Cook’s Collaborative Edge

Scott McCollough has just shown again why he is one of my favorite telecom attornies. I’d give a lot to know what Copps and Adelstein are thinking right now after getting Martin’s foot in their face once again. Scott meanwhile came up with a very creative idea on my list just now.

Scott writes: McDowell was probably the smartest person in all of this. He likely can’t vote on this case, but might be able to sit in an enforcement action flowing from this one, although that is a close call. Still, I think the best course of action is for Copps and Adelstein to pull the plug. We really don’t know how McDowell will vote once unshackled from his prior clients. We have had Commissioners come from industry before and promptly vote against their former clients.

If Copps and Adelstein really want to get serious, they can start an investigation of AT&T’s potential violation of the duty of candor: 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1 .17 Truthful and accurate statements to the Commission.

(a) In any investigatory or adjudicatory matter within the Commission’s jurisdiction (including, but not limited to, any informal adjudication or informal investigation but excluding any declaratory ruling proceeding) and in any proceeding to amend the FM or Television Table of Allotments (with respect to expressions of interest) or any tariff proceeding, no person subject to this rule shall;

(1) In any written or oral statement of fact, intentionally provide material factual information that is incorrect or intentionally omit material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading; and

(2) In any written statement of fact, provide material factual information that is incorrect or omit material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading without a reasonable basis for believing that any such material factual statement is correct and not misleading.

(b) For purpose of paragraph (a) of this section, “persons subject to this rule” shall mean the following:

(1) Any applicant for any Commission authorization;

(2) Any holder of any Commission authorization, whether by application or by blanket authorization or other rule;

(3) Any person performing without Commission authorization an activity that requires Commission authorization;

(4) Any person that has received a citation or a letter of inquiry from the Commission or its staff, or is otherwise the subject of a Commission or staff investigation, including an informal investigation;

(5) In a proceeding to amend the FM or Television Table of Allotments, any person filing an expression of interest; and

(6) To the extent not already covered in this paragraph (b), any cable operator or common carrier.

That would get interesting because it would necessarily require inquiry into what was said between AT&T and Martin and Tate’s offices. Nice little palace revolt. Which could end up with McDowell as Chair.

Cook’s Edge:Thank you Scott. Wish I had a picture of your infectious and mischevious grin to post. This is an idea that deserves exposure.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS