FCC draft orders on pole attachments and USF reverse auctions are circulating, agency officials said Thursday and Friday. A draft order to resolve a challenge to some CenturyLink USF support also is circulating, they said. Meanwhile, a possible draft order on inmate calling service (ICS) rates is still under consideration for the October FCC meeting, said another commission official.
FCC draft orders on pole attachments and USF reverse auctions are circulating, agency officials said Thursday and Friday. A draft order to resolve a challenge to some CenturyLink USF support also is circulating, they said. Meanwhile, a possible draft order on inmate calling service (ICS) rates is still under consideration for the October FCC meeting, said another commission official.
Bell rivals urged the FCC to rein in ILEC special-access practices that they say force them into long-term contracts on “anti-competitive” terms. Sprint said ILECs use their business market power to present competitors with the choice of paying “unaffordable month-to-month rates” for wholesale access or agreeing to “so-called ‘discount’ plans that offer reduced, but still grossly inflated, rates” and only if they accept “competition-killing terms and conditions.” Sprint called on the commission “to move rapidly to address anticompetitive special access terms and conditions.” Level 3, Windstream and XO Communications made similar filings on Thursday in docket 05-25.
As the FCC faces scrutiny for delays in the publication of rulemaking items in the federal government's central repository for regulatory bodies, another long-standing commission practice has faced even more criticism. Part I of this series found some experts criticized the lengthy delays, numbering more than 40 instances in 2015 when items were published a month and sometimes a year after they were released by the agency (see 1509070003). Part II discusses portions of the FCC administrative process, differing opinions on the timeliness of the repository's publication of submitted items, and transparency concerns raised by certain agency practices that are drawing heat from individuals in the public and private sectors, including Commissioner Michael O'Rielly in a Tuesday interview and in other comments.
The FCC is expected to take up a controversial privacy NPRM as early as its Oct. 22 meeting, though the proposal may well slip into November, FCC and industry officials said. There were lots of questions about the notice raised at CTIA earlier this month and signs of sharp divisions among commissioners (see 1509110027). Some industry experts predict that the FCC could delve into privacy rules for edge providers like Google, Amazon or Apple, in addition to rules for ISPs.
The FCC is expected to take up a controversial privacy NPRM as early as its Oct. 22 meeting, though the proposal may well slip into November, FCC and industry officials said. There were lots of questions about the notice raised at CTIA earlier this month and signs of sharp divisions among commissioners (see 1509110027). Some industry experts predict that the FCC could delve into privacy rules for edge providers like Google, Amazon or Apple, in addition to rules for ISPs.
The FCC is expected to take up a controversial privacy NPRM as early as its Oct. 22 meeting, though the proposal may well slip into November, FCC and industry officials said. There were lots of questions about the notice raised at CTIA earlier this month and signs of sharp divisions among commissioners (see 1509110027). Some industry experts predict that the FCC could delve into privacy rules for edge providers like Google, Amazon or Apple, in addition to rules for ISPs.
Dozens of parties filed briefs supporting the FCC net neutrality order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is reviewing challenges in USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063. Cogent and 24 other intervenors said the FCC order promoted the “virtuous circle of Internet growth and innovation” through an “open Internet platform,” counter to the arguments of telco/cable ISP “gatekeepers” seeking to overturn the order. The intervenors and separate parties that filed amicus briefs Monday defended the rules and reclassification of broadband as a Title II telecom service under the Communications Act. Among the defenders are 29 lawmakers who said (see 1509210058) that the Title II finding was backed by the Telecom Act and deserved deference on any ambiguity. (For more on the arguments of petitioners and supporters, see 1507310042 and 1508070058, and on FCC arguments see 1509150052.)
Supporters of the FCC February net neutrality order countered in amicus briefs filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit the recurring argument of opponents that the rules violate the First Amendment speech rights of ISPs. That was a key argument against the rules in the challenge filed by Internet entrepreneur Daniel Berninger and Alamo Broadband (see 1508050065). Also this week, other filings criticized other challenges to the rules (see 1509220052).
Supporters of the FCC February net neutrality order countered in amicus briefs filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit the recurring argument of opponents that the rules violate the First Amendment speech rights of ISPs. That was a key argument against the rules in the challenge filed by Internet entrepreneur Daniel Berninger and Alamo Broadband (see 1508050065). Also this week, other filings criticized other challenges to the rules (see 1509220052).