Featured

Legal Alert from the LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS K. CROWE, P.C.
for more information contact Jaclyn J. Murray, Legal Assistant [firm@tkcrowe.com] - Full contact info at end of article.

The information below represents a non-exhaustive list of FCC and selected state (i.e., CA, NY and TX) regulatory assessment and reporting requirements coming due March 4, 2008 through April 30, 2008.  The filing deadlines generally apply to diverse types of service providers, including interexchange or long distance telecommunications service providers, prepaid calling card providers, wireless providers and MVNOs, as well as other types of providers.  If your company holds an FCC 214 authorization or provides intrastate toll service in any one of the states listed below, chances are that one or more of the requirements covered in this Alert may apply to your company.  Interest on late payments and/or other penalties, including loss of state certification, may apply if filings or payments are not submitted on time.   

FCC
2008 FCC Form 499-A – Due April 1.  All intrastate, interstate, and international providers of telecommunications within the U.S. are generally required to file the Form 499-A.  This includes providers which qualified as de minimis in 2007.
International Circuit Status Report – Due March 31.
International Resold Private Line Addition Report – Due March 31.
Prepaid Card Provider FCC Certification – Due March 31.
Section 43.21(c) Annual Report – Due April 1. 

California 
Combined California PUC Telephone Surcharge Transmittal – Due March 10.
Emergency Telephone Users Surcharge Return – Due March 31.
Operational and Financial Information Annual Report – Due April 1. 
Combined California PUC Telephone Surcharge Transmittal – Due April 10. 
Quarterly Fee Statement for PUC Utilities Reimbursement Account – Due April 15.
California PUC User Fee – Due April 15.Emergency Telephone Users Surcharge Return – Due April 30. 

New York 
Wireless Communications Service Surcharge Report – Due March 15.
Statement of Gross Intrastate Operating Revenue – Due March 31. 

Texas
 9-1-1 Wireless Emergency Service Fee Report – Due March 20.
USF Worksheet – Due March 25.
9-1-1 Wireless Emergency Service Fee Report – Due April 20.
USF Worksheet – Due April 25.
Telecommunications Assessment Report – Due April 30.                

If you need assistance in submitting any of these reports or filings, or would like to retain us to handle your state and/or FCC filing obligations, please do not hesitate to contact us:
Jaclyn J. Murray, Legal Assistant  [firm@tkcrowe.com]  Law Offices of Thomas K. Crowe, P.C.
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 263-3640 (voice)
(202) 263-3641 (fax)
www.tkcrowe.com  

Telarus, Inc., premier telecom master agent and creator of VARNetwork.com  has been recognized by CMP Channel’s VARBusiness as one of North America’s top information-technology (IT) vendors for its VAR Network.

Telarus was certified as a Gold 5-Star Overall Winner in VARBusinesses’ 2008 Partner Program Guide (PPG), a guide that acknowledges the commitment and strength of a vendor’s partner programs for its Channel resellers, IT integrators, and technology consultants.

“This award is huge recognition for our company,” said Adam Edwards, president of Telarus. “We work very hard to make telecommunication carrier sales easy for equipment and IP networking VARs through our proprietary real-time quote technology and in-house CRM tool. Allowing our VAR partners instant access to complex carrier pricing information has allowed them to succeed in an area of business that instantly adds to their bottom lines.”

Of the hundreds of vendor program entries reviewed for this year’s guide, Telarus was one of only ten Gold 5-Star Overall Winners chosen in this 14th annual VARBusiness Partner Programs Guide survey. Telarus was also certified a Silver 5-Star Winner in the Partner Profitability, Communication and Partner Recruitment categories.

“The quality of a vendor’s partner program reflects the true commitment they have to the thriving Solution Provider Channel, and this years 5-Star Partner Programs Guide winners are the cream of the crop of Channel-friendly vendors,” said Robert C. DeMarzo, vice president and editorial director, CMP Channel.

“The Telarus VAR Network is second to none” added Robert Butler, director of the Telarus VAR Program. “We are the only telecom master agent who has invested substantial time and money into creating software to support a truly unique and streamlined program whose sole focus is making carrier sales easy for VARs. In the past year we’ve released The guide appears in the March issue of VARBusiness and can be found online at www.channelweb.com.

