The FCC Wednesday adopted 3-0 an order shortening to one business day the interval for simple wireline and intermodal number ports. But the change won’t take place immediately.

If the FCC is worried about special access competition, it should collect data from competitive providers, said Verizon. It backed a recent ex parte filing by USTelecom (CD April 28 p7). In a letter last week to the commission, Verizon said it should “compel additional data from competitive providers that refuse to provide it voluntarily.” The agency should allow a “short notice and comment period” before seeking data so interested parties can suggest questions, the carrier said.

Getting agreement on legislation setting new rules for the wireless industry could be difficult, judging by industry disputes at a House Communications Subcommittee hearing Thursday. There’s bipartisan support on broad goals of setting a national framework for consumer protection rules and doing an audit of unused federal spectrum. But no consensus exists within the industry on whether to change special-access rules, open up the handset industry or extend roaming requirements to data services. Lawmakers also are divided.

If the FCC decides to pursue an investigation of the special-access market, it should require information from all providers, said officials from USTelecom, Verizon, AT&T, Qwest and Embarq. The carriers told the Wireline Bureau at a meeting Friday that comprehensive data collection would show the special market is competitive and needs no regulation. Incumbent local carriers have provided much information to the FCC already, but competitors “have consistently refused to participate in efforts” by the FCC and others to test competition levels, USTelecom said in an ex parte summary of the meeting. The commission at least “needs to require CLECs (including those out-of-region CLECs owned by ILECs), cable operators, fixed wireless providers (including WiMAX providers), and facilities-based wireless providers that self-provision to their cell sites, to provide substantive information on the scope and capabilities of their own networks and the various alternatives to ILEC special access services that are available to them,” it said. The FCC should also seek data from retail purchasers of special access services that want to take part, it said. The commission should use its subpoena authority to ensure a comprehensive response, it said. USTelecom also urged the FCC to “proffer the right questions to the right providers.” Otherwise, the commission “runs the risk of missing a segment of the market or providing some competitors an opportunity to under-report facilities or not report at all.” Sprint Nextel “has filled the docket with data which shows there is a clear failure in the special access market,” said a company spokesman. “Additional data will only confirm these facts. While additional data from these carriers may be useful, AT&T, Verizon and the other USTA members should not be permitted to simply kick the can down the regulatory road.”

The FCC must fix its audit program for the Universal Service Fund high-cost program, USTelecom and CTIA said Friday in a scathing letter to commissioners. The associations queried the accuracy of a November audit report from the FCC Office of Inspector General, which said the high-cost fund had an error payment rate of 23.3 percent. “The current audit program … results in misleading statistics generated as improper payments under the” 2002 Improper Payments Information Act, “which undermines the credibility of the audits and the USF,” they said.

Preliminary filings for the first quarter show lobbying spending about even with last year’s for the communications sector, despite the economic downturn. Energy, health and financial firms were listed among top spenders by CQ’s Political Moneyline. The communications sector had the third-highest overall spending, behind finance and health, following the past few years’ pattern. Not all data has been uploaded to congressional Web sites yet. The reporting deadline was Monday.

The same local number portability rules should apply to all, said USTelecom, Embarq and Windstream in a meeting this week with the Wireline Bureau. The FCC will vote on an order shortening the interval for wireline and intermodal ports, currently four days, at its May meeting (see separate report in this issue). USTelecom and the carriers condemned a proposal by Comcast to shorten the interval to one day for “e-bonded” carriers and two days for others. Comcast “fails to mention that no cable provider offers an e-bonding process today,” said USTelecom in a Wednesday ex parte filing. “So, under its proposal, Comcast and all other cable providers would be entitled to a one-day interval for ports out from an e-bonded ILEC but not when a consumer decides to leave Comcast -- or any other cable voice provider -- for that ILEC.” A Comcast spokeswoman didn’t return a request for comment.

The FCC needs more time to finish an overdue revamp of jurisdictional separations, said states, carriers and consumer advocates. In comments last week, they supported the commission’s tentative conclusion to extend the eight- year-old freeze on separations, but fought over how much longer the “interim” measure should last. Without FCC action, the freeze will expire June 30.

Comparing the U.S. to other countries on broadband availability will be the FCC’s toughest task as the agency implements the Broadband Data Improvement Act, telecom executives and researchers said in comments at the commission Friday. Many international reports miss key variables needed to draw accurate conclusions, they said. Although most comments focused broadly on how to satisfy Congress’ goals in the act, some groups urged the FCC to focus on special interest areas where they said information is lacking.

The NTIA and the RUS should auction the $7.2 billion in broadband stimulus grants instead of using a conventional application process, a group of 70 economists told the agencies in comments filed Monday, the deadline for suggestions on giving out the money. The economists argued that procurement auctions are a more-efficient way of disbursing the funds than the usual grant process, which they said is “long, complicated and involves subjective and arbitrary decisions.”