“Older households are at particular risk in an unregulated transition environment,” said AARP Senior Vice President Joyce Rogers in a statement Friday, praising FCC release of an NPRM looking into the IP transition (see 1411210037). “Older households, which disproportionately continue to maintain phone service through landlines, rely on health monitoring and other safety features supported by traditional telephone services."
Comments are due Dec. 22, replies Jan. 7 in docket 12-353 on CenturyLink’s proposed IP trial (see 1411130048) on business voice traffic in 12 wire centers in Las Vegas, said the FCC Wireline Bureau in a public notice Friday.
Comments are due Jan. 5, replies Jan. 20 in docket 12-375 on the FCC rulemaking notice on inmate calling services (ICS), said a Wireline bureau public notice Friday. The commission is seeking comment on making interim interstate rate caps permanent and on creating intrastate caps, and on how to deal with payments to correctional facilities, and ancillary fees (see 1410230026). A single rate for inmate calling service providers could “result in ICS providers refusing to provide service to smaller facilities and jails,” Blooston Mordkofsky’s Mary Sisak, representing the National Sheriffs' Association, and Breanna Bock-Nielsen, NSA director-government affairs, told Wireline Bureau pricing policy division staff Nov. 19, said an ex parte notice filed and posted on Friday. Global Tel*Link responded to Praeses’ Oct. 3 ex parte filing that argued the payment of commissions is not prohibited. Praeses, a consultant to correctional facilities, receives a portion of the commissions, and “its position regarding site commissions may be heavily influenced by its self-interest,” Global Tel*Link said in a letter to the commission posted as an ex parte notice, also Friday. Praeses didn't comment on Monday.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler "needs to tell the American public when the FCC’s going to implement real net neutrality safeguards and how they're going to get it done," Free Press President Craig Aaron said in a statement Thursday after a tentative agenda released by the agency for December's commission meeting did not, as expected, include action on net neutrality. The FCC had no immediate comment. "The FCC should have all of the information and motivation it needs to make the right decision and protect Internet users by reclassifying broadband providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act," Aaron said. “President Obama has joined nearly 4 million Americans in calling on the agency to protect real Net Neutrality. Now it’s time for the FCC to take action."
Level 3 asked the FCC in meetings with aides to commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel to take up the interconnection issue as part of any net neutrality order. Consumer demand for video “is driving significant growth in overall traffic volume on the Internet,” Level 3 General Counsel Michael Mooney, CEO Jeff Storey and other executives told Clyburn’s aide Monday, said a Level 3 ex parte filing. Content providers, such as streaming video services, have “multiple competitive options for delivering their content to the ISP,” but “the ISP itself offers the only path for that content to reach the end user,” Level 3 said. Several of the largest ISPs “are leveraging that bottleneck control over access to their users, demanding arbitrary tolls from providers like Level 3 who carry the Internet content requested by the ISPs’ end users from the global Internet to the ISPs’ last mile networks,” the company said. “If Level 3 will not pay these arbitrary and discriminatory tolls, these ISPs refuse to augment interconnection capacity that is congested to a degree that any network engineer would agree must be augmented for the Internet to function properly. … These ISPs are degrading the experience of their own customers as a means to leverage the collection of arbitrary access tolls from the rest of the Internet.” Other Level 3 officials at the meeting were John Blount, president-North America; John Ryan, chief legal officer; and Scott Seab, senior corporate counsel. Broadband Internet access providers have a "terminating access monopoly over end users that gives them the incentive and ability to demand new access tolls from some parties, leaving degraded local delivery for online content and services end users want," Joseph Cavender, Level 3 assistant general counsel, and others told Rosenworcel’s aide on Tuesday, according to a Computer & Communications Industry Association ex parte filing provided by CCIA. Also advocating for interconnection regulations at the meeting, according to the filing, were Catherine Sloan, CCIA vice president-government relations; Dave Schaeffer, Cogent Communications CEO; Brian Chase, Foursquare Labs general counsel; Melanie Wyne, National Association of Realtors senior policy representative; Angie Kronenberg, Comptel general counsel; Sarah Morris, senior policy counsel at the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute; and Phillip Berenbroick, policy director of the Internet Freedom Business Alliance. "Absent strong FCC rules against commercial discrimination by such access providers, we indicated that realtors, social media and other tech entrepreneurs, long haul transit providers, CDNs and others who depend on an open Internet for transmission of online video are all at risk in the near future," said the filling made in docket 14-28. Level 3 and other proponents of interconnection rules are encouraged the FCC will take it up (see 1411130042).