About Telarus

Telarus is a premier master agency whose goal is to make agents more successful than they can be on their own or with any other master agency. Telarus provides agent tools, automation, and superior support in an atmosphere of cooperation and ethical community. One example of the tools Telarus provides its agents is real-time voice and data price quoting through its patent-pending GeoQuote technology. GeoQuote makes it possible for business shoppers to access instant pricing and availability information for over 30 broadband data and voice service providers which include ACC Business, AireSpring, AT&T, Cavalier, Covad, Level3, MegaPath, Network Innovations, NewEdge Networks, Nuvox, PAETEC, One Communications, PowerNet Global, Qwest, TelePacific, Telnes, Time Warner Telecom, UCN, and XO Communications.If you are interested in making Telarus your Master Agent, please visit us here

About VARBusiness 
For the past 20 years, VARBusiness’ strategic resources have been the gateway to the commercial and public sector (or government) Solution Provider community. The VARBusiness integrated platform of media opportunities provides strategic insight for technology integrators through industry-defining research, in-depth editorial, channel events and innovative Web services, enabling these IT professionals to make educated decisions for their businesses, partnerships and customers. VARBusiness offerings lead vendors and distributors to unprecedented access to the most powerful strategic Solution Providers in the market. VARBusiness has been the recipient of numerous industry awards for both editorial content and design.

About CMP Channel (www.cmpchannelgroup.com)
CMP Channel is the one stop shop customers turn to in order to meet their global sales channel objectives from access to execution. Through use of its family of channel solutions which include CRN and VARBusiness, the ChannelWeb network, XChange Events and the Institute for Partner Education & Development (IPED), vendors are able to accelerate sales through the channel. CMP Channel provides a worldwide answer to advertising, branding and marketing services, lead generation, market intelligence, branded and custom events, education of solution providers and best practices for vendors.

About CMP
CMP (http://www.cmp.com/) is a media and marketing solutions company serving the technology industry. With the leading online, event and print brands in all technology market categories, and with services and tools that reach beyond traditional advertising, CMP shapes and influences the technology industry worldwide. CMP publishes highly respected media brands such as TechWeb, InformationWeek, ChannelWeb, CRN, EE Times and TechOnline; produces major industry events such as Interop, Web 2.0 Expo, XChange, Game Developers Conference and the Embedded Systems Conferences; and provides business information and marketing services such as the International Customer Management Institute, Semiconductor Insights and Second Life consulting for technology marketers. CMP is a subsidiary of United Business Media (http://www.unitedbusinessmedia.com/), a global provider of news distribution and specialist information services with a market capitalization of more than $3 billion. For more CMP news, go to cmp.com/news.

Legal Alert from the LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS K. CROWE, P.C.
for more information contact Thomas K. Crowe, Principal [firm@tkcrowe.com] - Full contact info at end of article.  

On February 19, 2008, the Federal Communications Commission (”FCC”) released thirteen (13) Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (”NALs”) proposing to levy fines against carriers for failure to respond to FCC informal complaints.   The base forfeiture amount for failure to provide written responses to an FCC communication as directed is $4,000 per informal complaint.  

As the Commission points out, however, monetary forfeitures can be levied up to $130,000 per violation, and up to a maximum of $1,325,000 for a continuing violation.   In the recent set of NALs issued by the FCC for failure to respond to informal complaints, the specific fines levied ranged from $4,000 to $96,000, depending on the number of informal complaints involved.  

 On March 2, 2007, nearly one year ago, the FCC released a Public Notice reminding carriers of the importance of compliance with informal complaint rules and that failure to  timely respond to informal complaints as directed will be subject to enforcement action.  A copy of that Public Notice is attached.  

 The recent release of these NALs as well as other recent FCC actions underscore the FCC’s commitment to aggressively enforcing its informal complaint rules. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding your company’s compliance with the FCC’s informal complaint procedures and requirements.
 

fcc:Reminder re Informal Complaints.3.2.07.pdf

For more information or assistance please contect the Law Offices of Thomas K. Crowe, the author of this article: 

 Thomas K. Crowe, Principal  [firm@tkcrowe.com]
Jaclyn J. Murray, Legal Assistant Law Offices of Thomas K. Crowe, P.C.
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 263-3640 (voice)
(202) 263-3641 (fax)
www.tkcrowe.com

This article has been written by Law Offices of Thomas K. Crowe, P.C. Please contact them if you have any questions about the article or need their services.

Thomas K. Crowe, Principal “firm@tkcrowe.com”
Cheng Yi Liu, Staff Attorney
Law Offices of Thomas K. Crowe, P.C.
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 263-3640 (voice)
(202) 263-3641 (fax)
www.tkcrowe.com

On January 9, 2008, the Federal Communications Commission (”FCC” or “Commission”) released its Fourth Report and Order (”Order”), which modifies its current “slamming” or carrier change verification rules. Specifically, the Order modifies the carrier change verification process to require:

1. confirmation that the consumer understands specifically that a carrier change is being authorized;
2. disclosure that completion of the verification will allow the carrier change to be effectuated;
3. that the date of each verification is obtained at the time of verification; and
4. confirmation that the consumer understands that the phrase “long distance service” includes state-to-state and international long distance.

