The FCC is considering acting in its special access proceedings in April or May, informed sources told us Monday. The commission is looking at issuing a Further NPRM in its broad review and an order on its incumbent telco tariff investigation in the next couple of months, an industry official said. The FCC's goal is to act in April but that’s not nailed down, said another informed source, who agreed the agency might combine an FNPRM with action on the tariff probe. The commission is reviewing its special access framework in an industrywide rulemaking and is investigating ILEC tariff terms and conditions that critics allege include anti-competitive “lock-up” provisions, which incumbents dispute.

CTIA and the Competitive Carriers Association were joined by the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Incompas in a joint letter to the FCC raising concerns about the wireless implications of the agency’s proposed Lifeline rules (see 1603170044). Parts of the proposed order “appear to ignore technological and market characteristics of providing mobile wireless voice and broadband service to low-income consumers,” the groups told the FCC. “If adopted, these proposals will disrupt successful aspects of the Lifeline program, hinder the ability of mobile wireless providers to offer services, and harm millions of low-income consumers who depend on Lifeline support.” By requiring that only mobile Lifeline plans offer unlimited voice minutes by December, “the Commission will substantially increase the prices that eligible low-income consumers must pay to connect with educational, health, occupational and public safety services, including 9-1-1, through mobile wireless voice services,” the groups said. No wireless carrier offers unlimited voice minutes for the $9.25 per month in support from the Lifeline program, they said. The FCC “will effectively reverse a long-standing policy against requiring co-payments and put Lifeline service out of reach from low- income consumers that lack the disposable income or banking capabilities to make a monthly payment,” the groups said. The FCC has tried to avoid flash cuts and disruption in reforming other parts of USF, the groups said. In contrast, “the Commission’s Lifeline reform approach will impose significant changes on low-income consumers by December of this year, with more significant changes each year for three years,” the groups said. An FCC spokesman earlier defended the agency’s approach. He said proposed minimum standards “are not phasing out voice from the Lifeline program, but rather are phasing in broadband as an essential element of any Lifeline service.”

CTIA and the Competitive Carriers Association were joined by the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Incompas in a joint letter to the FCC raising concerns about the wireless implications of the agency’s proposed Lifeline rules (see 1603170044). Parts of the proposed order “appear to ignore technological and market characteristics of providing mobile wireless voice and broadband service to low-income consumers,” the groups told the FCC. “If adopted, these proposals will disrupt successful aspects of the Lifeline program, hinder the ability of mobile wireless providers to offer services, and harm millions of low-income consumers who depend on Lifeline support.” By requiring that only mobile Lifeline plans offer unlimited voice minutes by December, “the Commission will substantially increase the prices that eligible low-income consumers must pay to connect with educational, health, occupational and public safety services, including 9-1-1, through mobile wireless voice services,” the groups said. No wireless carrier offers unlimited voice minutes for the $9.25 per month in support from the Lifeline program, they said. The FCC “will effectively reverse a long-standing policy against requiring co-payments and put Lifeline service out of reach from low- income consumers that lack the disposable income or banking capabilities to make a monthly payment,” the groups said. The FCC has tried to avoid flash cuts and disruption in reforming other parts of USF, the groups said. In contrast, “the Commission’s Lifeline reform approach will impose significant changes on low-income consumers by December of this year, with more significant changes each year for three years,” the groups said. An FCC spokesman earlier defended the agency’s approach. He said proposed minimum standards “are not phasing out voice from the Lifeline program, but rather are phasing in broadband as an essential element of any Lifeline service.”

AT&T said CLECs want the FCC to reregulate ILEC fiber-based ethernet services in addition to legacy copper-based “TDM” services, as part of its special access business broadband review. Ethernet regulation would require a new proceeding but still would make no sense, said an AT&T blog post Wednesday by Caroline Van Wie, assistant vice president-federal regulatory. Incompas, which represents CLECs, Sprint and others, said ethernet has been part of special access proceedings for years and incumbent telcos still have "market power" in dedicated connections to most business customers, justifying further regulation. The FCC had no comment.