The FCC should proceed “deliberately” before imposing “new, onerous and costly mandates” to provide backup batteries or power supplies to subscribers, American Cable Association officials told Chairman Tom Wheeler’s legal adviser Daniel Alvarez, as well as aides to the four other commissioners in separate meetings, according to an ex parte notice posted in docket 13-5 on Tuesday. The Nov. 13 and 14 meetings were among several in which providers urged caution in enacting new requirements on backup batteries, as the commission is set at Friday’s meeting to consider a draft NPRM Wheeler is circulating on issues related to the IP transition. Among them is whether the commission should take steps to oversee backup power, a top FCC official told us earlier this month, because unlike phone service on traditional copper lines, service on fiber and other networks rely on backup batteries during power outages (see 1410310047). While the item could change before Friday’s meeting, sources in industries involved in the debate expected the NPRM to seek comments on most issues, including the battery issue. An exception is that the NPRM is expected to make a tentative conclusion that incumbents have to offer competitive carriers an alternative at reasonable rates, terms and conditions when retiring last-mile services that competitors need to reach business customers, the sources said. In addition, industry sources were also expecting the commission to circulate an order before Thursday’s deadline to put items on December’s commission meeting agenda to increase CAF’s minimum broadband speed requirements from 4 Mbps to 10 Mbps. The commission declined to comment on Wednesday. Charter Communications Vice President-Regulatory Affairs Christianna Barnhart also told aides to commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn in meetings Nov. 13 and 14 that the commission should balance “the benefits of new backup power obligations with the cost to consumers and providers,” according to an ex parte notice posted Wednesday. Verizon Vice President-Federal Regulatory Affairs Maggie McCready and Vice President and Associate General Counsel William Johnson described to aides of commissioners Rosenworcel and Ajit Pai on Nov. 13 the company’s efforts provide “consumer-friendly backup power solutions for customers receiving service over fiber,” according to an ex parte notice.
Although the Rev. Jesse Jackson urged FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler not to reclassify broadband as a Title II Communications Act service to impose net neutrality rules (see 1411180058), the reclassification argument is as strong as ever, a MoveOn.Org spokesman told us Wednesday. He referred to a statement by Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, responding to President Barack Obama’s Nov. 10 backing of Title II: “With millions of Americans having submitted comments to the FCC in support of Net Neutrality and Title II, the pressure is now squarely on Chairman Wheeler and the other FCC commissioners to quickly deliver on the vision that President Obama and the American public share -- an Internet free and open for all.” Jackson expressed concern Title II would deter broadband deployment in minority communities, said a TechFreedom ex parte notice on the Nov. 13 meeting. A Title II approach “would effectively redefine broadband as a regulated telecommunications service, which could subject the broadband industry and its services to existing state and local taxes,” said an ex parte letter sent by the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research, posted in docket 14-28 on Wednesday. Higher taxes would “raise consumer prices," it said. "In turn, higher consumer prices would reduce both subscribership and consumer welfare. For the broader economy, demand suppression would reduce economic output, jobs and employment earnings.”
