A resolution urging the FCC to expand the kinds of services whose customers are required to pay into the USF (CD Feb 11 p15) was among six approved unanimously by the NARUC board at the end of the organization’s winter meeting Wednesday. The resolution, proposed by Vermont Public Service Board Commissioner John Burke, urges the FCC to expand the USF contribution base “so that all communications services, including services such as broadband that are required to be offered in order to receive federal support, contribute to USF.” The resolution took no position on whether the size of the fund should be increased. Another resolution, by Michigan Public Service Commissioner Sally Talberg, supports efforts by the FCC to allow a variety of service providers to apply for rural broadband experiments. The resolution also asked the FCC to ensure that funds for the experiments be aimed at ensuring broadband service for rural areas, and that broadband networks deployed in rural areas remain sustainable. A third resolution, by Nebraska Public Service commissioners Tim Schram and Anne Boyle, said the FCC should clarify that rules on 911 location accuracy apply to calls made from both indoors and outdoors. A resolution by Washington Utilities and Transportation Commissioner Philip Jones expressed support and encouragement to the National Association of Public Affairs Networks to establish C-SPAN-like public affairs TV networks in all 50 states. A resolution by District of Columbia Public Service Commissioner Betty Ann Kane urges the FCC to require applicants for the upcoming IP tests to prominently provide information to customers on how to submit complaints to state regulatory agencies or the FCC. Kane’s resolution also asks the FCC to require applicants requesting a waiver of a mandatory condition from the FCC to notify state regulatory commissions and customers. It also asks the FCC to provide adequate opportunity for public comment before granting a waiver.
The North American Numbering Council (NANC) should make sure its ultimate recommendation on the local number portability administrator (LNPA) selection process (CD Feb 7 p9) responds directly to the concerns raised (http://bit.ly/1dhvFVm), said Wireline Bureau Chief Julie Veach Tuesday. She wrote the NANC chairman following calls from Neustar and Telcordia last week for the commission to “restore transparency.” It’s a rare public letter from the FCC, which has until now been mostly silent on the LNPA selection process. Veach declined to intervene directly in the selection process.
Mintz Levin promotes Tara Corvo to chairwoman, Communications Section, succeeding Howard Symons, going to FCC as Incentive Auction Task Force vice chairman (CD Jan 31 p18) … FCC names Stephen Michael Bloom, Oregon Public Utility Commission, and Chris Nelson, South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, to Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, replacing John Burke, Vermont Public Service Board, and Randy Mitchell, South Carolina Public Service Commission, and names Sally Talberg, Michigan Public Service Commission, to Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations, succeeding Larry Landis, who represented Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission … Communications Systems’ Transition Networks fiber access technology firm hires Kevin Martin, ex-Overture, as vice president-international sales … CIMA Group international telecom company promotes Juan Martin Gomez to CEO; previous CEO Daniel Contreras named to board … Lobbyist registration: Technology company coalition Reform Government Surveillance, Monument Policy Group, effective Jan. 9.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency’s primary goal in the IP transition is to make sure consumers are protected. Wheeler fully supports the notion of a “sandbox” such as used by software developers for testing software, and the trials are essentially a big regulatory sandbox, he said at a National Journal-sponsored conference Thursday.
The FCC Satellite Division intends to make life easier for satellite operators and providers by streamlining and eliminating outdated rules, said Jose Albuquerque, Satellite Division chief, at a Federal Communications Bar Association event at Bingham McCutcheon in Washington. For the division, the big topics include updating the software for submission of licensing applications and fostering more-efficient use of spectrum, he said.
As states grapple over what role they should play in regulating IP technologies, a free-market advocacy group that helps connect industry with legislators on a variety of issues said states should just stay out of it. The American Legislative Exchange Council issued a report (http://bit.ly/1jgJjM5) Wednesday on promoting broadband in states. ALEC’s first recommendation: Exempting “Internet protocol-based technologies from state utility regulation.” The group said it backed preserving “several rights and responsibilities for states and providers, while also respecting” FCC jurisdiction. State regulators told us they disagreed with the report.
The basic structure of the Telecom Act of 1996 is “actually quite good” from the perspective of being technology-neutral, state regulators told members of the House Commerce Committee, which is considering overhauling the act. “The problem in many instances is not the Act, but the broad, and some might argue, unwarranted discretion the judiciary has given the FCC to implement it,” NARUC said in joint comments submitted by NARUC President Colette Honorable of Arkansas and Telecom Committee Chairman Chris Nelson, of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (http://bit.ly/1dp0bbu). Comments were due to House Commerce Friday, and NARUC released its comments Tuesday. NARUC attacked the way the agency has handled the distinction between telecom and information services, suggesting it has caused problems. NARUC said there are places where the act may need updates but it hasn’t collected its members’ views for any major official positions. Flexibility is already present in the statute, NARUC said: “It is hard to construct a scenario where these existing authorities cannot provide the requisite flexibility.” NARUC said state roles should be preserved in such areas as interconnection: “If VoIP were classified as a ’telecommunications service’ it would be clear that [Communications Act] Sections 251-2 apply to IP interconnections and the arbitration option would be available to smaller carriers that cannot get large carriers to the table to discuss interconnection,” NARUC said. The state regulators flagged the federalism principles that their telecom task force put together as one relevant resource for Congress. The Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, meanwhile, made four recommendations, in comments it released this week. Congress should look at the ways to prioritize and increase opportunities for minority and women’s business enterprise ownership and participation and to promote the goals of broadcast diversity, MMTC said. It emphasized what it called “first-class digital citizenship for people of color” and highlighted broadband access and adoption and called for clarification of laws that may affect broadband infrastructure development. Universal service also plays a role, it said.
Several electric utilities asked Congress to remove FCC jurisdiction over pole attachments, in a letter sent Friday to the House Commerce Committee. The FCC “lacks any experience or expertise whatsoever in the safe and efficient distribution of electric services to consumers across the country,” said the letter sent on behalf of Consumers Energy, FirstEnergy, National Grid, Northeast Utilities and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. Oversight over “pole attachments” goes to the FCC under the Communications Act, but it really belongs at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the electric utilities said. The companies took issue with the FCC’s April 2011 pole attachment order that expanded its jurisdiction to encompass joint use relationships between pole-owning entities. The decision only drives down ILEC costs and “unfairly” shifts burdens “from the communications industry to the electric utility industry,” the utilities said. They asked Congress to prevent the FCC from regulating the electric utility/ILEC joint use relationship, and to require that attachment rates be increased “so that communications companies pay a more appropriate share” of pole distribution expenses. “What does the FCC know about electric utility safety, reliability, and efficiency?” said Jack Richards, partner at Keller and Heckman, which represents the utilities. “It’s the Federal Communications Commission. It’s not surprising they favor Comcast, Cox, Verizon, AT&T, Frontier and other communications companies over electric utilities.” The Supreme Court in October declined to hear electric utilities’ challenge to the pole attachment order (CD Oct 8 p1).
Top Democrats in both chambers of Congress introduced net neutrality legislation Monday, as expected, to restore the court-blocked FCC net neutrality rules. The Open Internet Preservation Act, HR-3982 in the House, has several original co-sponsors, the bill’s authors said. Several lobbyists representing varying industries -- some in favor of the net neutrality regulations and some not -- told us last week that any bill involving net neutrality would have little chance to make it through Congress due to the intense partisanship surrounding the issue (CD Feb 3 p5).
The telecom market isn’t “uniformly competitive, due to the industry’s history of government-sanctioned monopolies,” Sprint warned the House in comments on overhauling the Communications Act. “While there is remarkable diversity in terms of service providers, network architectures, and customer markets, there remain key choke points that impact the operation of the entire ecosystem.” Sprint insisted any rewrite of the Communications Act “preserve and promote interconnection rights and obligations” and maintain access to “critical competitive inputs” and “carefully tailored regulatory oversight and safeguards.” It pointed to a “handful” of companies that still control the bulk of the market. Comments were due to the House Commerce Committee Friday (CD Feb 3 p8).