New FTC Commissioners Confirmed

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:58:38 GMT

It has been quiet on the FCC front as all hands seem to be focused on the upcoming National Broadband Plan. In the meantime, I didn't want this development at the FTC to go unnoticed. Our firm's sister blog, Adlawaccess, provided this report on the confirmation of two new Commissioners. A statement by the FTC Chairman is available here.

With the FTC active in enforcement on prepaid card and mobile marketing matters, and with the FTC seeking an end to the "common carrier exception" to its jurisdiction, it is worth monitoring activities at the FTC.

Getting Feedback from Your Best Clients

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 02:17:46 GMT

If you want to build a long term relationship with your clients, you need to elicit feedback. Conducting client interviews is one way to get this crucial insight. For more, here is my latest article in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

Could the USF Contribution Factor Top 15%?

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:54:30 GMT

The Universal Service Contribution factor has been increasing recently, but could it top 15%? That is the prediction of Billy Jack Gregg, an analyst who studies the USF fund. If it does, the cries for USF reform should grow even louder, just at the time that the FCC is announcing USF support for broadband in its National Broadband Plan. Perhaps even -- or especially -- end users will object to being assessed what amounts to a 15% tax on their telecommunications purchases. (Disclaimer: technically, the USF is not a "tax").

This prediction stems from a routine filing made by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). USAC is required to submit to the FCC a quarterly estimate of the revenues and obligations of the Federal Universal Service Fund. USAC submitted its most recent projection on March 2, 2010. Billy Jack Gregg of Universal Consulting, who regularly analyzes USF issues, predicts based on this report that the 2Q 2010 USF contribution factor will be 15.3%, yet another new high. Mr. Gregg has kindly agreed to allow us to post his projections here. His chart of the USF contribution factor over time graphically displays the staggering increases in the fund the past 10 years.

The FCC will not release its proposed USF factor for another week or so. But history suggests that Mr. Gregg's projections will be pretty close. This also may be a good time to remind contributors that any revisions to your 2Q 2010 499Q are due by March 18. After that date, you will be assessed USF on the revenues you have projected, at the applicable USF contribution factor for the quarter.

Pennsylvania PUC Claims Jurisdiction over VoIP Access Charges

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:31:48 GMT

In a February 11, 2010 ruling in Palmerton Telephone Company v. Global NAPs South, Docket No. C-2009-2093336, the Pennsylvania PUC concluded that Global NAPs is required to pay intrastate access charges for terminating VoIP calls. The opinion is 30 pages long and highly detailed, but overall it appears to be contrary to the recent decision by the U.S. District Court in Paetec v. CommPartners, where the court ruled that VoIP services are not subject to access charges. And although the PA PUC attempted to distinguish another May 1, 2009 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Vonage v. Nebraska PSC preempting a state regulation of VoIP, the new PA PUC decision appears to contradict that Vonage ruling as well. The May 2009 Vonage opinion upheld a lower court finding that the FCC had "concluded nomadic interconnected VoIP services were only subject to regulation by the FCC." The PA PUC rejects that reading of Vonage on the basis that Global NAPs' wholesale services are different from Vonage's retail services (even while recognizing that over 50% of Global NAPs traffic may be VoIP). The PUC thus claims jurisdiction and orders Global NAPs to pay intrastate access charges to Palmerton.

These conflicting court and PUC rulings are providing increased need for the FCC to finally stop avoiding the issue and address directly the application of access charges to VoIP services.

3,000 Carriers File CPNI Certifications

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:23:24 GMT

As of COB yesterday, 3070 unique CPNI submissions were made in the FCC's annual CPNI certification docket. That number is almost the same as the 3,107 CPNI filers in 2009. However, it still is about 500 fewer than the number of active USF filers, according to USAC's most recent report, and is over 3,000 entities fewer than USAC has in its filer database. It looks like the FCC's Enforcement Bureau will still have some work to do to track down potential CPNI violators.

For those who failed to file the certificiations, be warned that last year, the FCC released an Omnibus CPNI NAL proposing to fine over 600 carriers $20,000 each for failing to file the required annual certification or for filing a non-compliant certification. This year, the fine has increased to $25,000, at least according to two NALs released late last week (available here and here). No, this is not an inflationary increase. Instead, the Bureau reasoned that carriers were on notice of the requirement and had failed to file in past years as well. Therefore, the action this year was more culpable and deserving of a higher fine.

