Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

FCC Rejects Request for Dirt on AT&T Contracts

By Peter Tannenwald on July 24, 2008
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On July 23, 2008, more than four years after the complaint was filed, the FCC denied a request by the Center for Communications Management Information, Econobill Corporation, and On Line Marketing Inc. that AT&T be ordered to post more detailed information on its website about the terms and conditions of special deals with large customers.  The complainants are consultants who want to know what deals AT&T might be willing to make based on vigorous negotiations.

The FCC observed that while Section 42.10 of the FCC’s Rules does require AT&T to post information about its individually negotiated service offerings, “by design, the rule does not specify (i) a level of detail that must be disclosed, (ii) a particular time within which the information must be disclosed, or (iii) a format for disclosing information.   The rule simply states that carriers must disclose ‘information concerning [their] current rates, terms and conditions … in an easy to understand format and in a timely manner.'”  Most of the deals in question are made with large, sophisticated customers, and the FCC perceived no market failure that required the customers to be given an extra leg up in negotiations.  The FCC concluded that AT&T is in compliance by virtue of disclosure of “(i) the services covered; (ii) the length of the contract; (iii) the minimum revenue commitment, if any; (iv) the credits given, if any; (v) the waiver policy, if any; (vi) the discontinuance policy, if any; (vii) the range of applicable rates for each covered service; and (viii) the range of applicable discounts for covered services.”

The complainants also charged that AT&T does not post the terms and conditions of its individually negotiated deals within the required 24 hours of the date when the agreement is signed — most postings take around 30 days.  The FCC disagreed, stating that while the “effective” date of AT&T’s contracts is usually the date of signature, the operative regulatory requirement for posting is based on the effective date of the rate change, which does not occur until later, when AT&T has implemented the necessary back office changes.  AT&T claimed that it posts information about deals before the pricing actually becomes effective.

So much for being able to read everyone else’s deal terms before you do your own.

Photo of Peter Tannenwald Peter Tannenwald

Peter Tannenwald joined Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC, as a Member, after a 40-year career which included one of Washington’s 10 largest law firms, where he was a partner, and more recently as a named principal of Irwin, Campbell & Tannenwald, P.C. In…

Peter Tannenwald joined Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC, as a Member, after a 40-year career which included one of Washington’s 10 largest law firms, where he was a partner, and more recently as a named principal of Irwin, Campbell & Tannenwald, P.C. In addition to a broad range of radio and television broadcast station groups and individual station owners and common carrier and wireless clients in both regulatory and transactional matters, he has represented inventors and developers of new technologies and has helped implement several such technologies, including wireless auditory assistance devices for persons with hearing loss, the use of AM broadcast stations for power utility load management, visual captions on television broadcasts, the Interactive Video and Data Service, compatibility of cellphones and hearing aids, and most recently combining television broadcast and broadband services in the same spectrum.

Read more about Peter TannenwaldEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Administrative and Regulatory
  • Blog:
    CommLawBlog
  • Organization:
    Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo