet speeds to spur innovation in next generation applications and services. As part of this effort, Chairman Genachowski issued a "Gigabit City Challenge" at the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting, calling for at least one gigabit community in all 50 states by 2015. According to the FCC, gigabit communities will "spur innovators to create new businesses and industries, spark connectivity among citizens and services, and incentivize investment in high-tech industries." To help communities meet the Gigabit City Challenge, the FCC will create an "online clearinghouse of best practices to collect and disseminate information about how to lower the costs and increase the speed of broadband deployment nationwide" and hold workshops on gigabit communities to "evaluate barriers, increase incentives, and lower the costs of speeding gigabit network deployment." According to the FCC, approximately 42 communities in 14 states currently are served by ultra-high-speed fiber Internet providers, including a fiber network deployed by a utility in Chattanooga, Tennessee and the Google Fiber initiative in Kansas City.
Deadlines FEBRUARY 1: FCC FORM 502, NUMBER UTILIZATION AND FORECAST REPORT. Any wireless or wireline carrier ( including paging companies ) that have received number blocks--including 100, 1,000, or 10,000 number blocks--from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), a Pooling Administrator, or from another carrier, must file Form 502 by February 1. Carriers porting numbers for the purpose of transferring an established customer's service to another service provider must also report, but the carrier receiving numbers through porting does not. Resold services should also be treated like ported numbers, meaning the carrier transferring the resold service to another carrier is required to report those numbers but the carrier receiving such numbers should not report them. Reporting carriers are required to include their FCC Registration Number (FRN). Reporting carriers file utilization and forecast reports semiannually on or before February 1 for the preceding six-month reporting period ending December 31, and on or before August 1 for the preceding six-month reporting period ending June 30.
Calendar At-A-Glance Jan. 31 — Report of extension of credit to federal candidates. Jan. 31 — Carrier Identification (CIC) code reports are due. Jan. 31 — FCC open meeting. Jan. 31 — Deadline for ETCs to report to the FCC, USAC & tribal governments (where appropriate) results of their efforts to re-certify Lifeline subscribers (WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 12-23, and CC Docket No. 96-45). Feb. 1 — FCC Form 499-Q, Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, is due. Feb. 1 — FCC Form 502, Number Utilization and Forecast Report, is due. Feb. 8 — Comments for Next Generation 911; Text-to-911 (Section III.A) are due. Feb. 8 — Electronic filing deadline for Form 497 for carriers seeking support for the preceding month and wishing to receive reimbursement by month's end. Feb. 11 — Reply Comments on Connect America Fund Phase I FNPRM due. Feb. 11 — Comments for sections IV.A and IV.C of Special Access FNPRM are due. Feb. 11 — Comments on NCTC Waiver of FCC Rule Section 36.605 are due. Feb. 19 — Comments for CAF Phase II Eligibility Methodology are due. Feb. 19 — Comments on Remote Areas Fund are due. Feb 25 — USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling comments are due. Feb. 25 — Comments on CTIA Blanket Waiver for Temporary Towers from FCC Public Notice Requirements are due. Feb. 26 — Reply Comments on NCTC Waiver of FCC Rule Section 36.505 are due. Mar. 1 — Copyright statement of accounts form for cable companies is due. Mar. 1 — CPNI Annual Certification is due. Mar. 1 — FCC Form 477, Local Competition & Broadband Reporting Form, is due. Mar. 4 — Reply Comments for CAF Phase II Eligibility Methodology are due. Mar. 11 — Comments for Next Generation 911; Text-to-911 Other Sections are due. Mar. 11 — Deadline for Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments on ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. OMB Control No. 3060-0562. Mar. 12 — Deadline for reply comments on USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling. Mar. 12 — Reply comments on Comments for sections IV.A and IV.C of Special Access FNPRM are due. Mar. 12 — Reply comments on CTIA Blanket Waiver for Temporary Towers from FCC Public Notice Requirements are due. Mar. 18 — Reply Comments on Remote Area Fund are due. Mar. 25 — Comments for Interstate Inmate Calling Rate Proceeding are due. Apr. 9 — Reply Comments for Next Generation 911; Text-to-911 (Other Sections) are due. Apr. 22 — Reply Comments for Interstate Inmate Calling Rate Proceeding are due. | 
CLICK HERE
Hi, I want to let you know about an amazing offer and service that I'm really excited about. Check this out — 
Apple has become the number one mobile phone vendor by volume in the United States for the first time ever, with the company's success driven by its popular ecosystem of iPhones and the App Store, generous carrier subsidies, and extensive marketing around the new iPhone 5 model, according to a report from IT research firm Strategy Analytics.
David George and Bill Noyes
