State Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service members asked the FCC to expand the contribution base for federal USF programs to include a fee on broadband internet access service, filing in docket 96-45 Tuesday. Commissioners Chris Nelson of South Dakota, Sally Talberg of Michigan and Stephen Bloom of Oregon recommend "a connections-based assessment on residential services and an expanded revenues-based assessment on business services." Having different contribution methodologies for residential and business services is "equitable and nondiscriminatory," they said. Under a new contribution mechanism, the FCC would assess fees on businesses that use virtual private network services, video conferencing, web conferencing, unified communications and business wireless broadband access services. For residential customers, a separate fee should be assessed for voice and broadband connections, they proposed. "A connections-based mechanism will provide stability for the Commission, administrative efficiency for carriers, and transparency for customers." About 50 percent of USF support would come from residential connections, and an initial surcharge for wireline, wireless and broadband would be 55 to 60 cents per connection, they suggested. The state commissioners recommend the FCC establish a firm budget for each of the four USF programs "with those budgets not growing any more than the Consumer Price Index for any given year." They want the FCC to "take specific steps to assure the continued viability of state universal service mechanisms promoted by Congress." It's "up to the FCC to determine what to do with the State Members’ recommendation," emailed South Dakota's Nelson (R), the joint board's state chair. "It became clear to the State Members that it was not going to be possible to get a recommendation from the full joint board, so we moved forward with this release of our work product." The other state Joint Board members didn't comment right away. The contribution factor for this quarter is a record 25 percent (see 1909130003). Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel this summer asked the states to raise their concerns about needed action on revisions to the USF contribution mechanism and not wait for an FCC rulemaking (see 1907110020). Commissioner Mike O'Rielly, who chairs the Joint Board, opposes a fee on broadband access or use (see 1906250011). His office didn't comment now. "The filing is very interesting, and we are looking at it closely," said Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition Executive Director John Windhausen.
Consumer groups rejected telecom industry calls to take back California disaster relief requirements. Landline, VoIP and wireless providers last month filed three applications asking the California Public Utilities Commission to rehear its August decision requiring communications providers to adopt emergency disaster relief programs upon a declared state of emergency by the governor or the president when a disaster results in service loss, disruption or degradation (see 1909250022). The providers said they do that voluntarily. “There is a need for mandatory and enforceable requirements that allow the Commission to ensure that the public receives the emergency consumer protections ordered, and to ensure awareness, transparency and oversight for such protections,” The Utility Reform Network, CPUC Public Advocates Office, Center for Accessible Technology and the National Consumer Law Center said in a Tuesday response in docket R18-03-011, emailed Friday by the center. Providers “tend to file material that consists of high level responses that are short on specifics and details,” they said. Consumer groups disagreed with VoIP and wireless providers claiming federal law pre-empts the state from making rules for their services. “VoIP providers clearly offer telephone service, using telephone lines,” and in disasters, the CPUC may “exercise the state’s police power, which is not preempted by federal law,” the consumer groups said. There’s no definitive ruling on whether VoIP is an information service that states can’t regulate, and a recent 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that it is information -- which could get Supreme Court review (see 1910090048) -- is “not binding in other Circuits and certainly not to a state commission outside the Circuit.” The Communications Act “is clear that providers of commercial mobile service are treated as common carriers under federal law, and that states retain their general authority to regulate these carriers even as they are specifically prohibited from regulating market entry or rates,” the consumer groups said. Customer protections don’t equal unconstitutional takings, they said. “The nature of the Decision’s regulation is temporary and designed to address the specific needs of a narrow group of customers for a relatively short period of time.” The rules don’t conflict with the California Emergency Services Act because the Act doesn’t provide for consumer protection for utilities customers after emergencies, they said. The California Cable and Telecommunications Association, representing a VoIP coalition, said industry’s three challenges “demonstrate clear error in such decision that should be promptly corrected on rehearing.”
As the FCC presses on with the Lifeline national verifier rollout, some state officials continue to voice concerns about incomplete access to state databases and other issues. Other state commissioners told us they haven’t heard any complaints, though one said his agency might not get any even amid problems. The NV is midway through a state-by-state launch and is designed to make signup and reverification more automatic. Those on the front lines see growing pains and worry the poor could be incorrectly excluded from the approximately $1 billion annual federal program (see 1907080009).
