USTelecom CEO Walter McCormick urged the FCC to review the “financial fundamentals of the industry” as the agency develops a national broadband plan. In a meeting last week with Commissioner Meredith Baker, McCormick called for overhauls of the Universal Service Fund and intercarrier compensation, an ex parte said.

Some small rural phone companies are asking if Google and other content providers should contribute to the Universal Service Fund. In filings and meetings this summer at the FCC, the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association has urged the FCC to open a rulemaking on the subject (CD Aug 31 p9). Content providers impose significant costs on companies’ networks, and charging them for USF would further the FCC’s broadband deployment goals, said NTCA Vice President Dan Mitchell in an interview. But a Google spokesman disputed the credibility of NTCA’s evidence. And some phone companies aren’t sure the proposal can be implemented.

“Significant questions exist about the extent to which broadband access markets are competitive,” the Federal Trade Commission said in comments Friday to the FCC. The FCC’s pending national broadband plan provides an opportunity to do “a competitive market analysis that can be used as the foundation for the development of ongoing regulatory policies governing broadband Internet access.” The FTC also urged the FCC to collect more data on network management practices.

Telcos and small cable operators want the FCC to end the terrestrial exemption for delivering cable programming to competitors, or get rid of major elements, because legislators busy with other matters haven’t acted, said executives of industry groups. They continue to hope that the FCC will ban cable operators and programmers affiliated with them from withholding at least sports and HD programming from other pay-TV providers (CD June 5 p2). But supporters of change acknowledged debate about whether the commission can alter the exemption involved. They predicted that if the FCC acts, an appeals court probably will be asked to second- guess its authority.

AT&T saw wide support from other carriers on its appeal of a decision by the Universal Service Administrative Co. (USAC), which found that the telco submitted inaccurate line count filings during an audit. USAC uses line counts to determine USF support for carriers. In separate comments last week, Verizon, Qwest, USTelecom and the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance urged the FCC to revise the quantitative standard that USAC used when it determined that three regional AT&T companies’ noncompliance with FCC rules was “material.”

The FCC asked whether it should forbear from applying the equal-access scripting requirement to small and mid-sized carriers while it considers a petition by USTelecom for a waiver for members of those sizes. The rule requires incumbent local exchange carriers to tell potential customers they have a choice of long distance providers, and to read a randomized list of available stand-alone wireline providers on request. The rule doesn’t apply to wireless, cable or VoIP carriers. In 2007 the FCC granted Qwest, Verizon and AT&T forbearance from the requirement in an order easing structural rules for the companies. State consumer advocates opposed the 2007 order and are expected to fight USTelecom’s petition (CD Nov 12 p7). Comments are due Sept. 11, replies Sept. 25.

An intercarrier compensation overhaul would prevent disputes regarding access fees charged for VoIP traffic, said AT&T and other wireline carriers in comments filed Wednesday at the FCC. AT&T urged the FCC to reject a petition by Texas competitive local exchange carrier UTex asking the FCC to arbitrate a dispute with AT&T over $7.5 million in access fees charged by AT&T for VoIP traffic terminating on the public switched telephone network (CD July 29 p8). The dispute isn’t the right context to make rules, but FCC guidance on the switched-IP access charge issue is needed, the carrier said.

The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates said the FCC should reject calls by Verizon and other carriers that the commission obscure the identity of carriers when it releases data on broadband deployment collected under the Broadband Data Improvement Act. Verizon countered that the “plain language” of the Act requires confidential treatment of data submitted and prevents release of “raw” data. The data itself would be made available only to “eligible entities,” defined as state agencies and others involved in broadband mapping, and not to the general public.

The FCC’s Internet policy statement would embodied in federal statute under a bill by Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and Ed Markey, D-Mass., who used be the chairman of what’s now called the House Communications Subcommittee. The Internet Freedom Preservation Act, which doesn’t yet have a bill number, is similar to a measure introduced by Eshoo and Markey last Congress. It calls the Internet “comparable to roads and electricity” as essential infrastructure, but says its historic policies of openness are undergoing “erosion” as network operators exercise control over content and services. The bill refers to “network neutrality” in several places and says the principle is needed to protect First Amendment rights. It would prevent ISPs from interfering with customers’ use of the Internet for “lawful” content or applications, adding a charge on top of subscription services, denying users the ability to attach devices that don’t “harm” the network, and selling service that “prioritizes” traffic. The bill also would bar ISPs from installing “network features, functions, or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance” with the measure’s provisions -- an indirect reference to traffic management gear of the kind offered by Sandvine and others. It would tell the FCC to write rules to ensure that ISPs disclose “meaningful information” to customers in a “conspicuous” manner and make available “sufficient network capacity” to users “to the extent feasible.” A network management practice is “reasonable” and exempt from regulation if it “furthers a critically important interest,” is narrowly tailored and is the “least restrictive” way to meet the need. The FCC would consider the “particular network architecture or technology limitations of the provider” in deciding what’s reasonable - an accommodation to slower DSL providers and cable companies with limited capacity for uploads. ISPs would have to disclose speed, “nature and limitations” of service, and network management practices “in the ordinary, routine use” of broadband service. The FCC would be required to impose rules within six months of enactment to prevent ISPs from requiring customers to buy bundled services to get Internet access. The commission also would have to impose rules within that time to promote facilities-based and other forms of competition, define “private transmission capacity services,” decide whether to exempt such services from neutrality rules and ensure they don’t diminish ordinary Internet access services. The FCC could decide on complaints filed by consumers against ISPs and could fine providers for violations. Markey said the bill would deal with the Supreme Court’s Brand X decision that classified Internet access as an unregulated “information service.” It would “restore the guarantee that one does not have to ask permission to innovate.” USTelecom President Walter McCormick said the bill would “create broad uncertainty and destabilize the investment that is currently creating jobs, spurring innovation, and lowering prices for consumers.”

The FCC will collect $341.9 million in regulatory fees from regulated companies for fiscal 2009, the commission said in a report and order released Friday. The FCC said it will adjust the 2008 amount up 9.6 percent and allocate this amount across the various fee categories. The commission declined to now make many of the changes requested by various filers when it sought comments on the fee structure (CD June 8 p1). In June, numerous filers asked for additional changes to the commission’s regulatory fee regime. USTelecom and the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance said changes should be in place for this year, rather than for future years. One area of concern, the order noted, was whether carriers should be assessed regulatory fees for their terrestrial non-common carrier circuits. “In the FY 2009 [notice of rulemaking] and Order, we sought comment on whether we should make such an assessment starting in FY 2010, at the earliest,” the order said. “Given the complexity of the legal, policy and equity issues involved, we decline to make a determination at this time. We may further consider this issue in the future.”