Commenters formed battle lines on an FCC proposal to undo its Title II regime regulating broadband providers as common carriers. Net neutrality advocates called for preserving the 2015 order that reclassified broadband as a Communications Act Title II telecom service and instituted open internet rules. Telco and cable ISPs and others urged the commission to return broadband to a Title I information service and ease regulation. Many made highly detailed filings and a few offered more mixed views in initial comments due Monday.

Intelligent Transportation Society of America names David St. Amant, ex-Econolite, interim president-CEO, effective Aug. 1; Gridsmart Technologies adds outgoing ITS America CEO-President Regina Hopper, also ex-USTelecom, as senior vice president-global public policy, effective Aug. 1 ... U.S. Chamber of Commerce hires from Etsy Julie Stitzel as managing director, Chamber Technology Engagement Center ... Blank Rome hires Andrea Markstrom, ex-Faegre Baker Daniels and Target, as chief information officer.

The FCC and ILECs opposed a bid for a court stay of a business data service order that critics said unjustifiably deregulated monopoly ILEC services and will cause irreparable harm to BDS competitors and business consumers (see 1707050032). BT Americas, Incompas, Windstream and the Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee "argue the Order 'removes price regulation,' 'abandon[s] rate regulation,' and 'almost totally deregulate[s] rates,' leaving them 'without remedy if BDS rates rise,'" said an FCC filing (in Pacer) Thursday opposing the parties' request for a stay by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Citizens Telecommunications v. FCC, No. 17-2296. "Those contentions are false. The Order only eliminates one form of regulation -- setting prices in advance through price cap tariffs. It leaves in place a robust regulatory regime that protects petitioners from unjust, unreasonable, or unlawfully discriminatory rates and terms." The decision to streamline BDS price regulation was based on a substantial record and reasonable analysis, said the FCC, which attached a July 10 Wireline Bureau denial of a request for an agency stay of the order (see 1707100028). AT&T, CenturyLink and USTelecom also opposed (in Pacer) the request for a court stay: The order "eliminates unnecessary regulatory burdens and spurs investment by modifying outmoded rules governing certain [BDS] offered by incumbent telephone companies over legacy technologies." The stay movants have asked the 8th Circuit to transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit, which the agency and some ILECs also opposed.

The Supreme Court likely will grant USTelecom's request for more time to file a cert petition appealing a lower court's affirmation of the FCC's 2015 Title II net neutrality order, telecom attorneys told us. "I do expect the petition will be granted," said Lisa Hayes, general counsel of the Center for Democracy & Technology, which supports the order. There are more doubts about whether the petitioners could get another extension if they seek one, and it's not clear they would. Meanwhile, as the FCC posted a few early, substantive open internet comments, some noted it could take the agency a while to release them all.

With more robocall regulatory steps initiated at Thursday's commissioners' meeting and the agency setting a $2.88 million fine against a robocall technology company, the FCC is sending clear signals about trying to eliminate "this scourge" of robocalls, Chairman Ajit Pai said. "Relief from robocalls is getting closer," he said, voicing support for a do-not-originate system for calls, saying that would be "pretty significant." Mike O'Rielly dissented on levying the fine, saying as precedent it could affect other technology platforms.

Localities, scoring a significant win Wednesday before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on FCC rules for cable local franchising authorities (see 1707120031), now hope the agency's next step is to do nothing. Franchise agreement negotiations have been more confusing and protracted since the 2007 and 2015 orders challenged in the appeal, said local governments lawyer Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett. With local franchising authorities and cable operators generally coming to mutually acceptable agreements in recent years despite FCC rules, hopefully the agency won't feel the need for new rulemaking following the court's mixed decision, said Joseph Van Eaton of Best Best, who represented plaintiffs Montgomery and Anne Arundel counties, Maryland, and Dubuque, Iowa, in the appeal of the orders on video franchising rules.

