Big Telcos Push FCC for Relief from USF High-Cost, Lifeline Duties in Many Areas
The FCC should give price-cap telcos broad relief from USF obligations to provide high-cost voice and Lifeline service in many areas, said AT&T, CenturyLink and USTelecom in filings in docket 09-197 in response to a public notice asking parties to refresh the record. AT&T denied the record needed refreshing and urged the commission to focus on giving relief to price-cap carriers, which are generally larger than rate-of-return carriers. USTelecom urged the FCC to grant its petition and other ILEC requests to eliminate USF eligible telecom carrier (ETC) service obligations where price-cap carriers receive no high-cost support and to de-link Lifeline from ETC designations. CenturyLink said the commission should address ETC obligations to offer voice in extremely high-cost areas and clarify that price cap carriers don’t have such duties in areas outside their actual incumbent wireline service areas.
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.
AT&T said the FCC “took a half measure” last December in giving price-cap carriers “limited relief from unfunded ETC service obligations" despite the “voluminous record” filed by the telco and others in support of “comprehensive ETC reform.” AT&T noted it challenged the FCC decision in court, but the commission convinced a federal court in September to hold the case in abeyance until January as the agency addresses related issues in three parallel proceedings (see 1509030042. The agency public notice seeking to refresh the record in the three proceedings came out in August (see 1507310032; also see 1507160032 for further background on the legal case and regulatory issues).
“AT&T believes the record is sufficiently fresh,” the telco said, noting the comment cycles of two related proceedings had closed “relatively recently” and a third, a Lifeline further rulemaking, was still open. “AT&T sees little need to ‘refresh the record’ by repeating the same legal and policy arguments that the Commission assured the Court it is ‘actively considering,’” the telco said, though it attached some previous comments for convenience’s sake.
AT&T attached maps for all 21 states where it has price-cap wireline operations. “The maps make even clearer the obsolescence and unfairness of the price cap carrier ETC regime,” AT&T said. The maps show areas where AT&T’s price-cap affiliates receive no USF support and had only limited relief from ETC voice service obligations; other areas that were ineligible for price-cap carrier state-level commitments for Connect America Fund Phase II funding but where the carriers were not granted forbearance relief; and still other areas that were eligible for CAF II funding and where the carriers received no forbearance whether or not the state-level commitment was accepted. “And of course, AT&T’s price-cap affiliates continue to have Lifeline obligations in all of the census blocks in their service territories,” said the telco. “The record is fresh. The conditions on the ground, and the reasons they need to change, are known. The Commission has the information it needs to act, which the Commission promised the D.C. Circuit it would do by January 4, 2016.”
USTelecom said the December order left price-cap carriers with “ETC obligations and designations that are not appropriately matched to support.” The ILEC trade group urged the Wireline Bureau to clarify that ETC duties “only extend to those parts of census blocks that are actually served by the price cap carriers identified as having ETC obligations.” It also asked the FCC “to grant the relief requested in the pending USTelecom Petition and by USTelecom members in the pending rulemakings cited by the Bureau in the Public Notice, eliminating ETC service obligations and designations where a price cap carrier receives no high-cost support and de-linking Lifeline from ETC designations.”
USTelecom said the FCC needed to match price-cap telco ETC designations with their high-cost funding because it would ensure that the states could not use such designations to impose state-specific unfunded obligations on carriers that “would interfere with CAF Phase II duties and competitive realities.” The group noted it had a proposal for allocating support to unfunded areas that carriers could voluntarily choose to accept or not. Finally, USTelecom urged the commission to relieve the telcos of Lifeline duties in areas where there is at least one other Lifeline provider.
CenturyLink said the FCC should “realign high-cost frozen support” if it intends to keep price-cap carrier ETC obligations to offer voice service in extremely high cost areas. "CenturyLink now faces a federal ETC voice obligation in the extremely high-cost parts of a number of states without receiving any high-cost support for this obligation,” the telco said. “Additionally, the list of census blocks issued by the Bureau includes areas outside of CenturyLink’s service territory -- places where CenturyLink is not authorized to provide service as an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) and generally does not have network facilities. The Bureau should clarify that the list of census blocks where CenturyLink is identified as having ETC obligations does not require CenturyLink to offer service in any part of those census blocks where CenturyLink is not an ILEC.”