Surewest board member Steve Oldham takes over as pres.-CEO, effective Jan. 1, replacing Brian Strom, who retires March 31 to become consultant… Liane Pelletier, Alaska Communications, joins USTelecom board… Gemstar-TV Guide promotes Eileen Murphy to senior vp-corporate communications… Susan Polyakova, ex-Communications Daily, becomes Wireless Communications Assn. communications dir. Jan. 3… Paul Karpowicz, Meredith Bcstg., joins NAB TV board… Roger Werner, ex- Speedvision and ESPN, becomes special advisor to Narrowstep… Environmental activist Nancy Ryan named technical advisor to Cal. PUC Comr. Michael Peevey.

T-Mobile endorsed a USTelecom call for a rulemaking to examine pole attachment rules. “Wireless carriers continue to face great difficulties in gaining competitively neutral, non-discriminatory access to utility poles,” the carrier said. “The results are unreasonable delays, or even denial, of wireless services the public wants and needs.” T-Mobile said utility control of utility poles often creates a “bottleneck” for carriers seeking access to residential neighborhoods.

The FCC should extend the separations freeze while opening a rulemaking to consider reforming it, USTelecom said in a white paper filed with the FCC Dec. 12. The June 30 expiration date is causing “significant uncertainty in the industry and forcing carriers to consider making substantial investments” to comply with jurisdictional separations requirements, the white paper said. The FCC also should say “price cap carriers do not have to conduct resource-intensive investment studies” during the freeze, USTelecom said. The separations process differentiates between interstate and intrastate telephone company costs. The FCC froze the current formula while it considered reforming the system to reflect changes in technology.

NTIA Dir. Michael Gallagher will leave the agency early next year, as expected. He had led the agency since shortly after the departure of Nancy Victory in Aug. 2003, though he wasn’t confirmed by the Senate until Nov. 2004. Gallagher is expected to be replaced, at least in an acting capacity, by his deputy John Kneuer, industry sources said.

A bill introduced by Sen. DeMint (R-S.C.) that would give the FCC authority to define what constitutes fair competition for consumers is based largely on ideas from the Progress & Freedom Foundation’s project on telecom reform. The bill, which has no co-sponsors, includes a substantial section on universal service fund (USF) reform -- the first major Senate telecom bill to address the matter. The provisions are based on research by experts PFF convened from universities, law firms and research groups (CD Dec 9 p3). DeMint’s bill would require the FCC to adopt within 6 months after enactment a new contribution mechanism based on phone numbers; place a $3.6 billion cap on distribution, in the form of performance-based block grants to states.

The National Emergency Number Assn. (NENA) raised red flags about a request from wireless reseller TracFone that the FCC potentially lighten the regulatory load placed on it if it’s designated as the first wireless reseller with eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) status under the USF lifeline program. Public safety sources said Tues. while TracFone is relatively small compared to a few of its peers, the issues raised aren’t, especially if other resellers also apply for ETC status.

The U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., joined 2 other circuits in ruling Fri. that the federal excise tax doesn’t apply to most long distance phone calls. In an opinion written by Judge David Tatel, the court said it was required to decide whether a statute imposing a tax on calls that vary by distance and time applies to long distance calls that vary in time but not distance. The U.S. Dist. Court, D.C., concluded the statute doesn’t cover such charges “and we agree,” Tatel said. “Many customers now pay per-minute charges that remain constant regardless of how far their calls travel,” which doesn’t meet the Internal Revenue Code’s time-and-distance definition, said Tatel. The case, brought by the National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak), reflects how billing for phone service has changed since 1965, when Congress last amended the phone tax provisions, the court said. However, despite those changes, the court said it doesn’t agree with the IRS that “the tax extends to all future service, however billed.” Tatel wrote: “Because the district’s court’s well-reasoned opinion properly ascertains the statute’s meaning, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Amtrak. True, this interpretation limits the effectiveness of the tax on long-distance calls, but because [the statute] is unambiguous, the IRS must take its case to Congress, not this court.” USTelecom said this “is the third major strike against the IRS’s misguided insistence on collecting the federal excise tax. It’s time for the IRS to admit defeat and stop enforcing the illegal application of this tax.”

A plan to reform the Universal Service Fund (USF) with more state control and a cap on growth got Sen. Sununu’s (R-N.H.) conditional backing at a Wed. forum sponsored by the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF), which also proposed the reform package. As it stands, the USF program “significantly distorts the marketplace, undermines innovation and limits services to customers,” Sununu said. PFF’s plan correctly aims to limit growth and increase efficiency, he said: “We've got too many programs that are on auto-pilot.”

Telecom manufacturers urged markup of the draft telecom bill in a Wed. letter to House Commerce Committee Chmn. Barton (R-Tex.) and Ranking Member Dingell (D- Mich.). “All interested parties have had sufficient time to review the bill since you made it publicly available nearly 5 weeks ago,” said the letter, signed by 20 firms. Separately, USTelecom wrote Barton and Dingell suggesting that delaying the markup could “jeopardize significant investment in the industry to upgrade networks -- forcing consumers to wait longer for the benefits of meaningful competition.”

The FCC should open a rulemaking to protect ILECs from excessive pole attachment fees charged by electric companies and other utilities, ILECs said in comments filed late Fri. Backing a USTelecom petition, the National Telecom Co-op Assn. said the FCC pole attachment rules “unreasonably discriminate against… ILECs” through an inaccurate reading of Sec. 224(b) of the Communications Act. The section, which once protected only cable systems, was expanded by the Telecom Act to include CLECs and other “telecommunications carriers.” But the Act seemed to exclude ILECs from the “telecommunications carriers” definition, so FCC pole attachment rules don’t cover them. And other language in Sec. 224 uses the term “provider of telecommunications service,” which does include ILECs, NTCA said. Sec. 224(b) “should not and was never intended to be exclusive of ILECs,” NTCA said. BellSouth said “ILECs are increasingly experiencing unfair and unreasonable treatment when seeking to attach to the poles of other utilities.” Energy utilities, not ILECs, own the most poles nationwide, so “the assumption that ILECs are always in a superior bargaining position is simply not the case,” BellSouth said in its filing. Some energy utilities “have demanded excessive rates that bear no relation either to the amount of pole space occupied by BellSouth or comparable increases in the Consumer Price Index,” BellSouth said. USTelecom asked the FCC to clarify that ILECs are entitled to reasonable rates under Sec. 224, urging they be allowed to use Commission pole attachment complaint procedures.