Clearwire 2008 Annual Report Download - page 32

o
f
t
h
epu
bli
c Internet, an
d
suggeste
d
t
h
at
i
t wou
ld i
ncorporate t
h
ese pr
i
nc
i
p
l
es
i
nto
i
ts ongo
i
ng po
li
cy-ma
ki
n
g
activities. On March 22, 2007, the FCC initiated an inquir
y
into the performance of the broadband marketplac
e
under the FCC’s 200
5
Internet Policy Statement. In this inquiry, the FCC also seeks comment on whether the Polic
y
S
tatement s
h
ou
ld i
ncorporate a new pr
i
nc
i
p
l
eo
f
non
di
scr
i
m
i
nat
i
on an
d
,
if
so,
h
ow suc
h
a non
di
scr
i
m
i
nat
i
o
n
p
rinciple would be defined and applied. On Januar
y
14, 2008, the FCC sou
g
ht comment on two petitions related t
o
i
ts Internet Po
li
cy Statement see
ki
ng FCC
d
eterm
i
nat
i
ons t
h
at
f
urt
h
er
d
e
fi
ne
i
ts
f
our
b
roa
db
an
d
pr
i
nc
i
p
l
es as we
ll
a
s
w
h
at pract
i
ces const
i
tute reasona
bl
e
b
roa
db
an
d
networ
k
management.
On November 7, 200
6
, the FCC issued an order classif
y
in
g
broadband power lines, which we refer to as BPL,
Internet access service as an “information service.” Like cable modem and DSL service
,
the broadband trans
-
mi
ss
i
on component o
f
BPL Internet access serv
i
ce
i
s not requ
i
re
d
to
b
eo
ff
ere
d
as a te
l
ecommun
i
cat
i
ons serv
i
ce
.
On March 23, 2007, the FCC adopted a Declarator
y
Rulin
g
that wireless broadband services are information
s
erv
i
ces regu
l
ate
d
un
d
er T
i
t
l
eIo
f
t
h
e Commun
i
cat
i
ons Act an
d
t
h
at mo
bil
e Internet access serv
i
ce
i
s not
a
“
commerc
i
a
l
mo
bil
e serv
i
ce,” un
d
er sect
i
on 332 o
f
t
h
e Act, even w
h
en o
ff
ere
d
us
i
n
g
mo
bil
e tec
h
no
l
o
gi
es.
On Au
g
ust 20, 2008, the FCC released an enforcement order findin
g
that under the specific facts of a complain
t
before it, a certain network management practice of a broadband provider violated the 2005 Internet Polic
y
S
tatement.
T
e
l
ecommunications Re
g
u
l
ation
Th
e FCC
h
as c
l
ass
ifi
e
d
Internet access serv
i
ces
g
enera
lly
as
i
nterstate “
i
n
f
ormat
i
on serv
i
ces” rat
h
er t
h
an as
“
telecommunications services” re
g
ulated under Title II of the Communications Act. Accordin
g
l
y
, man
y
re
g
ulations
th
at app
l
ytote
l
ep
h
one compan
i
es an
d
ot
h
er common carr
i
ers current
l
y
d
o not app
l
y to our w
i
re
l
ess
b
roa
db
an
d
Internet access service. For example, we are not currentl
y
required to contribute a percenta
g
eof
g
ross revenues fro
m
our Internet access services to the Universal Service Fund, which we refer to as USF, used to su
pp
ort local tele
p
hon
e
s
erv
i
ce an
d
a
d
vance
d
te
l
ecommun
i
cat
i
ons serv
i
ces
f
or sc
h
oo
l
s
, lib
rar
i
es an
d
rura
lh
ea
l
t
h
care
f
ac
ili
t
i
es. Interne
t
access providers also are not required to file tariffs with the FCC, settin
g
forth the rates, terms and conditions of thei
r
Internet access service offerin
g
s. The FCC, however, is currentl
y
considerin
g
whether to impose various consume
r
p
rotect
i
on o
bli
gat
i
ons, s
i
m
il
ar to T
i
t
l
eIIo
bli
gat
i
ons, on
b
roa
db
an
d
Internet access prov
id
ers,
i
nc
l
u
di
ng DSL, ca
ble
m
o
d
em an
d
w
i
re
l
ess
b
roa
db
an
d
prov
id
ers. T
h
ese requ
i
rements ma
yi
nc
l
u
d
eo
blig
at
i
ons re
l
ate
d
to trut
h
-
i
n-
billi
n
g,
s
lammin
g
, discontinuin
g
service, customer proprietar
y
network information and federal USF mechanisms. Th
e
FCC is also considering whether to impose automatic roaming obligations on wireless broadband service provider
s
si
m
il
ar to t
h
eo
blig
at
i
ons current
ly i
mpose
d
on commerc
i
a
l
mo
bil
era
di
o serv
i
ces, w
hi
c
h
we re
f
er to as CMRS
,
p
rov
id
ers. Internet access prov
id
ers are current
ly
su
bj
ect to
g
enera
lly
app
li
ca
bl
e state consumer protect
i
on
l
aw
s
e
nforced by state Attorneys General and general FTC consumer protection rules.