The requirements and revisions outlined in the Order generally become effective thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register. To ensure compliance and minimize potential federal and state slamming liability, carriers offering 1+ services will want to consider revising their verification scripts or, in the event that they rely upon scripts used by verification companies, requiring such companies to do so.
Confirmation of Intent to Change Carriers
The revised rules address the Commission’s concerns that some carriers are using misleading language to deceive consumers into believing that something other than a carrier change is being authorized (e.g., upgrade to existing service, bill consolidation service, etc.). Thus, the new rules will require that verifiers confirm the consumer understands the authorization is for a carrier change, and not just simply an upgrade or change to an existing service. Since the current rules already require confirmation that a consumer “wants to make the carrier change,” the new requirement is unlikely to necessitate a drastic change to verification scripts that do not characterize “carrier change” in a potentially misleading fashion.

Further, the required confirmation - like several of the other rule changes adopted by the FCC’s Order - could affirmatively benefit carriers in that it could aid in refuting false slamming claims by showing that the consumer had a clear understanding and intent to change carriers (as opposed to just upgrading an existing service).
Verification Completion Disclosure
The current FCC verification rules prohibit verifiers from providing any additional information regarding a carrier’s services. Thus, verifiers are not allowed to answer any additional questions the consumer might have during the verification process. Instead, if the consumer has additional questions for the carrier’s sales representative during the verification process, the verifier has the option of immediately redirecting the consumer to the sales representative (thereby terminating the verification process), or having the consumer defer the question until after the verification process is completed.

Many consumers may complete the verification process (deferring their questions for the sales representative until later) thinking that they still have an opportunity to revoke the authorization (or even that final authorization had not been given) until after further speaking to the carrier’s sales representative. However, once the verification process has been completed, regardless of whether the consumer has additional questions, the carrier change authorization is effective.

Rather than forcing verifiers to disclose this at the beginning or end of the verification (which the Commission rejected as being either confusing or likely to discourage additional questions), the FCC adopted an approach that only requires an affirmative disclosure if the consumer has additional questions for the carrier’s sales representative during the verification.
Thus, if a consumer has additional questions during the verification, the verifier must directly disclose to the consumer that a carrier change nonetheless can be effectuated or processed once the verification is completed. Alternatively, if a carrier elects to allow consumers to revoke a carrier change authorization within a certain amount of time after the verification, this policy can be disclosed to the consumer instead.

Obtaining Date of Verification
The Commission’s new rules require that the date (but not the time) of verification be ascertained and recorded, at the time of the verification, in a form that can be readily identified by future reviewers (i.e., federal and state regulators). However, the Commission did not prescribe a specific means by which the date of verification needed to be obtained. Therefore, verifiers have the option of either verbally confirming the date with the consumer, electronically date stamping the recorded verification, or obtaining the date of verification by some other means which satisfies the requirement. The new date requirement is meant to address instances in which carriers might use outdated verifications in an attempt to legitimize an unauthorized switching of a consumer back to the carrier after the consumer has already completed a switch to another carrier. On the other hand, it will be to a carrier’s advantage to have a dated verification in order to defend against consumers that may falsely allege that such a situation (and a slam) occurred.

Long Distance Definition
Finally, the new rules require that any description of “long distance service” (or “interLATA” service) convey that the term includes both state-to-state and international long distance. Therefore, verifiers will be required to affirmatively confirm that the consumer understands that “long distance” encompasses both state-to-state and international calling. (Note that this requirement will not apply in Hawaii, where state-to-state and international calling are distinctly separate services.)

Effect of New Requirements
While these new rules aim in part to further protect consumers from slamming, carriers should also benefit from the changes. The new requirements have the effect of eliminating confusing and disputable components of the verification process, thereby minimizing carrier exposure to potentially significant federal and state slamming liability. Thus, it may be prudent for carriers to revise their 1+ verification scripts even before the new rules officially take effect.
Should you require assistance in modifying a verification script to comply with the new rules or have questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thomas K. Crowe, Principal “firm@tkcrowe.com”
Cheng Yi Liu, Staff Attorney
Law Offices of Thomas K. Crowe, P.C.
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 263-3640 (voice)
(202) 263-3641 (fax)
www.tkcrowe.com