FCC Extends Deadline on Corr Wireless Appeals
The FCC gave interested parties until Thursday to comment on two separate appeals, each of which challenge the commission’s decision in the Corr Wireless Order (CD Sept 7 p1). Both SouthernLINC and Allied Wireless Communications asked the commission to review the Corr decision. Oppositions to SouthernLINC’s petition were due Tuesday but oppositions on Allied’s petition aren’t due until Friday. The commission changed the comment deadline for both petitions to Thursday.
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.
Meanwhile, comments have continued to pour in on what should be done with high-cost universal support when it’s surrendered by telcos. In an order and rulemaking notice published with the Corr decision last month, the FCC ruled that USF monies surrendered by Sprint Nextel and Verizon Wireless wouldn’t be re-distributed to competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (CETCs). The FCC said the money should be used as a kind “down payment” for broadband universal service “reform.”
In comments published late last week, Sprint Nextel said the FCC should instead reduce the high-cost cap when monies are surrendered. Sprint said it generally supports broadband build-out, but said the universal service fund is too “dysfunctional” to accomplish the National Broadband Plan’s goals. “Until a more competitively neutral broadband funding mechanism is established, the commission should focus on reducing the size of the existing USF,” Sprint said in its filings.
But Verizon, the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance, and ADTRAN urged the commission to use left-over money for broadband support. USTelecom said the funds should be used to bring “baseline broadband” to homes without it -- but on an “interim” basis until the Connect America Fund is up and running.
Free Press encouraged the FCC to roll the money into broadband but said it was worried about the “legal uncertainty” surrounding the commission’s authority to use USF for broadband support. Free Press said “a substantial delay or abandonment” of the USF transition plans “could result in the unnecessary overcharging of ratepayers. … Thus we strongly urge the commission to address the underlying authority issues as soon as possible, in order to avoid such a scenario."
Also unsure of the commission’s legal standing was the Telephone Association of Maine, which said it was worried the commission “is putting the cart before the horse.” TAM said “many members of Congress” have raised questions about whether the FCC has the authority to eliminate USF support for telephones and to assume jurisdiction over broadband. TAM suggested the commission hold the leftover monies in reserve until formal rules on FCC jurisdiction are laid out.
CenturyLink said it didn’t oppose broadband support -- unless it meant the FCC was reducing high-cost support, to which CenturyLink “strenuously objects.”
The Rural Independent Competitive Alliance argued leftover money should be restored to the remaining CETCs. RICA said its “members have seen substantial reductions of as much as 50 percent in their support. … The result of these multiple failures is that what was supposed to be a cap has been a severe reduction.”
The Rural Telecommunications Group also argued for a redistribution of the funds, in its filing. Since the FCC has authority over commercial mobile radio service, the commission ought to “either redistribute reclaimed funds to existing wireless competitive ETCs … or consider a mobility fund that helps existing wireless competitive ETCs upgrade to 3G or better services,” RTG said. RTG also said Section 254(d) of the Telecom Act requires “specific, predictable and sufficient universal service mechanisms” and the commission’s actions have been too vague. “A court would likely find the NPRM’s attempt to expand the commission’s … authority to be unconstitutional,” RTG said.