The perceived industry impact on proposed FCC reclassification of broadband transport as a common carrier service subject to six sections of the Communications Act may fall most heavily on cable operators, investor interviews and stock prices Thursday show. Cable operators largely aren’t regulated under Title II and putting their broadband services under it means the companies will be more heavily regulated, some investors and analysts said. Telcos have always had wireline operations subject to Title II, though their financial outlook is also affected by regulatory uncertainty, analysts and industry officials said.

The Alliance of Rural CMRS (ARC) Carriers called in a letter to the FCC for action on its proposal for a cap on per-line universal service high-cost support received by incumbent local exchange carriers. The group said the National Broadband Plan calls for the FCC to shift up to $15 billion in Universal Service Fund money to pay for broadband over the next decade through a series of “commonsense reforms.” “The ARC Proposal represents one such commonsense reform,” the group said. “The ARC Proposal is designed to embrace and advance the objectives of the Broadband Plan by enabling the immediate repurposing of high-cost funds for broadband programs, and by rationalizing high-cost support received by incumbent LECs by tying the level of support to incumbent LECs’ success in the marketplace.”

Reports that the FCC may regulate broadband as a Title I service left some supporters of reclassification under Title II worried about the fate of net neutrality and the follow-through on some National Broadband Plan recommendations, they said at an event organized by Free Press. “The Obama promise of keeping the Internet open and free is at stake,” Marvin Ammori, Free Press senior adviser, said on a teleconference. After the Comcast decision, the FCC is left with two options, said Free Press Policy Counsel Aparna Sridhar: “It can continue trying to shoehorn its policies into a Title I framework” or classify data transmission under Title II. The latter provides a regulatory framework with a clear distinction between connectivity and applications traveling over the lines, she said. The speakers dismissed opponents’ claims that reclassification would result in sweeping litigation, including claims of First Amendment violations. “We're talking about regulating conduct that’s not expressive,” Sridhar said. Phone companies “weren’t able to argue that they can block calls because they had a free speech right,” Ammori said. A Title I regime would affect cybersecurity, privacy and adoption measures, they agreed. It would be a mistake to assume that the Title I route wouldn’t cause litigation, but the question is how much, said Professor Barbara van Schewick of Stanford Law School. “If we stay under Title I, we'll have to go to court for every single thing we want to do with it,” including a Universal Service Fund overhaul and net management rules. Free Press Executive Director Josh Silver said it would also affect getting broadband out to rural communities and establishing the U.S. as a leader in innovation and entrepreneurship. Net neutrality regulation won’t scare away investment, Ammori said. “For companies to say their stocks will go down is like car companies saying, ‘People won’t invest in us if we have to supply air bags and seat belts.'”

Reports that the FCC may regulate broadband as a Title I service have left some supporters of reclassification under Title II worried about the fate of net neutrality and the follow-through on some National Broadband Plan recommendations, they said at an event organized by Free Press. “The Obama promise of keeping the Internet open and free is at stake,” Marvin Ammori, Free Press senior adviser, said on a teleconference. After the Comcast decision, the FCC is left with two options, said Free Press Policy Counsel Aparna Sridhar: “It can continue trying to shoehorn its policies into a Title I framework” or classify data transmission under Title II. The latter provides a regulatory framework with a clear distinction between connectivity and applications traveling over the lines, she said. The speakers dismissed opponents’ claims that reclassification would result in sweeping litigation, including claims of First Amendment violations. Sridhar said: “We're talking about regulating conduct that’s not expressive.” Phone companies “weren’t able to argue that they can block calls because they had a free speech right,” Ammori said. A Title I regime would affect cybersecurity, privacy and adoption measures, they agreed. It would be a mistake to assume that the Title I route wouldn’t cause litigation, but the question is how much, said Barbara van Schewick, a Stanford Law School professor. “If we stay under Title I, we'll have to go to court for every single thing we want to do with it,” including a Universal Service Fund overhaul and net management rules. It would also affect getting broadband out to rural communities and establishing the U.S. as a leader in innovation and entrepreneurship, said Josh Silver, Free Press executive director. Net neutrality regulation won’t scare away investment, Ammori said. “For companies to say their stocks will go down is like car companies saying, ‘People won’t invest in us if we have to supply air bags and seat belts.'”

The FCC denied a petition by TracFone requesting rescission of a state 911/E911 compliance certification requirement in 10 states and Washington, D.C. In an order, TracFone was designated as an eligible telecom carrier (ETC) to receive Universal Service Fund support through the Lifeline program in certain states, including Washington, D.C., Virginia and Alabama, the commission said. The limited designation is subject to “the condition that TracFone certify that it is in full compliance with state-level 911 and enhanced 911 obligations.” TracFone wanted the condition rescinded because it claimed the “only reason for imposition of the state-law certification condition was to address several false statements in the record and because state agencies are ‘abusing’ the certification process,” the FCC said: The low-cost carrier has “not presented any convincing evidence or arguments in its petition."

The time has come for the FCC to formally seek comment on whether it should “reclassify” broadband as a Title II service, subject to common carrier regulation, Public Knowledge Legal Director Harold Feld said Tuesday in a debate sponsored by the New America Foundation. Hank Hultquist, vice president of federal regulatory affairs at AT&T, countered that the FCC has plenty of authority regardless of the recent Comcast decision, and reclassification would be a mistake.

The time has come for the FCC to formally seek comment on whether it should “reclassify” broadband as a Title II service, subject to common carrier regulation, Public Knowledge Legal Director Harold Feld said Tuesday in a debate sponsored by the New America Foundation. Hank Hultquist, vice president of federal regulatory affairs at AT&T, countered that the FCC has plenty of authority regardless of the recent Comcast decision, and reclassification would be a mistake.

As the Universal Service Administrative Co. pursues an inquiry into whether Nexus Communications has proper Eligible Telecom Carrier certification in Tennessee, Nexus Communications has filed an emergency petition asking the Tennessee Regulatory Authority to rule on its certification, the state agency said Thursday. In a notice to legislators who might field constituent queries, the authority offered “talking points” on the matter. They include the fact that the service is federally funded, that to be reimbursed a provider must be certified, that Nexus has petitioned for a ruling on its certification and that because the matter is pending the authority can’t say any more.

HOT SPRINGS, Va. -- The FCC has a huge agenda from the National Broadband Plan to work through, but the commission has every intention of completing the work assigned, top officials said at the FCBA conference over the weekend.

Cable mergers and acquisitions activity, which began picking up in late 2009, will continue and perhaps increase in volume because of private-equity and commercial financing being easier to get, executives we surveyed said. They expect more consolidation of cable systems and channels. No blockbuster deals are expected soon, with Time Warner Cable sitting out recent deals and Comcast awaiting regulatory approval for its purchase of control of NBC Universal. (See separate story in this issue.) Conditions for financing deals have improved since our last survey (CD Oct 13 p2), executives said.