Client Advisory Sign-up
CommLaw Group Resources
CPNI Compliance Manual

Click image to view Sample


We offer a number of very helpful guides and manuals. Click here to view all of our resources.

What our Clients say...
"I have been extremely satisfied with our attorney and the entire CommLaw Group team; very professional, responsive, and great advice. I recommend you any chance I get. I really like your focus and how you can offer more than just pure legal advice (like the CPNI audits, Compliance and Reporting, etc.). These other value added services go beyond pure legal advice and make me think of your company more as a partner that can help me in many areas, with the right expertise at the right time."
"We are very satisfied with your firm's service and that is reason enough for us to keep on engaging your firm for any legal questions that we may have regarding telecom services. Your team's response time is great."
"I think you guys are night and day to the representation we have had in the past and I enjoy that I get answers that are thoughtful and well educated."
"We are definitely happy with your firm's services. It is as if you are an internal department of our company to whom we refer all telecom-related matters."
"Not a month goes by that I don't refer someone to your firm, which is the highest compliment that I can make... I am looking forward to continuing our long and mutually beneficial relationship."
"You all have been a real joy to work with, and I thank God every day for your competence, dedication, trust, guidance and counsel."
"We are against the government and high profile professionals, but... we will definitely win the case based on your support. Allison, Jackie, and [Chuck] have been doing a great job. Thank you always..."
"We hired Jonathan to represent our telecommunications licensing needs. At the time we were a start-up company with only a small amount of investment revenue. Attorney costs could have been enough to rethink the business plan. Jonathan worked with us on a payment plan basis which allowed us to focus on getting customers while he worked on getting us our licenses. He provided introductions to companies we eventually hired to assist us with tax issues and other FCC requirements. When we were interested in selling our company Jonathan made introductions to other telecom companies that were in the market for our type of company. He managed the contract process at every level through the acquisition. The best recommendation I can give is that when I go to do this again I will hire Jonathan."
"Jonathan is well-versed in a broad range of telecom regulatory matters. He uses his expertise to arrive at innovative, real-world business solutions while maintaining a high degree of professionalism."
"Jonathan is extremely knowledgeable in his field. He has provided invaluable telecom expertise to us and our subsidiary company on countless occasions. We would be lost without him. I highly recommend Jonathan!"
"Jonathan['s firm] was able to provide our ISP association with fresh responses to the RBOC FCC petitions as opposed to the boilerplate comments most law firms offered. Jonathan has a good understanding of the industry and how things work at the FCC."
—COO of a leading virtual
system company
—President of US operating
unit of foreign PTT
—CEO and Founder of a
nationwide Hosted
VoIP provider
—Senior Director of Telecom
of US operating unit
of international multi-media
conglomerate
—President & CEO of
regional CLEC
—Founder/CEO of enhanced
international communications carrier
—Controller of leading
provider of long distance,
wireless, point-of-sale and
carrier services
—Founder/CEO of
regional CLEC
—Vice President of
leading provider of
long distance, wireless,
point-of-sale and carrier
services
—CFO of enhanced
conferencing solutions
provider
—Member, Federation of
Internet Solutions Providers
of the Americas
Contact Information

Marashlian & Donahue, LLC

The CommLaw Group
1420 Spring Hill Road
Suite 401
McLean, Virginia 22102

Telephone: (703) 714-1300
Facsimile: (703) 714-1330

E-mail: mail@commlawgroup.com

Nebraska High Court Ruling Subjects Tracfone Wireless to E911 Fee Collection Requirement

On February 12, 2010, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a district court decision rejecting Tracfone Wireless, Inc.'s ("Tracfone") proposed method of collection of state enhanced 911 ("E911") surcharges from its wireless customers.  The decision affirmed an order of the Nebraska Public Service Commission ("PSC") which directed Tracfone to use one of three preapproved methods of collection. 

In accordance with Nebraska law, the PSC set the following three preapproved E911 surcharge collection methods for prepaid providers, including Tracfone:

a) Divide the total earned preĀ­paid wireless service revenues within the monthly reporting period by fifty dollars and multiply the quotient by the surcharge amount;

b) Collect on a monthly basis the surcharge from each customer's active, prepaid account. A customer with two or more active, prepaid accounts shall be assessed a separate surcharge for each active, prepaid account; or

c) Remit the surcharge upon the activation of the active prepaid account and upon each replenishment of additional minutes purchased by the prepaid customer.

The PSC further allowed prepaid carriers to propose an alternative method.  On two separate occasions, Tracfone submitted alternative proposals to the PSC.  The PSC rejected both proposals.  The PSC failed to approve the first proposal because it proposed to collect a surcharge only from each customer to whom Tracfone directly sold service, which accounted for only 10-15% of Tracfone's total sales.  Tracfone's second proposal mirrored the first but also required retail outlets to which it sold services to collect surcharges and remit them to Tracfone.  The PSC rejected this proposal because it did not maintain jurisdiction over retail vendors that were not themselves telecommunications carriers.  Thereafter, the PSC ordered Tracfone to use one of the three preapproved methods of collection or to submit a revised proposal.  Tracfone challenged the PSC's order, but the district court affirmed the decision.

On appeal to the state Supreme Court, Tracfone argued that under the statute, if it could not collect a surcharge directly from customers, it was not required to remit the surcharge.  The court rejected the contention, finding that Tracfone improperly relied upon statutory language directed at post-paid services.  Tracfone next challenged the PSC's rejection of its proposals.  The court again sided with the PSC, first finding no limitation on Tracfone's responsibility to collect the surcharge only from direct customers, and second agreeing that the PSC has no authority over the retail industry to collect telecommunications surcharges.

The court also rejected Tracfone's assertion that the district court erred in its interpretation of the statute's legislative history. And, the court found no requirement for the PSC to await an acceptable alternative proposal from Tracfone before ordering it to select one of the three preapproved collection methods.  Finally, the court rejected Tracfone's claim that the PSC's order effectively prohibited its provisioning of telecommunications service thereby violating the Federal Communications Act which proscribes state regulations that prohibit the ability of any entity to provide telecommunications service.  It held that nothing prevented Tracfone from recouping the surcharge from its customers, and a customer's option to purchase from competitors did not qualify as a prohibition of Tracfone's ability to provide service.

Client Advisory

The Nebraska Supreme Court's ruling sanctions the PSC's strict application of its wireless surcharge rules to prepaid providers.  The decision reveals that while the PSC adopted a mechanism by which prepaid providers can propose alternative collection methods more suitable to prepaid service, the PSC will strictly interpret its rules, effectively foreclosing alternative collection methods. 

Therefore, prepaid providers must select from the PSC's three preapproved methods, regardless of whether implementation of these methods is particularly burdensome or incompatible with their business models.  Clients offering service in Nebraska, particularly prepaid providers, should carefully review the E911 surcharge rules, paying special attention to the PSC's preapproved methods of collection.

Clients with questions about this Advisory should contact Jonathan Marashlian at jsm@commlawgroup.com or 703-714-1313.

 

Download PDF Advisory