The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau opened investigations into allegations that Lifeline carriers aren’t properly checking whether their customers are eligible to receive the subsidy, the commission said Monday in an enforcement advisory (http://xrl.us/bmkcfs). “We are actively investigating these allegations, and issue this Enforcement Advisory to alert Lifeline service providers that they face stiff penalties, potentially including revocation of their [eligible telecommunications carrier service] status or their section 214 authorization to operate as carriers, if they do not strictly adhere to the Commission’s rules,” the FCC said.

The Washington Independent Telecommunications Association, which represents small telcos in the state, alleged that competitive local exchange carrier PAETEC has been avoiding access charges. The group asked the state commission to stop PAETEC from its activities and revoke its authority to operate in the state. It’s uncertain what the FCC’s order on Universal Service Fund and intercarrier compensation would do to state access charge disputes, said the group and PAETEC.

The FCC Friday released data about the regression analysis the commission used when it capped rate-of-return expenses in the Universal Service Fund order (CD Oct 28 p1). The FCC also released maps of study areas covered by rate-of-return and by price cap carriers. The regression analysis data can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rate-return-resources under the heading “Connect America Fund FNPRM Appendix H Data,” the agency said. The maps are at http://xrl.us/bmj3rd and http://xrl.us/bmj3rf.

Core Communications appealed the FCC’s Universal Service Fund and intercarrier compensation order Friday. The USF/ICC appeal is apparently the first legal challenge to the commission’s USF overhaul (CD Oct 28 p1). But it will not be the last, telecom experts have predicted. It was filed in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. It’s a mere two pages.

Panelists differed on regulatory models for the future federal/state relationship over broadband and, during a conference call by the National Regulatory Research Institute Thursday, saw difficulties for federal regulators in classifying VoIP as a telecom service.

A top AT&T official accused FCC staff in comments released by the company Thursday of not giving the company’s proposed buy of T-Mobile a fair review. The statement by Senior Executive Vice President Jim Cicconi came two days after the FCC released a staff memo on the AT&T/T-Mobile deal, while also allowing AT&T and T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom to withdraw their merger application.

New FCC ex parte rules were violated at least 11 times since taking effect June 1, a Communications Daily review of all filings and the agency’s own checks found. Some filings were made late -- from a day in many instances to a few weeks -- and others didn’t contain enough information on what was discussed during lobbying meetings. The filings were made by companies and associations big and small. They covered proceedings ranging from changing the Universal Service Fund to pay for broadband deployment to retransmission consent, ISP speeds, disabilities access legislation passed in 2010 and getting low-power TV stations to fully vacate the 700 MHz band for wireless broadband in the small portion they occupy.

FCC nominees Ajit Pai and Jessica Rosenworcel “will swim right on” through the Senate, Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller said Wednesday as his committee opened the nominees’ first confirmation hearing. Rosenworcel, who would leave Rockefeller’s staff to join the commission, and Pai, a telecom lawyer at Jenner & Block, made their first public appearance together at the hearing. They were received warmly by the committee’s senators. “I'm very pleased that I can heartily support you both,” Rockefeller, D-W.Va., told them in a packed hearing room. He teased Rosenworcel, whom he said is “very difficult to argue with” and said he was gratified that Pai grew up in Parsons, Kan., which means “there’s an automatic rural prejudice built into your DNA.”

House Commerce Committee Republicans questioned FCC transparency during the agency’s Universal Service Fund proceeding. “Given the keen interest of Congress in seeing the FCC’s internal procedures subjected to public scrutiny, we are particularly concerned with the Commission’s recent conduct with respect to the universal service item adopted at the Commission’s October open agenda meeting,” Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., wrote in a Monday letter to Chairman Julius Genachowski. The chairmen complained of another last-minute “data dump” by the commission. Also, the agency’s “practice of negotiating up to, and sometimes after, the Commission’s open agenda meeting appears to have reached an apex in the universal service proceeding,” they said. The Republicans asked Genachowski to say what changes were made to the USF order between the time it was considered and adopted. Meanwhile, the FCC sought comment Tuesday on additional ways to improve “transparency and efficiency” in Commission proceedings. “In particular, we seek comment on whether we should require commenters to file materials they cite in pleadings submitted in rulemaking proceedings, so that those materials are more easily accessible to all interested parties,” the FCC said. Comments are due 30 days after the notice’s publication in the Federal Register. Replies are due 45 days after publication. The House Commerce Committee marks up FCC process reform legislation Wednesday. Committee Democrats continued to oppose Walden’s HR-3309 in a memo that circulated late Monday.

NARUC might not appeal the FCC’s order on Universal Service Fund as a single bloc because states have varying views on the order, telecom industry officials told us. Though it’s uncertain if NARUC will appeal, the decision would depend on how much common ground there is among states, John Burke, chair of NARUC’s telecom committee, told us. Meanwhile, the industry has been lobbying at states to prevent appeals, a state official said. Despite a few states’ different views on preemption, NARUC has been consistent with its opposition to state preemption (CD Aug 26 p5).