Some wireless industry stakeholders in the debate over allocating the 6 GHz band have been lobbying to convince lawmakers to file and advance legislation requiring the FCC move forward with a plan that allows for licensed and unlicensed use of those frequencies, lobbyists told us. Such legislation would diverge from the direction of the FCC's current 6 GHz NPRM, which looks at opening 1,200 megahertz of spectrum in the band for Wi-Fi and other unlicensed use (see 1810230038).
Areas of wide agreement among C-band users, satellite operators and other stakeholders are emerging, and with them issues that need resolution before the FCC acts or through an eventual order, experts and a policymaker said Tuesday. All agree that some frequencies will be repurposed for 5G, said FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly. "There is a broad consensus on at least a couple of points," said NAB Associate General Counsel Patrick McFadden: Spectrum will be repurposed, content delivery using the satellite band should be protected, and "end users should be held harmless."
Competitors and consumer advocates in interviews hoped Northwest Fiber’s buy of Frontier Communications wireline, video and long-distance operations in four states will lead to better rural broadband. Oregon and Montana intervenors listed grievances with Frontier. They haven’t formally supported or opposed the acquisitions, with regulatory reviews early on. State and federal review timelines stretch into early next year.
Federal Emergency Management Agency acting Chief Component Human Capital Officer Bridget Bean (see this section, Aug. 28) becomes FEMA assistant administrator-grants programs ... Washington state Utilities and Transportation Commission moves Amy Andrews to director-policy ... AT&T Senior Vice President-Global and External Public Affairs Margaret Peterlin (see this section, July 10) leaves following two-month stay to advise Jim Cicconi (see this section, Sept. 17).
FCC allies in Tuesday's federal court decision on the Communications Act Title II rollback order (see 1910010018) consider appeal unlikely. Petitioner allies are less sure. California and Vermont’s litigated net neutrality laws remain on hold, those states’ attorneys generals confirmed Wednesday.
Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc. (ASRI) said there's general support for FCC-proposed changes to Part 87 aviation radio service rules, in a June NPRM (see 1906060056). Replies posted Tuesday in docket 19-140. Others raised aeronautical mobile airport communication system (AeroMACS) concerns, mirroring initial comments (see 1909040057). “The Data Comm system has already improved the efficiency of ATC [air traffic control] operations resulting in major time savings and the elimination of read-back errors in which pilots and controller repeat spoken messages in order to ensure accuracy,” ASRI said: “Aeronautical enroute stations licensed in the upper half of the 136 MHz band have been utilized for Data Comm operations, but the time is rapidly approaching in which additional spectrum will be needed. Accordingly, ASRI asked the Commission to add aeronautical enroute stations to the list of facilities that may be licensed in the 136-136.475 MHz sub-band.” Federated Wireless said the FCC is correct to try to maximize spectrum efficiency here. It's “an opportunity for the Commission to ensure that the spectrum allocated for operations in the 5000-5030 MHz and 5091-5150 MHz bands … is used as densely and efficiently as possible,” Federated said: Leverage “to the maximum extent possible dynamic coordination and spectrum sharing technologies" and ensure “service rules for the AeroMACS Bands are technologically neutral and allow for the densest possible use of the spectrum at and in the areas surrounding airports.” Adopt service rules for AeroMACS, the WiMax Forum said. “The record confirms the momentum,” the group said: “Commenters of all stripes -- airline, airport, airframe manufacturer, and aeronautical communications network provider stakeholders, among others -- reiterate the benefits of AeroMACS and support the adoption of service rules.” Boeing said the rules need more work. Ensure non-aircraft licensees “have sufficient experience,” designate a frequency coordinator “with appropriate qualifications” and preclude AeroMACS deployments “at airports with significant flight testing activities,” Boeing commented. Lockheed Martin recognizes AeroMACS has priority over aeronautical mobile telemetry “but urges the Commission to establish a sufficiently flexible licensing and operational framework that does not unfairly prejudice [aeronautical mobile telemetry] operations at the manufacturing locations where the subject frequencies would be required for use. Priority should not be construed as a regulatory status to mean exclusivity of operations.”
Parties on both sides declared some victory from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's decision Tuesday on appeals of the FCC 2018 Communications Act Title II broadband service regulation rollback. Backers of the order cheered most of the decision, while critics pointed to the court rejecting pre-emption of state and local regulations. There was partial dissent from Judge Stephen Williams and concurring opinions from Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins. See our bulletins: 1910010016 and 1910010013.