Comments are due June 7, replies June 22, on USTelecom's request for incumbent telco regulatory relief from wholesale network sharing and related competition requirements of the Communications Act, said a public notice in FCC docket 18-141. Friday's petition sought "nationwide forbearance from outmoded regulatory mandates" -- on Bell operating companies and other major ILECs -- "that distort competition and investment decisions" (see 1805040016).

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. -- FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly said the U.S. is in a 5G race against rivals, some of which have government-run "industrial policy." The U.S. faces challenges from other nations "racing ahead" to try to take the lead in deploying next-generation networks and services that "will decide" wireless communications for the next 20-25 years, he said, responding to a question Saturday at the FCBA retreat where he appeared with Commissioner Brendan Carr.

Connecticut’s net neutrality bill returned from the grave and cleared what may be its toughest hurdle, as Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman (D) Friday supported the bill to break an 18-18 partisan stalemate with all Republicans opposed. The evenly divided Senate sent the bill to the House where Democrats have a 79-71 majority. Elsewhere in New England, a Rhode Island state senator said he conformed his net neutrality bill to match an April 24 executive order by Gov. Gina Raimondo (D).

USTelecom asked the FCC to relieve incumbent telcos of "outdated" wholesale duties in the 1996 Telecommunications Act that "distort competition and investment decisions." The association asked the commission to forbear from applying "unbundling obligations, which require some ILECs ... to sell access to parts of their networks to certain competitors at extremely low rates set by regulators," blogged CEO Jonathan Spalter Friday: "Once the FCC forbears from these rules, consumers and the economy overall will benefit. A market analysis shows that consumer savings could reach $1 billion over the next ten years, and removing these regulatory handicaps could lead to more than $1.8 billion in new investment over the same timeframe, creating more than 6,000 jobs." Since the 1996 mandates were adopted, "there has been a staggering decline in ILEC switched access voice subscriptions, from 186 million in 2000 to a projected 35 million this year," said the petition. "In residential markets, only 11 percent of U.S. households are projected to have an ILEC switched voice line by the end of this year. Indeed, 60 percent of Americans will have abandoned wireline voice service entirely in favor of wireless alternatives. Of the remaining 40 percent, a majority will obtain service from a non-ILEC -- often a cable company or other provider of [VoIP]. There is also intense competition in the business data services marketplace. ... A regime that imposes special burdens on providers that hold a small and shrinking share of the market distorts competition, harms consumers, and simply makes no sense." USTelecom member Windstream is strongly opposed to the petition, said Kristi Moody, general counsel. “This is an attempt by large incumbent providers to improperly use their market position in an anti-competitive way, especially in light of their proposal for a mere 18-month period for competitive carriers to transition away from these crucial facilities," Moody said. “To be clear, if this petition is granted, less competition will result, and schools, hospitals, libraries, nonprofit organizations and small and medium-sized businesses will see their rates go up.” Incompas CEO Chip Pickering said in a statement: “Big telecom’s 'competition cut off' will freeze broadband deployment and burn consumers and small businesses with higher bills. Cutting off access and kicking the little guy where it hurts is a brazen move, and we urge the FCC to reject the measure outright. The facts are clear, where smaller competitors have access and are deploying new networks, big telecom incumbents are forced to upgrade their service and lower prices. USTA’s petition delays the future and will incentivize large incumbent telecom providers to raise rates on older, slower lines for much longer." The FCC didn't comment.

Electric utilities urged the FCC to craft "light touch" wireless pole-attachment regulation, and to do so separately from wireline pole-attachment issues. "Wireless antenna attachments are fundamentally different than wireline pole attachments, from both an economic and physical perspective, and should be treated differently," said American Electric Power Service and Georgia Power in a filing posted Tuesday on meetings with aides to Commissioners Brendan Carr and Michael O'Rielly (they also discussed the issue in a meeting with Wireline Bureau staffers). The power companies said the FCC "should take a completely different approach with wireless pole attachments" and not simply "convert" wireline rules to wireless antennas. "It should take an approach that moves away from rock-bottom rates and access micromanagement and adopt regulatory policies that encourage cooperation and incentivize innovative deployment solutions," they said, urging "light touch" treatment that encourages negotiated solutions. In a meeting with Office of General Counsel staffers, the utilities said an April 2017 NPRM's proposed revisions to Rule 1.1424 would be unlawful: "the presumption in the proposed revisions ... (i.e. that ILECS are 'similarly situated' with [cable operators] and CLECs with respect to attachments on electric utility poles) would be at odds with the facts. Not only did Congress, in the 1996 [Telecommunications] Act, specifically treat ILECs differently than [cable operators]/CLECs, but the Commission also reached the same conclusion on a full record in 2011." In a meeting with aides to Chairman Ajit Pai, they also made arguments from a previous submission responding to USTelecom filings (see 1804250036).