AT&T said CLECs want the FCC to reregulate ILEC fiber-based ethernet services in addition to legacy copper-based “TDM” services, as part of its special access business broadband review. Ethernet regulation would require a new proceeding but still would make no sense, said an AT&T blog post Wednesday by Caroline Van Wie, assistant vice president-federal regulatory. Incompas, which represents CLECs, Sprint and others, said ethernet has been part of special access proceedings for years and incumbent telcos still have "market power" in dedicated connections to most business customers, justifying further regulation. The FCC had no comment.

Minus a condition requiring New Charter to join Incompas' proposed video programming purchasing cooperative, NTCA will oppose Charter Communications' planned buys of Bright House Networks and Time Warner Cable, CEO Shirley Bloomfield told FCC officials including General Counsel Jon Sallet and Owen Kendler, who's heading the agency's working team overseeing the deals' review. Such a cooperative would help offset the video market harms Incompas has previously pointed to (see 1601280047), Incompas CEO Chip Pickering said at the meeting, according to an ex parte filing Thursday in docket 15-149. A large multichannel video programming distributor like New Charter in the co-op would give it "the necessary scale to have an impact on programming prices to incent and enable small, competitive broadband providers to further invest in infrastructure," Pickering said. Rocket Fiber CEO Marc Hudson, also at the meeting, said the Detroit ISP has trouble securing video programming distribution rights, and without the proposed nonprofit co-op, it would have to sell video programming at break-even or a loss to compete with incumbent MVPDs. At the meeting, Incompas also proposed language for the New Charter co-op condition: that within three months of the close of the BHN and TWC takeovers, New Charter would enter into a memorandum of understanding about joining, and that it would join within six months of the close; and that New Charter would "participate in good faith as a member ... for no less than seven years." Charter didn't comment. In a separate ex parte filing Thursday in the docket, Charter recapped a meeting with Commissioner Ajit Pai Chief of Staff Matthew Berry, at which the company said it talked about the public interest benefits of the deals, including building out its base broadband speed of 60 Mbps without data caps throughout its larger footprint and building out a million line extensions.

Minus a condition requiring New Charter to join Incompas' proposed video programming purchasing cooperative, NTCA will oppose Charter Communications' planned buys of Bright House Networks and Time Warner Cable, CEO Shirley Bloomfield told FCC officials including General Counsel Jon Sallet and Owen Kendler, who's heading the agency's working team overseeing the deals' review. Such a cooperative would help offset the video market harms Incompas has previously pointed to (see 1601280047), Incompas CEO Chip Pickering said at the meeting, according to an ex parte filing Thursday in docket 15-149. A large multichannel video programming distributor like New Charter in the co-op would give it "the necessary scale to have an impact on programming prices to incent and enable small, competitive broadband providers to further invest in infrastructure," Pickering said. Rocket Fiber CEO Marc Hudson, also at the meeting, said the Detroit ISP has trouble securing video programming distribution rights, and without the proposed nonprofit co-op, it would have to sell video programming at break-even or a loss to compete with incumbent MVPDs. At the meeting, Incompas also proposed language for the New Charter co-op condition: that within three months of the close of the BHN and TWC takeovers, New Charter would enter into a memorandum of understanding about joining, and that it would join within six months of the close; and that New Charter would "participate in good faith as a member ... for no less than seven years." Charter didn't comment. In a separate ex parte filing Thursday in the docket, Charter recapped a meeting with Commissioner Ajit Pai Chief of Staff Matthew Berry, at which the company said it talked about the public interest benefits of the deals, including building out its base broadband speed of 60 Mbps without data caps throughout its larger footprint and building out a million line extensions.

A USTelecom request for ILEC relief continued to draw resistance from rivals and state commissions, and support from incumbent telcos, in reply comments posted this week in FCC docket 13-3. The battle lines were basically the same as in initial comments on USTelecom's 2013 petition asking the FCC for a declaratory ruling that incumbent telcos are nondominant in the provision of switched access voice services (see 1602230069). The FCC asked parties to refresh the record (see 1601210066). "ILECs remain dominant in the switched access marketplace, and USTelecom has been unable to offer sustainable evidence otherwise," said Incompas, representing CLECs and other ILEC competitors, urging the FCC to deny the petition. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and South Dakota regulatory commissions also said (here, here, here) USTelecom hadn't made the case for the requested relief. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission said it based its opposition on the data in the FCC's October 2014 local competition report, which "indicates that the ILEC provision of switched access service still remains a dominant service." The USTelecom petition is premature, it said. But USTelecom said no parties opposing its requests offered "any tangible or new evidence to dispute the overwhelming facts in the record clearly demonstrating that [ILECs] are not dominant in the provision of switched access voice services because they no longer possess sufficient power to control prices in that marketplace." USTelecom said it wasn't seeking blanket deregulation of those services. It wants ILECs to have the same rights as others to (1) file tariffs on one day's notice and without cost support, (2) face a 30-day (instead of 60-day) waiting period for discontinuance applications to be granted and (3) be eligible for presumptive streamlined treatment for more types of transfers of control under Section 214 of the Communications Act. It said the relief wouldn't affect special access services, wholesale obligations or forbearance decisions. AT&T said the current regulation imposes administrative costs and hurts dynamism by "inhibiting carriers' ability nimbly to adjust to changes in consumer demand in today's hypercompetitive marketplace." Alaska Communications also backed the petition.

USTelecom and Incompas jointly asked the FCC to allow parties to make public aggregated data derived from industry filings in the agency's special access business broadband rulemaking, which the commission has prohibited as confidential or highly confidential information subject to a protective order. USTelecom and some ILECs previously made such requests (see 1602230057 and 1601290053), but Incompas represents CLECs and wireless critics of the ILECs, giving the telco request broader backing. In a filing posted Monday in docket 05-25, USTelecom and Incompas want parties to be able to include in their public comments and filings “numerical, statistical, and graphical descriptions of data aggregated at the national level, including the presence of providers and their facilities,” with data allowed to be aggregated for industry segments such as ILECs, CLECs and cable, but not for single providers such as Level 3. They also asked that parties be able to make public such data aggregated at a regional level and for metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), states, or urban, suburban or rural areas, without identifying the particular MSAs, states, or areas. They asked that the data descriptions be allowed "at the national, regional, anonymized MSA or other anonymized location or circuit level concerning the adequacy and completeness of the data.” They provided examples for each of the categories listed, but said the list wasn't meant to be exhaustive and asked the FCC to confirm there may be other categories of nonconfidential aggregated data that could be filed in the public record. They also said the category lists were included only to clarify the requests, not to mean that either group was expressing a view as to their “relevance or probative value.” USTelecom further asked that the commission encourage all parties to review the redactions in their comments or filings "to remove any improper redactions of non-confidential information, consistent with the categories on the list (as those categories may be revised and approved by the FCC), and to resubmit those comments and filings into the public record" to inform the debate. The FCC had no comment.

USTelecom and Incompas jointly asked the FCC to allow parties to make public aggregated data derived from industry filings in the agency's special access business broadband rulemaking, which the commission has prohibited as confidential or highly confidential information subject to a protective order. USTelecom and some ILECs previously made such requests (see 1602230057 and 1601290053), but Incompas represents CLECs and wireless critics of the ILECs, giving the telco request broader backing. In a filing posted Monday in docket 05-25, USTelecom and Incompas want parties to be able to include in their public comments and filings “numerical, statistical, and graphical descriptions of data aggregated at the national level, including the presence of providers and their facilities,” with data allowed to be aggregated for industry segments such as ILECs, CLECs and cable, but not for single providers such as Level 3. They also asked that parties be able to make public such data aggregated at a regional level and for metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), states, or urban, suburban or rural areas, without identifying the particular MSAs, states, or areas. They asked that the data descriptions be allowed "at the national, regional, anonymized MSA or other anonymized location or circuit level concerning the adequacy and completeness of the data.” They provided examples for each of the categories listed, but said the list wasn't meant to be exhaustive and asked the FCC to confirm there may be other categories of nonconfidential aggregated data that could be filed in the public record. They also said the category lists were included only to clarify the requests, not to mean that either group was expressing a view as to their “relevance or probative value.” USTelecom further asked that the commission encourage all parties to review the redactions in their comments or filings "to remove any improper redactions of non-confidential information, consistent with the categories on the list (as those categories may be revised and approved by the FCC), and to resubmit those comments and filings into the public record" to inform the debate. The FCC had no comment.