Major ILECs asked the FCC to extend their deadline for submitting “Direct Cases” in the Wireline Bureau’s tariff investigation of their special access contract terms and conditions (see 1510160060). In a joint request Thursday in docket 15-247, AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier and Verizon said they needed more time to incorporate into their tariff analyses the data set that the commission put in the record Dec. 4. The ILECs said they wouldn’t be able to access those data for purposes of the investigation until Dec. 16, just two days before the Direct Cases are currently due, and it will take several weeks to analyze and incorporate the data. “For the reasons discussed in the separate Motion for Extension of Time filed by USTelecom and ITTA (see 1511100068), a twelve-week extension would be necessary, at a minimum, for a comprehensive geospatial analysis of the data and is therefore the most appropriate extension of time,” they said. “The Commission should extend the deadline for Direct Cases by at least 60 days, however, which is the minimum amount of time necessary for a useful, albeit less comprehensive, analysis of these data.”

The FCC put a draft order on the USTelecom forbearance petition on its agenda for the Dec. 17 meeting, following up on its inclusion on the tentative agenda (see 1511250047). The draft order would grant several requests for ILEC regulatory relief, said a senior FCC official who recently previewed the item (see 1511240070). Meanwhile, in last-minute lobbying in docket 14-192, ILEC interests pressed for relief from what they consider "outdated" legacy regulations, including requirements to share their networks with competitors, while CLEC interests and Public Knowledge generally voiced opposition.

NARUC supports the objectives of the Connect America Fund and its Remote Areas Fund and urged the FCC to move as quickly as possible to implement the competitive bidding process for the CAF Phase II and RAF, said an ex parte notice posted Wednesday in docket 10-90 on a meeting with FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai and an aide. During its November annual meeting, the NARUC board adopted a resolution (see 1511100058) asking the FCC to move forward on funding to help ensure the timely availability of broadband facilities to remote areas of the nation, including tribal regions. Separately, the group lobbied Wireline Bureau Chief Matthew DelNero to suggest some clarifying language for a draft order on a USTelecom forbearance petition, which is due for a Dec. 17 vote (see 1511250047).

FCC supporters, critics and others continue to offer different takes on Friday’s net neutrality oral argument heard by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 1512040058). The supporters believe Judge David Tatel’s focus on the Supreme Court’s 2005 Brand X ruling and the discretion it gave the FCC bodes well for the agency’s broadband reclassification under Title II of the Communications Act and its net neutrality rules. Even one critic of the order suspects Title II reclassification of wireline ISPs could be upheld. But some on all sides said the agency’s reclassification of mobile broadband was at risk, with FCC critics saying other aspects were also vulnerable. A two-part audio recording of the argument is available here (USTelecom vs. FCC, No. 15-1063).

A three-judge panel pressed attorneys from all sides at oral argument Friday on petitioner challenges to the FCC’s net neutrality order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063). Judges heavily questioned USTelecom arguments that the FCC’s broadband reclassification under Title II of the Communications Act violated the law, with Judge David Tatel suggesting the 2005 Supreme Court Brand X ruling gave the agency broadband classification much deference. But the judges also pushed FCC attorneys hard to defend the commission’s reasons for reclassifying, extending Title II to mobile broadband and IP Interconnection but not edge traffic, and banning paid prioritization. The complicated oral argument was scheduled for two hours but ran three hours. A two-part audio recording is available here.

FCC Wireline Bureau Chief Matt DelNero outlined nine key proceedings his bureau is working on, though he said the list isn't exhaustive. First on his list is a draft order that would partially approve a USTelecom forbearance petition for ILEC relief, which is on the commission's Dec. 17 tentative meeting agenda. Speaking at the Practising Law Institute conference Thursday, DelNero said he is personally involved every day in working on separate efforts to overhaul rural rate-of-return USF mechanisms. Asked about the timetable in light of signals from a key senator that the FCC could go beyond a year-end commitment for solving the "stand-alone broadband problem" for rural carriers, DelNero said the agency is eager to complete the rulemaking but also wants "to get it right." He also invited interested parties to provide input on commission efforts to craft an NPRM on broadband privacy under Title II of the Communications Act. Among the other draft items in proceedings he cited are: a Connect America Fund Phase II reverse auction framework order, which is circulating; an order to reform Part 32 accounting rules; the 2016 broadband progress report; a Lifeline modernization order; special-access reform actions; and orders on industry transactions, including Charter Communications' proposed buys of Bright House Networks and Time Warner Cable, and Altice's proposed buys of Cablevision and Suddenlink. On a subsequent panel at the conference, a Netflix official sparred with officials of CenturyLink and Cox Communications over the net neutrality order. Corie Wright, Netflix director-global policy, said she believes the FCC would be upheld in court, as did Washington Utilities and Transportation Commissioner Phil Jones. Jennifer Hightower, Cox senior vice president-law and policy, said the net neutrality order is discouraging broadband investment and that her company is "more cautious than ever" due to uncertainty from the order. Melissa Newman, CenturyLink senior vice president-federal policy and regulatory affairs, agreed, saying her company doesn't know what is allowed under the Internet conduct rule's prohibitions against broadband ISP practices that create "unreasonable interference" or "unreasonable disadvantage" for other parties. Wright disputed the criticisms, which she said were contradicted by the statements and actions of industry executives and Wall Street investors. Jones also said he hadn't seen any drop in broadband investment in his state.

