FCC Seeks Comment on Intercarrier Compensation
The FCC formally opened a rulemaking on intercarrier compensation (ICC) Thurs. to gain comment on 7 different proposals for unifying the varied regimes carriers use to reimburse each others. While the FCC action at its agenda meeting was far from unexpected, commissioners also revealed an undercurrent of disagreement about how the process should be conducted -- including how prominently an analysis by the Wireline Bureau should figure in the process. An FCC staff member said the further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) may be released as soon as next week. The item is considered one of the most significant telecom issues to be undertaken by the agency this year.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Two related intercarrier compensation items -- orders dealing with specific disputes among carriers -- were pulled from the open meeting agenda at the last minute. The items, dealing with petitions by Sprint and T-Mobile, originally were part of the ICC item on the agenda (see separate story, this issue).
Comr. Abernathy said she wished she could say the new rulemaking was a step forward, but she didn’t think the action moved beyond what was done in 2001, when comments first were sought on the issue. “We developed an extensive record [in 2001] and now we're asking [the same questions] again,” she said: “Technology is moving ahead of us.” Until ICC is settled, disputes between carriers will continue and some will try to avoid making payments at all, she said: “There will continue to be arbitrage, there will continue to be bypass.”
Abernathy also complained that 3 of the commissioners refused to include language in the FNPRM that would have sought comments on the Wireline Bureau’s analysis of the 2001 comments. Instead, she said, the analysis was cited in a footnote. Bureau staff members later told reporters the analysis would be attached to the FNPRM as an appendix so parties could offer comments about it. The report included an analysis of the bill & keep process that some industry groups have advocated in their ICC proposals. It also included some tentative conclusions, sources said. The 3 commissioners Abernathy alluded to were the 2 Democrats, Comrs. Copps and Adelstein, and Comr. Martin.
FCC Chmn. Powell said the bureau analysis was downplayed because of concerns by “one special interest” group, later identified as rural ILECs. “Today we act as timidly as ever,” Powell said: “If you are looking for strong action, you'll not find it here.”
Copps said he disagreed that “we haven’t made headway.” Since 2001, several industry forums have come up with new ideas, he said. “We can get everyone talking if we indicate we're about to get this done.” Copps said he hoped for final action this year: “This is a must-do item… It should be our number one telecommunications priority… This is not the same situation as several years ago. We're on the edge.” Copps also defended the decision to downplay the staff analysis. To encourage good discussion, the FCC must be “open and neutral” and not offer tentative conclusions, he later told reporters. “I welcome the opportunity for debate on this issue,” he said in a prepared statement issued later, “but wish to note that the staff appendix is not the product of a Commission vote, nor does it reflect my opinion at this time.”
The reform plans that will be the topic of comments have been submitted by: (1) The cross-industry Intercarrier Compensation Forum. (2) The expanded Portland Group of small and mid-sized rural LECs. (3) The Alliance for Rational Intercarrier Compensation, representing small rural LECs. (4) The Cost-Based Intercarrier Compensation Coalition, made up of CLECs. (5) Western Wireless. (6) The National Assn. of State Utility Consumer Advocates. (7) Home Telephone Co. and PBT Telecom, both rural LECs.
Copps and Adelstein praised NARUC’s efforts to spearhead possible agreement among these parties on some issues (CD Dec 29 p1). Copps commended NARUC “for the tremendous effort they are putting into convening different parties and varying viewpoints in an attempt to build understanding -- maybe even something approaching occasional consensus -- on the thorny issues teed up by this discussion.” Adelstein added: “A collaborative process is essential, particularly given the complex jurisdictional issues raised in this proceeding.”