Th
e FCC
h
as not
y
et c
l
ass
ifi
e
di
nterconnecte
d
VoIP serv
i
ces as e
i
t
h
er
i
n
f
ormat
i
on serv
i
ces or te
l
ecommu
-
ni
cat
i
ons serv
i
ces un
d
er t
h
e Commun
i
cat
i
ons Act. Nonet
h
e
l
ess, t
h
e FCC
h
as
i
m
p
ose
d
certa
i
n man
d
ates u
p
on VoIP
s
ervice providers that in the past applied onl
y
to telecommunications services. In November 2004, the FC
C
d
eterm
i
ne
d
t
h
at regar
dl
ess o
f
t
h
e
i
r regu
l
atory c
l
ass
ifi
cat
i
on, certa
i
n
i
nterconnecte
d
VoIP serv
i
ces qua
lif
ya
s
i
nterstate serv
i
ces w
i
t
h
respect to econom
i
cre
g
u
l
at
i
on. T
h
e FCC preempte
d
state re
g
u
l
at
i
ons t
h
at a
dd
ress suc
h
i
ssues as entr
y
certification, tariffin
g
and E911 requirements, as applied to certain interconnected VoIP services. O
n
Marc
h
21, 2007, t
h
eUn
i
te
d
States Court o
f
Appea
l
s
f
or t
h
eE
i
g
h
t
h
C
i
rcu
i
ta
ffi
rme
d
t
h
e FCC’s Novem
b
er 2004
O
rder with respect to these VoIP services, particularl
y
those havin
g
portable or nomadic capabilit
y
. The
j
uris-
dictional classification of other t
y
pes of interconnected VoIP services, particularl
y
“fixed” services, remain
s
uncerta
i
natt
hi
st
i
me
.
I
n June 200
6
, the FCC determined that all “interconnected” VoIP services are re
q
uired to contribute a
p
ercenta
g
e of interstate
g
ross revenues to the USF be
g
innin
g
October 1, 200
6
. On June 1, 2007, the United States
Court o
f
Appea
l
s
f
or t
h
eD
i
str
i
ct o
f
Co
l
um
bi
aC
i
rcu
i
tup
h
e
ld
t
h
e FCC’s or
d
er t
h
at
i
nterconnecte
d
VoIP prov
id
er
s
c
ontribute to the USF on the basis of a
6
4.
9
% safe harbor or on the basis of actual traffic studies. The court vacated
th
e port
i
ons o
f
t
h
eor
d
er man
d
at
i
n
g
t
h
at VoIP prov
id
ers us
i
n
g
tra
ffi
c stu
di
es
g
et t
h
e tra
ffi
c stu
di
es pre-approve
dby
t
he FCC. Our VoIP service qualifies as “interconnected VoIP” for purposes of USF regulation and therefore is
20