If you didn't file your 2010 CPNI certification, you should do so soon.

The Sweet Smell of Success

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:16:20 GMT

Even in good times (and by most measures, these are not good times) it is difficult to execute a long term marketing strategy. We are not wired as humans for delayed gratification. We want what we want now; no one wants to voluntarily postpone rewards for months or years.

But success in marketing professional services can take a lot of time. And bad economic conditions can further delay our success (e.g. you may have great relationships with real estate developers who want to hire you, but if few projects are being financed or built, then you are not going to get work from these clients.)

Lately, I've run up a string of successes and I can say with certainty that being successful in the here and now can help to build future success. I am feeling more confident and less desperate when speaking with prospects. Every conversation I have now is an investment rather than an opportunity to sell.

This is not to say that you need to be successful in order to succeed. That would be a Catch-22. Instead, find smaller ways to succeed on your path to success (I've written about this many times including here.) If you can feel good about things you are doing outside of your professional life (e.g. from doing volunteer work, playing basketball to participating in your town's chorus), your work will benefit.

Newsroom Legal Fights Go On, Even in Bad Economy

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:48:43 GMT

The New York Times ran an interesting report on how the bad economy has impacted newspapers' decisions on whether to litigate public record and access issues. The bottom line, according to the Times -- while smaller, regional news organizations are scaling back their legal efforts, large national outlets "have been quietly ramping up."

The Times cited in particular Hearst and the Associated Press as two organizations that have been as aggressive as ever in pushing state and federal officials on public record and access issues. According to the story, both are dealing with tighter budgets by bringing more of their legal work in-house, rather than using outside counsel.

Eve Burton, vice president and general counsel at Hearst, told the Times that Hearst was at an all-time high in the number of access cases it was pursuing. Hearst's most high-profile fight is in Texas, where it has sued the governor's office for records relating to the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, a man many death penalty opponents believe may have been innocent.

The A.P. and Bloomberg News have also been in high-profile legal fights with Treasury Department officials over Freedom of Information Act requests they have filed, the Times reported.

Unfortunately, the Times found, smaller news organizations are choosing to forgo possibly expensive legal fights because their budgets simply will not allow them.

This reluctance only highlights the importance of attorneys' fees provisions in public records statutes, as they are often the only way to truly hold government officials accountable when they improperly withhold public records.

Kelley Drye Webinar: Federal Universal Service Update

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:32:12 GMT

Kelley Drye will host a free webinar, on March 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM EST. The webinar will discuss the most recent USF developments that could threaten your company’s bottom line today. Our speakers will offer expert analysis and practical take-aways based on front line experience in ongoing audits and appeals, and years of providing compliance and enforcement advice in this area.

Click here for additional details and registration.

States Move to Curtail Access to 911 Calls

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:15:14 GMT

The Associated Press reported this week of efforts underway in several states to limit access to 911 calls under state sunshine laws. According to the report, legislatures in Alabama, Ohio, and Wisconsin are considering bills that would pull back from the traditional availability of 911 recordings. Missouri, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wyoming currently exempt 911 calls from the operation of public records statutes.

In Alabama, HB 159 passed the Alabama House earlier this month. The bill, if enacted, would prevent the disclosure of 911 calls to the public without a prior order from a judge, who would consider "whether right of the public to the release of the recording outweighs the privacy interests of the individual who made the 911 call or any persons involved in the facts or circumstances relating to the 911 call."

Under SB 105, a bill introduced this session in the Ohio General Assembly, 911 calls would remain public records but members of the broadcast media would be barred from "play[ing] a recording of a 9-1-1 call that has been made available as a public record over a broadcast medium such as radio, television, or the internet." Transcripts of 911 calls could be read over the air. Violation of the provision would subject the broadcaster to a $10,000 fine.

In Wisconsin, AB 612 as originally introduced would prevent disclosure of 911 audio recordings, with transcripts remaining available for copying. The bill was subsequently amended in committee to permit inspection but not copying of 911 recordings.

These bills appear to be driven by the reaction of some to isolated editorial choices made by television stations. As the AP article recounts, the sponsors of these bills cite anecdotal accounts of a person who suffered a traumatic loss later hearing a 911 recording made in connection with the loss. The problem with these moves to curtail access to 911 calls is that they allow the tail of a few questionable decisions by news editors to wag the dog of access to government records generally. Police incident reports, arrest reports, and 911 recordings provide important sources of information for reporters to cover local law enforcement agencies, and 911 recordings in particular provide a way of monitoring the responsiveness of 911 call centers.

The principle that government records should be freely available, no less so than the First Amendment's protections to free speech, comes with consequences. Sometimes people say things that hurt; sometimes reporters broadcast stories their viewers don't like. However, these consequences should not cause legislatures to lose sight of the greater societal value of government transparency.

Get Help When You Need It

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:28:38 GMT

This post is dedicated to my accountant (who I generally resist contacting because after all, I'm smart and I should be able to figure this stuff out myself!)

The other day, I was struggling with a tax question. I knew there was probably an easy answer, so I decided to run some computations myself. As I grew increasingly frustrated and anxious (the phrase "interest and penalties" scares me), I decided that it was time to turn to an expert (i.e. my accountant). In two quick e-mail exchanges, I got my answer and quickly noted that my blood pressure had dropped considerably.

There is a moral to this story. As I get more senior in my career, I am allowing myself to ask for help with much greater frequency. It is a lesson that lawyers are not really taught. In college and in law school, we are rewarded for individual achievement. As we try to advance our careers, this belief carries forward (i.e. that success comes from working hard and figuring it all out on your own).

While success generally does require hard work and individual action, along the way, there are a lot of people who help us to achieve success (parents, siblings, mentors, friends and sometimes, other paid professionals). So work hard and take responsibility for your own achievements. But don't forget to ask for help along the way. Law is a challenging profession (and don't think for a minute that anyone at the top made it all on their own!)

N.C. Court of Appeals Holds Libel Complaint Sanctionable

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:42:54 GMT

Earlier this month, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a defamation action, holding that the filing of the complaint was sanctionable under Rule 11. In Ward v. Jett Properties, LLC, the plaintiff filed an action pro se, contending that his landlord defamed him in a letter sent to a representative of the homeowners association of the development where the plaintiff lived.

The matter started with a letter the plaintiff sent to the defendant, complaining about various actions by neighboring tenants. In response, the defendant wrote back, threatening to evict the plaintiff, to direct the homeowners association to take over his parking spot, and to report him to local law enforcement for failing to obtain North Carolina tags on his vehicle. The plaintiff contended that the letter was delivered to the homeowners association as well.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging that the letter was libelous per se and per quod, in that it accused the plaintiff of, among other things, engaging in "continued harassment" and "pestering behavior," "stalking" others in the neighborhood, being a "nuisance," lodging "irritating and unwarranted complaints," and causing "trouble" and "problems."

In considering whether these allegations stated a claim for libel per se, the Court of Appeals first set out the four categories of libel per se:

a publication which, when considered alone without explanatory circumstances: (1) charges that a person has committed an infamous crime; (2) charges a person with having an infectious disease; (3) tends to impeach a person in that person's trade or profession; or (4) otherwise tends to subject one to ridicule, contempt or disgrace.

The plaintiff contended that the letter at issue satisfied the fourth category.

The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the statements in the letter, understood "as ordinary people would understand them," were not libelous per se because they amounted to rhetorical hyperbole. In particular, the court held that accusations of dishonesty, harassing behavior, and unfavorable or disreputable personal habits cannot support a per se claim for defamation. The court concluded that the trial court therefore properly dismissed the plaintiff's claim at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage:

In this case, defendant's letter was sent in response to a demand letter by plaintiff, accusing defendant of misconduct. In this context and after reading the entire document, defendant's characterization of plaintiff's conduct as harassment, pestering, threatening, irritating, and nonsense amounts to statements of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole that are not actionable as libel per se.

The plaintiff's per quod claim likewise failed to state a claim because the plaintiff failed to allege any pecuniary loss from the letter at issue.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court's finding that the filing of the complaint was sanctionable under Rule 11. The trial court rested its sanction on a finding that the plaintiff had filed at least four previous complaints against the defendant, all of which had been dismissed, and had filed a number of other actions against others. The Court of Appeals held that these findings were sufficient to satisfy the standard under Rule 11 for imposing a sanction. However, the court remanded the matter for further findings of fact with respect to the $2,000 sanction imposed.

New USF Form Announced; Audio Bridging Changes Headline the Revisions

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:31:24 GMT

The FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau announced the new FCC Form 499A today. This form, which must be used to file the April 1 annual revenue report, includes several potentially significant changes. Audio bridging providers (conference service providers) and those close to the de minimis threshold are most affected.

As of COB yesterday, only the announcement was available. The 499A itself will be released today and I will update this post when it is available. Follow the jump for a discussion of the changes.

According to the public notice, the primary changes are:

* several revisions regarding the obligations of stand-along conferencing providers to pay USF. The FCC added a check box for audio bridging providers, updated their "who pays what" chart to include audio bridging and added a description of audio bridging providers. Last year, the FCC mistakenly referred to audio bridging providers as "telecommunications service providers" and then quickly corrected that error. I will be checking to see if the new guidance is consistent with the Calling Card Classification Order.

* adjusted the de minimis estimation factor and the circularity factor to account for the new 14% USF contribution factor. This is a sure sign that a USF factor in the 14% range is here to stay. Important Note: The FCC did not adjust the "Limited Interstate Revenues Exemption" (LIRE) threshold, even though the USF factor now exceeds the threshold. Thus, there is a possibility that a carrier's interstate revenue percentage will exceed 12% but the carrier will still pay more in USF than its total interstate revenues. Such a result was declared unlawful by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999.

* "added more specific language, consistent with the body of the text" to require CMRS and interconnected VoIP providers to submit traffic studies if they are not relying upon the safe harbor percentage of interstate calling. The filing obligation (not a prior approval requirement) has existed for some time, but compliance with it was low. I expect this will be an area for enforcement inquiries this year.

More when the Form is released. Stay tuned.

Compliance Reminder: Annual CPNI Certification Due March 1

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:37:18 GMT

What: Annual CPNI Certification pursuant to Section 64.2009. Carriers must certify that their procedures comply with the FCC's privacy rules, disclose complaints about CPNI breaches and identify actions taken against pretexters. Must be signed by an officer of the company and based on the officer's personal knowledge.

When: Due by March 1, 2010

Who must file: All telecommunications carriers and all interconnected VoIP providers. Filing obligation applies to carriers who are de minimis for USF purposes. Filing obligation does not apply to private carriers.

WARNING: Last year, the FCC proposed base fines of $20,000 to companies that failed to file certifications or that filed certifications that did not comply with the rules.

What You Measure and How You Measure It

Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:08:33 GMT

If you decide that you are measuring your law department’s performance in the correct context (see prior blogs), you then face two more important hurdles. The first, whether you are measuring something that accurately measures a relevant factor and second, that you are measuring the right thing.

Let me address the last issue first—are you measuring the right thing? Two measures seem to predominate the law department measuring game—customer satisfaction surveys and benchmarking. These are offered by the legal consultants in large part because it is easy to do and does not require the consulting firm to actually understand much about the delivery of legal services.

Customer surveys, or the happiness indicator as I refer to it, have two problems. First, it creates the wrong incentive for lawyers who will become reluctant to give unpleasant advice. Second, it measures happiness and not whether the lawyer is actually adding value in manner that benefits the overall corporation. The later is do able, but it far more complex and costly, and generally well beyond the skill and capability of the legal consultant firm.

The second method is benchmarking. The single biggest problem with that method is comparability. The categories which the consulting firms although superficially appealing could prove very misleading. Take for example my former employer, Alcan Aluminum Limited, and Alcoa, who at one time vied with each other as the largest aluminum producers in the world. From year to year who was the biggest shifted in terms of revenues and size of shipments, but they were always pretty close. Were they comparable for legal benching marking, say on legal expenses per ton or per revenue dollar? No, because Limited’s primary revenue was highly weighted to primary metal with large advantages in cheap power in Northern Canada whereas Alcoa dominated the higher revenue finished and semi-finished products that required more complex marketing, technological and patent issues (and far more product liability exposure). Differences in legal expenses actually described more about the difference in the businesses than in than the functioning of the business. I would suspect that other apparently similar businesses are also quite difference.

Benchmarking is offered is by the legal consultant industry because it is cheap for them to do and they can charge a lot for it. It also requires no real understanding of either the actual delivery of services or comparability between the businesses.

