Commissioner Mike O'Rielly wants the FCC to "see market realities and eliminate the requirements associated with this supposedly 'dominant' status" of incumbent phone companies, he wrote on the agency's blog Thursday. He said a USTelecom petition seeking a review on the matter that has been pending since December 2012 should be OK'd. "While it is true that incumbents still account for most of the remaining switched access lines, that’s no longer a useful or relevant way of looking at the voice market," as options abound for consumer phone calls, he said. "In 2013, less than one-third of American households purchased an incumbent switched access service, and that figure is projected to drop to under 20 percent by the end of this year." O'Rielly said such trends are shown in the commission's local phone competition reports. "Dust off" USTelecom's "petition and grant some relief," O'Rielly wrote of the association's request for a declaratory ruling to give ILECs relief from dominant-carrier regulation. A commission spokesman declined to comment. USTelecom thinks "the blog is accurate," emailed an association spokeswoman.

The FCC should impose conditions on the Charter/Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks deal “to protect against competitive harm,” said USTelecom in comments filed with the FCC and in a statement from USTelecom President Walter McCormick. Since cable companies don’t face the same regulatory constraints as telephone companies do, USTelecom’s member companies are concerned that the deal will concentrate too much control over video programming in the hands of a consolidated cable industry, McCormick said. “Outdated regulations direct telephone company resources and investments away from new broadband services and infrastructure, and into outmoded legacy networks and services, thus inhibiting the ability of these companies to compete,” he said. The FCC should “level the playing field” and “impose conditions that would prohibit the merged entity from giving undue preferences to other cable companies, or to disadvantage competing broadband and video providers,” USTelecom said.

Granite Telecommunications said it wouldn't be able to continue to serve 1.1 million lines it serves through wholesale voice arrangements, nor profitably continue to serve another 300,000 "fill-in" lines through resale deals, if the FCC eliminates a “regulatory backstop” targeted by a USTelecom forbearance petition. A Granite letter posted Thursday in docket 14-192 “quantifies the harms that would result” from eliminating regional Bell duties to provide wholesale access to discounted “unbundled network elements” (UNEs) under Section 271(c)(2)(B) and ILEC duties to provide 64 kbps unbundled loops pursuant to Sec. 251(c)(3). An FCC decision is due by Jan. 4 on the USTelecom petition, which seeks ILEC relief from various regulations.

USTelecom and ITTA asked the FCC to further extend the special-access comment period due to various complexities in the proceeding examining ILEC rates for dedicated circuits, particularly regarding sensitive industry data submitted on the business service market. “The commission’s data collection effort is a unique and massive undertaking. Providing three months to properly analyze and understand the data is consistent with the fact-based approach the commission has taken. The potential value of this information should not be squandered by a rushed analysis,” said USTelecom Senior Vice President Jon Banks in a Tuesday blog post. Although the Wireline Bureau "recently extended the comment schedule -- with comments now due January 6, 2016, and reply comments due February 5, 2016 -- the current schedule does not provide the opportunity for the careful and searching analysis that this proceeding requires," the telco groups said in a filing Tuesday in docket 05-25: "As clearly and carefully detailed [in an declaration submitted by an industry expert], the current data set is not yet stable, and the necessary tools to fully analyze the data are not in place. Given the enormity of the data set, the complexity of the industry and the importance of it to our economy, once the data are stable and the necessary software and tools are available, twelve weeks will be necessary to provide the meaningful opportunity to analyze the data and prepare comments required by the Administrative Procedures Act. ... Specifically, we request that the Commission extend the due date for opening comments until at least twelve weeks after two criteria have been satisfied: (1) the Commission issues a Public Notice confirming that the data set has been finalized and a change control process has been instituted for any further modifications (including explanations for all future changes); and (2) all software and tools necessary to conduct relevant data analysis have been made available by NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a University of Chicago institution]." ILEC representatives recently raised concerns about data's reliability (see 1511050053).

AUSTIN -- NARUC's Telecom Committee adopted two of three proposed substantive telecom resolutions at its business meeting Monday, as expected (see 1510290050). The resolutions would accelerate the deployment of next-generation 911 systems, and expedite availability of remote areas funding (RAF) and Connect America Funding (CAF) to unserved and underserved areas where carriers haven't accepted funding. The resolution to preserve competition on government-supported networks was tabled by the subcommittee Sunday and will likely be reworked for a later meeting.

The first days under House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., should encourage telecom industry stakeholders, Washington veterans told us. The 45-year-old Ryan, a 2012 vice presidential candidate and most recently Ways and Means Committee chairman, kept a low profile on telecom issues since election to the House in 1998. But his focus on tax and regulation has often led to backing certain telecom measures over the years, with focuses ranging from E-rate to USF to the fairness doctrine. He assumed the speakership after the retirement of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, at October’s end, following weeks of GOP leadership uncertainty, and a crucial hire in Ryan’s leadership office showcases strong ties to industry.

