Two State Telecom Associations Oppose Time Warner Cable’s ETC Forbearance Petition
State telecommunications associations in New York and Maine oppose Time Warner Cable’s Nov. 13 FCC petition seeking limited ETC classification and Lifeline participation, they told the FCC in filings posted this week. Time Warner Cable (TWC) wants to be categorized as an eligible telecom carrier for limited purposes of receiving Lifeline funds but hopes to avoid any redefinition of its service areas and doesn’t want other USF support. “Forbearance [of certain FCC rules associated with ETCs] would enable TWC to introduce a competitive alternative that better responds to the particular needs of low-income consumers,” it said in its petition (http://xrl.us/bn8w5e). The Wireline Bureau opened the petition for comment in a Nov. 30 notice (http://xrl.us/bn8wzg), with comments due Monday and reply comments due Jan. 14.
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.
There’s no “factual basis for its requested relief,” said the New York State Telecom Association (http://xrl.us/bn8wys). It questioned “this type of global designation” for relief that Time Warner Cable seeks and said it’s “inappropriate” and unclear about what scope of forbearance is being requested. “Adoption of what TWC has claimed could lead one to conclude that federal Universal Service Fund disbursements can lawfully be used to fund non-supported services,” the association added. It pointed to the New York State Public Service Commission’s discussions with Time Warner Cable on modifying its ETC status in multiple markets. The PSC is also seeking comments, due Jan. 10 with replies due Jan. 24 (http://xrl.us/bn8w2f).
"Conspicuously absent” from Time Warner Cable’s petition is any “demonstration or statement that TWC itself is a ’telecommunications carrier,’ offers ’telecommunications service’, is part of a ‘class of telecommunications carriers’ or offers something within a ‘class of ... telecommunications services,'” the New York association said. “These fundamental prerequisites -- telecommunications carrier and telecommunications services -- cannot be brushed aside as these terms carry with them statutory meaning as effectively equating them to common carriers and thus their common carrier services."
The FCC has granted forbearance to wireless providers but Time Warner Cable is “a fixed voice provider with a clear and well defined footprint that often overlaps rural exchanges,” said the Telecommunications Association of Maine in its objection (http://xrl.us/bn8w2u). The franchise agreements of cable companies “tracks much more closely with traditional ILEC exchanges,” it said, saying the FCC should “define TWC’s service area as the aggregate of all of TWC’s franchise areas.”
The Maine association acknowledged there may be rare occasions where forbearance is justified. It cites “some limited number of situations where TWC’s franchise areas are not sufficient to cover the entirety of a rural exchange.” But granting “a blanket forbearance for all of its locations” would remove incentive for achieving universal service, the telcos said. “This enshrining of the existing disincentive would virtually guarantee that new services would not be extended by TWC to currently unserved customers within TWC’s franchise area,” the association said. “This result is clearly the polar opposite of the goal of Universal Service to reach all Americans with comparable services at comparable rates.” It shouldn’t get federal money while it “continues to refuse” to build to all franchise-area customers, it added.
Time Warner Cable declined comment on these objections.