Capital investments by broadband providers could decline by as much as nearly a third over the next five years if the FCC bases net neutrality rules on Communications Act Title II, said a study released Wednesday by USTelecom, which has said it would challenge reclassification in court. In an ex parte letter USTelecom also asked Wednesday for the commission to review the study. Title II proponents Free Press and Public Knowledge quickly dismissed the study. “This is another example of a made-to-order industry study, with predictions giving them the result they want, facts be damned,” said Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood. The study’s authors, Kevin Hassett and Robert Shapiro, said they had devised a new model that measures investment trends for services covered under Title II and not covered by the classification, then estimates the impact reclassification to Title II would have for both wireline and wireless. The study estimates that under the current regulatory structure, broadband providers are expected to make about $218.8 billion in new capital investments over the next five years. If the commission opts for reclassification, investments by ISPs would drop over the next five years to as low as $173.4 billion. Additional regulation, as well as the current regulatory uncertainty over net neutrality, and whether other aspects of the Internet will fall under Title II, would reduce the rate of return on the investments and deter spending, said Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He was chief economic adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain during the 2000 primaries. Responding to a question, Shapiro said it’s not possible to factor how forbearance from Title II, as reclassification’s proponents advocate, would affect their projections. “To what level [there will be forbearance], how long it would take, what the legal process would be are all in a state of uncertainty,” said Shapiro, chairman of Sonecon, and chief economic adviser to President Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. A reduction in investment would be significant, Shapiro said, because “the Internet plays such a critical role in the economic, social and political life” of the U.S. “Reclassification of broadband as Title II would be contrary to the national interest of broadband deployment and investment,” USTelecom President Walter McCormick said during a call with reporters. Wood called the study “absurd,” and said telecom investment reached its peak while still under Title II. “USTA's flimsy study is nothing more than a cynical attempt to scare Washington policymakers,” Wood said. The study didn’t factor in that the same infrastructure is used for voice, video and data, which are regulated differently, said Free Press Research Director Derek Turner. It also measured all capital investments, when nine “out of every 10 capital dollars spent by cable companies goes to set-top boxes and modems, not to the network,” Turner emailed. Turner's criticisms "unfortunately do not advance the debate," Hassett and Shapiro said in a statement to us. The economists said they included "reasonable assumptions" to account for the use of the same infrastructure by various services. The researchers said they did not examine cable, and stood by measuring capital investments, calling that the "the best metric for the overall impact of Title II regulation." Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld also criticized USTelecom’s request for the study to be considered. “Of course the FCC will 'review' it, just like they review any other submission," Feld said. Of USTelecom, he said, "What do they want, a gold star?”
The FCC should move ahead with Connect America Found Phase II by providing adequate funding “to bring robust broadband service to 4.2 million residential and small business locations in the hardest to serve parts" of the country. That's what Steve Davis, CenturyLink executive vice president and USTelecom chairman; Melissa Newman, CenturyLink senior vice president-federal regulatory affairs; Walter McCormick, USTelecom president; and Jonathan Banks, USTelecom senior vice president-law and policy, told commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly and an aide to Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel in separate meetings on Wednesday, according to ex parte filings posted Monday. The minimum broadband speeds required under the program should be increased from 4 Mbps to 10 Mbps under certain conditions to make it economically feasible, they said. A number of factors should be considered in increasing speeds, including a requirement “to serve all very high-cost locations,” to eliminate “the cherry picking likely in auctions” and to create “a path to bringing broadband to the greatest number of locations within CAF Phase II’s limited budget,” the filing in docket 14-28 said. The “sooner the program is implemented, the sooner this massive infrastructure deployment can begin, bringing investment, jobs, and economic development to the approximately 18 percent of the land mass of country that stands to benefit from this program," the filing said.
The FCC, with Commissioner Mike O’Rielly approving and concurring only in part, denied the American Cable Association’s petition to review the cost model used to determine funding for Connect America Fund Phase II, an order released Wednesday said. The dispute was over the model used to come up with the amount price-cap carriers will be offered to serve locations in their service territory that are above a specified funding benchmark, but below an extremely high-cost benchmark, said the order adopted Nov. 5 and posted Wednesday in docket 10-90. The area also can't be served by a competing, unsubsidized provider to be eligible for funding, the order said. ACA had argued the 8.5 percent cost of money used in the model was too high because it assumed interest rates will increase. Though ACA believed the rates will remain low, the commission was not persuaded “ACA’s predictions regarding future interest rates are more valid than the Bureau’s well-reasoned predictive judgment,” the order said. The commission was also not persuaded that “using a slightly lower cost of money would have a material impact on achievement of the Commission’s universal service goals,” the order said. The Wireline Bureau didn't overstep its authority and its decisions were not “clearly in error,” O’Rielly said in a statement, but he believed a lower cost of money would “be a more accurate prediction of interest rates over five years.” O’Rielly also said he disagreed with “the assumption, implicit in the analysis" that the CAF should aim to support more locations even if they're lower cost. The program's purpose shouldn’t be to “maximize the number of locations that receive a subsidy,” he said, but to “focus support on locations that are truly high-cost and are in areas that are not served or are unlikely to be served by a competing provider.” ACA declined comment on Thursday.