How you measure is also very important. Statistical significance and controls are critical. The classic demonstration of control is the Governor who pulls out a chart showing the downward sloping curve of highway fatalities starting in 1985 when he signed and implemented the slower speed limits on major highways. This he concludes demonstrates the effectiveness of his policy. The next day a major paper in the State published a Chart of highway fatalities from 1978 to 1984 and the slope was even steeper. So what was happening? Clearly, the Governor’s policy did not have the casual impact he claimed. Was it counter productive? Or was it wholly irrelevant?

Finally remember correlations are not statement of causation—they are statements of correlations. And remember statistical significance. That which is not statistically significant is noise and much of what you hear about the present recovery discussed on the business channels is nothing more that statistical noise. Do not make the same mistake in your studies. You might find somebody like me reading them.

So Fred Krebs is right--measure often, but measure the right thing, the right way at the right time.

What You Measure and How You Measure It

Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:08:33 GMT

So Fred Krebs is right--measure often, but measure the right thing, the right way at the right time.

Congress Investigates Rural LEC "Traffic Pumping"

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:00:00 GMT

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has sent a February 16, 2010 letter to 24 rural local exchange carriers seeking information about their access charge services. [Sample letter here.] The 24 carriers receiving the letters were chosen on the basis of responses to earlier letters sent to long distance carriers who complained of "traffic pumping" by some rural LECs. The Congressional letter expresses concern that "excessive rates for terminating access" will harm rural consumers because interexchange carriers will refuse to send traffic to those locations. It requests written responses to twelve questions by March 8, including information about the sharing of access revenues with other entities. In such cases, the letter seeks the identity of each such sharing party, the total percentage of revenues shared and a sample contract for sharing revenue. The letter also inquires about the amount of universal service support which the rural LECs receive. The LECs are asked to inform Congressional staff by March 1 if they intend to refuse to provide the information voluntarily, presumably so that it can be subpeonaed. The letter is signed by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D. CA) and subcommittee chairs Rick Boucher (D. VA) (Communications, Technology and the Internet) and Bart Stupak (D. Mich) (Oversight and Investigations).

Federal Court Rules that VoIP Need Not Pay Access Charges

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:00:00 GMT

The U.S. District Court in D.C. ruled today that IP-originated calls are "information services" that are subject to the local reciprocal compensation scheme - and not access charges - for intercarrier compensation. The ruling came in Paetec Communications v. CommPartners, LLC, U.S. Dist Ct for DC, Civ. Action No. 08-0397. Paetec filed the case against CommPartners seeking to collect access charges for all calls, both TDM and VoIP originated. CommPartners conceded that it owed access fees on the TDM calls, but argued that VoIP calls are information services exempt from access under the FCC's longstanding access charge exemption for such calls. The Court agreed. In reaching its opinion...

the Court came to some noteworthy conclusions. First, it found that IP-originated calls that terminate in TDM format are "information services" because they meet the "net protocol conversion" test. The Court stated that the FCC "has had the controversy on its docket for a decade, [but] has been unable to decide it." But citing other court decisions on net protocol conversion, the court ruled that IP-to-TDM qualifies as an information service.

Next, the court concluded that reciprocal compensation applies, not Paetec's access tariff. In reaching this conclusion, the court found that the "filed rate doctrine" did not overrule the statutory scheme that would apply reciprocal compensation rather than access to VoIP traffic. "A tariff cannot be inconsistent with the statutory framework", the court said. Since the Court concluded that only one compensation scheme could apply under the statute - either access charges or reciprocal compensation - the law dictates that recip comp should apply to VoIP notwithstanding the filed tariff doctrine. Finally, the court rejected Paetec's unjust enrichment and quantum meruit arguments because it found them inconsistent with the Communications Act's "exclusive methods of intercarrier compensation", a finding which the court said made those claims "statutorily barred."