Internet giants and others joined to oppose FCC plans to undo the 2015 net neutrality order reclassifying broadband providers as common carriers under Communications Act Title II. Day of Action (DOA) participants urged people to tell the commission and Congress to preserve net neutrality and an open internet, though edge companies didn't emphasize Title II (and ISPs opposed its use). Some doubted FCC Republicans would change course, but net neutrality advocates said the protest boosted resistance that complicates the rollback efforts and advances their cause.

Rural telco groups urged the FCC to eliminate or change a rate floor that requires rate-of-return carriers to charge customers a certain monthly amount for basic voice service to avoid losing USF support. NTCA (here), WTA (here) and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (here) were among those seeking to scrap the rate floor in comments posted in docket 10-90 Monday and Tuesday, with the RLEC groups suggesting modifications if the rule is retained. USTelecom said the commission "should take a serious look" at making changes or eliminating the rate floor, while ITTA said it backed "an exploration of whether to disaggregate the current single national rate floor." NCTA said "some form of the rate floor" should be maintained.

A telco bid for rural carrier business data service relief at the FCC drew opposition from Sprint, support from TDS Telecommunications and proposals for changes from Smithville Telephone of Mississippi. Sprint said the commission should deny the ITTA and USTelecom rulemaking petition (see 1705250065) to permit rate-of-return telcos receiving model-based USF support to opt into new, relaxed price-cap BDS rules. The rural telcos "would be allowed to raise the going-in BDS rates, to thereafter provide BDS on a largely deregulated basis, and to retain the guaranteed support provided under rate of return regulation of switched access service," said Sprint comments posted Thursday in docket 17-144. Sprint said the proposals are "remarkably one-sided in favor of the rate-of-return ILECs," allowing them "to pick the best of both worlds: freedom to offer BDS on whatever terms they choose, including at increased prices, with minimal or no regulatory oversight, while retaining the revenue assurances" from "more generous" rate-of-return USF and intercarrier compensation (ICC) transition mechanisms. TDS said the rate-of-return BDS burdens for model-based carriers often outweigh the benefits. Updating the regulations would allow "carriers like TDS Telecom the flexibility to compete in the BDS marketplace with other entities that are not subject to cumbersome, legacy regulations," said its comments. Removing burdens would serve "rural broadband goals by providing greater flexibility to invest in new infrastructure," said TDS, which also agreed with the proposal to keep certain USF-ICC transition mechanisms. Smithville Telephone, with seven employees, said it's subject to BDS competition of the sort identified in the price-cap rulemaking, but wouldn't get relief under the petition as written. Its comments "suggest ways to recognize this actual existing competitive situation for Smithville, and likely for other small carriers, so that full deregulated status can be obtained."

The Communications Workers of America "strongly opposes" an NCTA-USTelecom petition for FCC clarification of broadband speed disclosure rules to ensure regulatory harmonization and industry flexibility in light of state mandates (see 1705160063). CWA said the commission lacks authority and policy justification to issue a declaratory ruling. "Such a ruling would result in considerable harm to consumers by allowing broadband providers to make inaccurate or misleading statements about their network performance and capabilities," said the union in reply comments Thursday in docket 17-131. It said it joined a "broad consensus in opposition" to the petition, which drew objections from 35 state attorneys general and some consumer groups in initial comments (see 1706190050). But NCTA and USTelecom said the record "reflects broad support" for the petition, filed by the "leading" cable and telco trade associations and backed by the American Cable Association, Adtran and CenturyLink. The opponents "fundamentally misapprehend the scope of the Petition as a request for complete preemption of state consumer protection laws," said a joint reply, which denied they made such a request: "[I]t does not ask the Commission to issue a broad 'field preemption' ruling; rather, it seeks to confirm the primacy of federal law where, as here, there is a direct conflict between state efforts to require [broadband internet access service] providers to measure and describe their BIAS offerings based on idiosyncratic standards and the Commission’s requirements for how those offerings are measured and described under its uniform national framework for broadband disclosures."