The FCC came under fire from telco officials and other speakers at a Phoenix Center event Tuesday. They said its policies and practices were often too regulatory and capricious, increasing market uncertainty and discouraging network deployment. One group of panelists said the net neutrality order is bad for broadband investment, but an industry analyst disagreed the order was already depressing capital expenditures. Another panel knocked the FCC’s use of enforcement actions and deal conditions to achieve many of its ends. “It’s a bad way to run the railroad,” said Bob Quinn, AT&T senior vice president-federal regulatory.

Proposed changes to FCC Part 25 rules are aimed at streamlining the satellite license approval process, "significantly reducing regulatory burdens and costs," Chairman Tom Wheeler said in a blog Wednesday. The changes -- docket 12-267 -- "streamlines, clarifies, eliminates or amends rules to allow for more operational flexibility and better accommodates evolving technology while easing administrative burdens on licensees and Commission staff," Wheeler said. The Part 25 rule changes are on the agenda for the Dec. 17 FCC meeting, as is an order on a petition from USTelecom seeking forbearance from some categories of statutory and FCC requirements that apply to ILECs (see 1511250047). "These rules were adopted to protect or expand competition, but technological and market conditions have changed dramatically, making many of these rules outdated," Wheeler said. "Removing them will promote the ability of local phone companies to build out broadband and invest in modern and efficient networks [while preserving] rules that remain necessary to protect consumers and competition."

Neustar said the FCC violated the Telecom Act and its own rules “when it took the unprecedented step of selecting the wholly owned subsidiary of a biased entity as a numbering administrator.” Congress had demanded strict structural impartiality and the commission prohibited any entity “aligned with any particular telecommunications industry segment” from being the local number portability administrator (LNPA), Neustar said in a reply brief Wednesday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court is reviewing incumbent Neustar's challenge to a March FCC order giving Telcordia (iconectiv) conditional rights to become the next LNPA, which oversees the systems that allow consumers to keep their phone numbers when they switch carriers within a local market (Neustar v. FCC, No. 15-1080). The Commission never disputed and even acknowledged that "Telcordia's 100% owner, Ericsson, was aligned with the wireless segment” of the industry, Neustar said. “As Ericsson's wholly owned subsidiary, Telcordia shares the identical disqualifying alignment as a matter of law. The Commission's contrary conclusion was based on a fundamental misapprehension of Delaware corporate law and warrants no deference from this Court,” Neustar said. In its recent brief, the FCC defended its decision as satisfying the impartiality requirement for various reasons, including due to various safeguards imposed by the agency; it also said Neustar's bid was “substantially inferior” to Telcordia's (see 1510290029). Intervenors CTIA, Telcordia and USTelecom seconded FCC arguments and said Neustar's challenge relied on the “false premise” that Telcordia and Ericsson should be treated as one entity, when even Delaware law recognized differences between a corporation and a subsidiary, and regardless, the issue was a question of federal law (see 1511130007). In its reply, Neustar said the FCC and intervenors were wrongly ignoring “the dispositive Delaware authority” on "the critical point that the interests of a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary are indistinguishable under Delaware law.” Neustar said the FCC improperly refused to carefully evaluate the company's impartiality concerns under its own rules and precedent. The commission's “entirely ineffectual” safeguards “do nothing to alter the fact that Telcordia's corporate purpose is to serve Ericsson's economic interests,” said Neustar. It also charged the FCC with violating the Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking requirements and said the agency “arbitrarily and capriciously miscalculated the costs of the competing bids.”

The FCC plans to vote Dec. 17 on a draft order on USTelecom's forbearance petition, as expected (see 1511240070). The meeting's tentative agenda released Wednesday also included a draft order to streamline Part 25 rules for satellite space stations and earth stations. The two items are part of an ongoing effort to reduce "regulatory delay and burdensome red tape," Chairman Tom Wheeler said in a blog post.