Many cable companies backed a “telecom rate” for pole attachments last week, as the FCC got set to vote April 7 on an order that could lower rates some attachers pay to utilities (CD March 9 p5). Bright House Networks, Charter Communications and Comcast were among those that held lobbying meetings with agency officials, filings in docket 07-245 show. Comcast said it backs the rate formula in a rulemaking notice, and its conclusion that the telecom rate is consistent with Section 224 of the Communications Act. The company said it’s concerned about proposals to change unauthorized attachment and safety violation standards. Currently, telco pole attachment rates are often higher than cable rates.

The FCC should match funds to its “specific broadband objectives” as the commission moves ahead with Universal Service Fund and intercarrier compensation reform, USTelecom and other telcos said in a meeting with commission staff. Windstream’s Michael Rhoda and Eric Einhorn, AT&T’s Joel Lubin, Verizon’s Maggie McCready and USTelecom’s Jonathan Banks met with staff Thursday, according to Banks’ ex parte notice. It was posted Tuesday to docket 10-90. “We discussed the need for a fund designed to support explicitly the delivery of broadband and voice services in high-cost areas as efficiently as possible and stressed the importance of matching funding with the specific broadband objectives that would be contemplated by such a fund,” the filing said. While the lobbyists recognize the need for “careful transitions” to a broadband fund, “relatively rapid movement to reform … would help provide certainty to industry,” it said.

The Alliance for Fair Pole Attachment Rules urged the FCC to reject a USTelecom proposal to create a right to regulated attachment rates for ILEC attachments on electric utility poles. The alliance includes American Electric Power, Duke Energy, Florida Power & Light, Progress Energy and Southern Co. The commission should acknowledge that the Communications Act deprives ILECs of rights as attachers, the alliance said in an ex parte filing.

Cutting special access rates in half would raise wages as much as $4.8 billion, create up to 101,000 jobs and add $11.8 billion to $12.4 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product, a study commissioned by Sprint Nextel reported Tuesday. Revenue from special access charges brought AT&T, Qwest and Verizon $18 billion in 2007, nearly double the 2000 figure, the study said. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s staff is drafting a public notice seeking comprehensive data on the special access market and hopes to move to rulemaking or even orders this year, a commission official said.

The FCC is working on a pole attachments order for the April 7 meeting that would lower rates for attachers, commission officials told us. No order is circulating -- but Chairman Julius Genachowski has said he would like to finish work on pole attachments by early April, and staff is nearing the end of its work, the officials said. Power companies have lobbied furiously in recent weeks to preserve rates but apparently haven’t swayed the commission, said FCC officials and utility lobbyists.

House Republican leaders held a closed-door meeting with industry lobbyists Wednesday to press them to get involved in helping the GOP repeal net neutrality rules, House aides and lobbyists said. The meeting was held after an effort by House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., to repeal the rules collapsed Wednesday morning.

Cable, DBS and telcos’ desire for changes to a draft retransmission consent rulemaking may not be fulfilled entirely when the notice is voted on at Thursday’s FCC meeting. Agency officials said wholesale or substantive changes to the notice are unlikely. Commissioners hadn’t formally proposed any changes by midday Monday, FCC officials said. Some pay-TV executives had said they would like the forthcoming notice not to tentatively conclude that the agency can’t force carriage or require arbitration when a TV station is blacked out on a subscription-video system. The draft before commissioners reaches the tentative conclusion that the commission can’t (CD Feb 22 p5).

The FCC appears to be leaning toward Title II-style regulation of broadband through its Universal Service Fund revamp, industry officials told us after examining the commission’s rulemaking notice on USF. “It’s clear to me that when you look at the questions they're asking around support, that seems where they're heading,” Voice of the Net Coalition Executive Director Glenn Richards said. “It’s a way to get broadband providers to agree to Title II-like obligations.” FCC officials didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Seven telco groups asked the FCC to rethink its orders on eliminating duplicative Lifeline service. Last month, the commission directed the Universal Service Administrative Co. to have carriers contact Lifeline recipients whenever recipients are found to have broken the one-per-household rule. The customer will be asked to choose which eligible telecommunications carriers is wanted and the other carrier will be dropped, under the FCC’s directive. CTIA, USTelecom, the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies, Rural Cellular Association and Western Telecommunications Alliance filed a petition to challenge the directive. They said the FCC may violate the Administrative Procedure Act, because the Jan. 21 directive “purported to promulgate new rules without notice and comment.” The directive also exceeded the authority of the Wireline Bureau, the groups said. “Had the commission sought public comment on these directives before they were imposed, it would have learned that they are incomplete and that even setting aside the substantial burden they impose on ETCs and low income consumers, if implemented, they would be ineffective at preventing the recurrence of duplicate Lifeline subscriptions."

Many organizations expressed support for a privacy-by-design principle, in their comments to the FTC on its privacy framework. The framework’s potential for heavy privacy restrictions was a point of contention. Comments were due Friday. The commission posted some last-minute submissions this week.