AT&T: FCC E-Rate NAL Wrong on Facts, Precedent, Is Rulemaking by Enforcement
AT&T disputed an FCC Enforcement Bureau-proposed $106,425 fine, denying it overcharged two Florida school districts and violated a "lowest corresponding price" (LCP) rule under the E-rate USF subsidy program. The bureau's arguments are "factually wrong," "deviate from the FCC's own…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
rules and existing precedent" and continue a "troubling pattern of 'rulemaking through enforcement,'" said Joan Marsh, vice president-federal regulatory, in a blog post Friday. Marsh said the bureau was wrong to assume AT&T should have provided rates based on one-year contracts when the school districts never asked for those and instead bought services month to month, which she said the commission recognized as a valid basis for price distinctions in a 1997 order. She said the bureau was wrong to fault AT&T for not providing rates as if the school districts belonged to a Florida E-rate consortium, which pools the purchasing power of state agencies and organizations and which the districts chose to avoid. The bureau also took "the extreme position" that the LCP obligation applied even if the service was not purchased through the E-rate Form 470 competitive bidding program, a view she said the FCC never before had articulated and was at odds with the program. Finally, Marsh said the bureau disregarded procedures by ignoring a statute of limitations that had expired and the lack of FCC jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over intrastate services. She said the company was filing its response to a July 27 notice of apparent liability (see 1607280028).