FCC Petitioned in Access Charge Litigation

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:56:56 GMT

Beehive Telephone has Petitioned the FCC for a declaratory ruling in an effort to salvage a lawsuit that Beehive brought against Sprint in federal court for collection of access charges. According to the Petition, Sprint refused to pay Beehive's access invoices because Sprint believes they are the product of unlawful "traffic stimulation" by Beehive and a conference bridge provider. In March 2008, Beehive filed an informal complaint with the FCC seeking a finding that Sprint's refusal to pay is an unlawful practice under Section 201 of the Communications Act. Sprint opposed the informal complaint on various grounds. In May of 2008, Beehive filed a collections lawsuit against Sprint in federal court in Utah. Thereafter, the FCC stated that it would take no further action on the informal complaint. However, the court later dismissed Beehive's lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the informal complaint with the FCC was an "election of remedies" that prevents Beehive from pursing the collections matter in court. (Section 207 of the Communications Act allows complaints against carriers to be brought at the FCC or in Court, but not in both places.) Beehive's February 2010 Petition asks the FCC to clarify that its initial Section 201 informal complaint raised a different issue from the collection action and thus did not foreclose the collection lawsuit under the "election of remedies". In effect, Beehive is taking the unusual step of asking the FCC to rule that Beehive is barred from bringing its collection action at the FCC. If successful in having itself barred by the FCC, Beehive hopes to use the ruling to persuade the Court to reinstate its collection lawsuit. Comments are due at the FCC on March 1, Replies March 11.

Getting Your Life Priorities Straight-a Fictional Account

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:23:25 GMT

I'm not a big reader of fiction. With three teenagers, a wife who works full-time, a coaching business to run and a dog who also deserves some attention, I can still find time for squash. I even find time to do a fair amount of professional reading.

Unfortunately, reading fiction doesn't often make it to the top of my priority list. But since it did this weekend, I'm pleased to report that I have a good book to recommend.

The Life O'Reilly is a first work of fiction by a young litigator in New York, Brian Cohen. In his first novel, Cohen tells the story of Nick O'Reilly, a "successful" litigation partner at a top Wall Street Law Firm. O'Reilly seems to have it all professionally. He works on great cases, he owns an apartment that overlooks Central Park and he has been written up in several of the major legal publications. With a good track record of helping get his corporate clients out of trouble, he has also been able to generate a substantial amount of work for his firm. While he seems to recognize that he may not be leading the most balanced life, it takes a pro bono case to make him recognize that there may be more to life than a large pay check.

The Life O'Reilly is a quick and compelling read that captures the essence of our times. While most lawyers will not have quite the same awakening that the main character experiences, certainly the Great Recession is giving many lawyers an involuntary kick in the pants. The question raised by The Life O'Reilly is one that many lawyers are asking themselves right now: is this the life I want and if not, is it too late to change?

At this juncture, I'll take the opportunity to recommend coaching to anyone who is contemplating a change and needs help. But in reality, this post is simply an endorsement of a law related book that you probably won't be able to put down. Enjoy!

Enforcement Bureau Settles Outage Reporting Investigations

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:41:14 GMT

While the rest of the Enforcement Bureau has not yet fully emerged from the FCC transition, the Spectrum Enforcement Division continues to move investigations along. Last month, the division fined several wireless carriers for failing to file hearing aid compatibility reports. Yesterday, the division settled two outage reporting investigations involving wireless carriers. In both cases, the carriers were alleged to have failed to report outages within the 120 minute deadline. One carrier agreed to a "voluntary contribution" of $40,000. The other carrier agreed to a contribution of $50,000, must implement a compliance training program and must file three compliance reports with the FCC. Clearly, the Commission felt that this carrier's degree of non-compliance was greater. A little prevention can make all the difference in these investigations.

Recent Articles in General Counsel Blogs from LexMonitor

New FTC Commissioners Confirmed

Getting Feedback from Your Best Clients

Could the USF Contribution Factor Top 15%?

Pennsylvania PUC Claims Jurisdiction over VoIP Access Charges

3,000 Carriers File CPNI Certifications

The Sweet Smell of Success

Newsroom Legal Fights Go On, Even in Bad Economy

Kelley Drye Webinar: Federal Universal Service Update

States Move to Curtail Access to 911 Calls

Get Help When You Need It

N.C. Court of Appeals Holds Libel Complaint Sanctionable

New USF Form Announced; Audio Bridging Changes Headline the Revisions

Compliance Reminder: Annual CPNI Certification Due March 1

What You Measure and How You Measure It

What You Measure and How You Measure It

Congress Investigates Rural LEC "Traffic Pumping"

Federal Court Rules that VoIP Need Not Pay Access Charges

FCC Petitioned in Access Charge Litigation

Getting Your Life Priorities Straight-a Fictional Account

Enforcement Bureau Settles Outage Reporting Investigations