There were 14 comments filed on an FCC broadband ISP transparency rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a commission spokesman told us Monday. The Office of Management and Budget must approve the information collection requirements in the rule before the commission's "internet freedom" order repealing Title II net neutrality can take effect. OMB didn't comment. None of the almost two dozen trade groups and ISPs we queried acknowledged filing comments, but numerous parties said they didn't file: the American Cable Association, AT&T, Comcast, Competitive Carriers Association, Cox Communications, CTIA, Frontier Communications, Incompas, ITTA, Mediacom Communications, NCTA, NTCA, Sprint, US Cellular, USTelecom and Wireless ISP Association. Others didn't respond or had no comment.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wants to open a rulemaking on the contribution methodology for telecom relay services (TRS). At a House Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee hearing (at about 56:00) Thursday (see 1804260068), Pai said he hopes to circulate a draft NPRM on the matter in the next couple of weeks. He was responding to Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., who asked for an update on a letter exchange he and Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., co-chairs of the Congressional Deaf Caucus, had with Pai last year. They had asked Pai to act on a petition for rulemaking to revise the TRS contribution methodology, which was supported by deaf and hard-of-hearing advocates; and Pai answered that the commission "was making every effort to conclude its review of this matter as quickly and equitably as possible" (see 1711220017). IDT petitioned in 2015 to include intrastate telecom revenue in the TRS contribution base, which currently assesses a percentage of interstate and international telecom revenue. Deaf groups and others backed the petition, the VON Coalition opposed it and USTelecom was wary (see 1602050058). Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Inc. (TDI), one of the supportive groups, "will be thrilled to see" an NPRM, emailed Executive Director Claude Stout Friday. "It is very important that we keep the Fund sufficient to meet the annual costs of the relay services for calls we make to our hearing contacts or vice versa. Relay services have been 'an equalizer' for us to function in a more level playing field." The FCC, IDT Telecom, USTelecom and VON didn't comment Friday.

Electric utilities slammed two USTelecom FCC pole-attachment filings: a March 22 letter and a Nov. 21, report (see 1711220012). The telco group "relies upon irrelevant data, misunderstands the few relevant data points within its own report, and -- as is the case with the entire ILEC argument in this docket -- completely omits critical facts and data," said a filing posted Wednesday in docket 17-84 by Ameren Services, American Electric Power Service, Duke Energy, Entergy, Oncor Electric Delivery, Southern Co., Tampa Electric and Westar Energy. USTelecom's "entire message is premised upon the false assumption that a difference in 'rates' necessarily translates into a difference in competitive advantage," the utilities said. The association "takes the inaccurately narrow view that the only relevant contractual term for purposes of evaluating competitive neutrality is the recurring rate," they said. "The recurring rate is only one piece of a much larger, sophisticated puzzle." The utilities said USTelecom data shows ILEC contributions to pole costs dropped since 2008 as they own fewer poles; its "report relies on a contrived narrative regarding the threat of removal of attachments;" proposed rule 1.1424 revisions "would distort competition and disrupt broadband deployment;" and its submissions "trade in the myths of 'repeated disputes' and 'inadequate bargaining power.'" USTelecom didn't comment.

Recent legislative and regulatory rural call completion moves drew largely high marks from an FCBA panel Tuesday. Industry panelists said the Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act signed into law would improve transparency by mandating the FCC require intermediate providers to register and meet service quality standards. Some also praised an April 17 commission order and Further NPRM (text) to replace "covered" long-distance provider data reporting requirements with oversight of intermediate provider performance, and to launch a rulemaking on the new law (see 1804170025 and 1804180025). But a rural telco official voiced concern the FCC shift could invite greater rural calling problems, and was less optimistic certain regulatory and technology transitions would largely address the issue.

The FCC asked a court to maintain a procedural hold on a tech transition case over the prior commission's regulation of copper retirements and telecom service discontinuances under Communications Act Section 214. The FCC said a November wireline infrastructure order (see 1711160032) reversed key decisions being challenged by telcos in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in USTelecom v. FCC., No. 15-1414, but noted that reversal is being challenged in the 9th Circuit (see 1712080057). It also noted briefs in the 9th Circuit are now due Friday, with responses of the government and intervenors due May 29. "It would be prudent for the Court to continue to hold this case in abeyance until the pending legal challenge to the Infrastructure Order is resolved," said the agency's filing (in Pacer) Monday.