Many lawmakers dislike what the FCC did in its recent net neutrality order, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit should be aware of that, several House Republicans told the court in an amicus brief filed this week in USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063, backing industry challenges to the order. House Commerce Committee Vice Chairwoman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., was the lead signatory of the brief, backed by other House Republicans including Reps. Gus Bilirakis of Texas, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota and Mike Pompeo of Kansas. “Congress certainly did not leave (and would never have left) this issue of great national importance to be decided by the FCC,” they told the court of FCC reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II telecom service. “The legislative activity undertaken by Congress since the 1996 Act demonstrates that Congress never intended the Title II-type 'net neutrality' obligations the FCC imposes on broadband providers in the Order and certainly never imagined the radical step of reclassification, which goes far beyond even the legislative proposals for rules that were repeatedly rejected by Congress.” They refer several times to an earlier amicus brief led by Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., who were involved in the 1996 Telecom Act’s writing and supportive of the current order (see 1509210058). The Republicans “have a strong interest in making clear that the Markey-Eshoo Amicus Brief does not represent the views of Congress and in fact is opposed by Members of the majority party in the House,” they said. Andrew Schwartzman, senior counselor at the Georgetown Institute for Public Representation, told us it’s unusual for such briefs to be filed late -- the deadline was Aug. 6 -- but the court is likely receptive due to the consent of most parties involved and the filers’ status as members of Congress. “It is especially unusual for a brief to be filed in DC once the panel is known; this allows the parties to tailor their arguments to the particular judges,” emailed Schwartzman, a net neutrality advocate. He criticized the Republicans’ argument, which involved tallying the many pieces of net neutrality legislation introduced over the years. “Most importantly, the issue in the case is what Congress did and thought in 1996 when it defined the term ‘telecommunications service,’” he said. “Anything that happened after that is of minimal relevance. … Leaving aside the fact that DSL was regulated under Title II from 1996 through 2004, there are many reasons why people introduce legislation even when an agency could use existing power to accomplish a particular goal. Legislation is faster. Also, in this case, until 2009 the FCC wasn't interested in adopting rules.”

ILECs raised concerns about industry data that the FCC is using as part of its review of incumbent telco special-access services. They also said that even with a recent extension there won’t be enough time to fully analyze the data and file “meaningful comments” in the rulemaking. Meanwhile Level 3 opposed an ILEC request to use the confidential industry data from the rulemaking in the Wireline Bureau’s separate tariff investigation of ILEC special-access contract terms and conditions; and Sprint said growing demand for wireless backhaul made special-access "reform" even more critical.

USTelecom pressed FCC officials for approval of a petition for forbearance relief from special access discount restrictions and other rules. "We discussed the relief sought in that petition, particularly in the areas of discounting special access services, equal access requirements and structural separation mandates placed on rate-of-return carriers," said a USTelecom filing posted Monday in docket 14-192. "FCC rules that explicitly ban offering lower prices to customers that want them seem unlikely to serve the public interest. USTelecom’s Petition seeks targeted relief that would provide consumers immediate benefits from increased discounting while preserving the Commission’s broad powers to act."

Rural telco groups asked the FCC to increase USF broadband speed requirements, with some wrinkles, as part of a planned agency overhaul of high-cost subsidy mechanisms for rate-of-return carriers. NTCA, USTelecom and WTA said the FCC’s current 10 Mbps requirement for broadband-oriented Connect America Fund support “risks locking rural America into lower service levels” contrary to statutory mandates, including that USF ensure “reasonably comparable” rural services at “reasonably comparable" prices. “This is particularly true when one considers that the networks that the USF program enables require planning years in advance and then have life cycles measured in decades once built,” the associations said in a filing posted Tuesday in docket 10-90. “The Associations propose to tether more closely the applicable USF broadband speed objectives to the Commission’s Section 706 broadband speed objectives.” But the groups said they understood the USF budget may not provide enough support for rural carriers to always meet the FCC’s current 25/3 Mbps wireline broadband definition under Section 706 of the Telecom Act. So they suggested some flexibility be built into proposed USF reforms to change existing mechanisms to cover broadband while giving carriers the option of receiving support based on a broadband cost model. For carriers not electing model-based support, the associations proposed they be required to deliver 25/3 Mbps service (or any new Section 706 definition) upon receiving a “reasonable request,” which the FCC interprets as generating sufficient anticipated revenue to justify the upgrades. If a rural telco can’t offer at least 25/3 Mbps, it would be required to offer 10/1 Mbps if feasible or 4 Mbps/768 Kbps if only that level of service is feasible, they suggested. For carriers electing the model-based approach, the groups would keep a 10/1 Mbps broadband requirement covering increasing percentages of customer locations over time, but with a duty to report how many locations are receiving 25/3 Mbps service, they proposed.