FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is proposing ILECs receive significant forbearance relief, a senior agency official said Tuesday. Wheeler circulated a draft order granting several aspects of a USTelecom petition in docket 14-192 asking the commission to stop applying various regulations to the regional Bells and other local incumbents, the staffer said. Included is relief from certain wholesale obligations that Granite Telecommunications has said are key for competitors serving multioffice businesses in many areas (see 1511120031). The petition is due for a decision by Jan. 4. Wheeler is putting the draft order on the tentative agenda for the FCC’s Dec. 17 meeting, the staffer said.

Sprint and two carrier groups urged the FCC not to extend comment dates again in the special-access rulemaking, as requested by USTelecom and ITTA (see 1511100068). "This request amounts to yet another transparent, groundless attempt to delay action in this important rulemaking,” Sprint said in opposition filed in docket 05-25 Thursday. It said the FCC should “promptly reject this request and thereby send an unambiguous message that it is committed to moving this proceeding to an expedited conclusion.” Incompas, joined by the Competitive Carriers Association, noted the incumbent telco request came less than two weeks after the commission largely granted a previous ILEC request by extending comment and reply deadlines to Jan. 6 and Feb. 5. “This time, the incumbents ask that the deadlines be delayed until 12 weeks from the time when the data set is ‘stable’ and all 'remaining impediments' to analyzing the data are removed,” Incompas and CCA said in their opposition. “The incumbent LECs have failed to show that the newly-established pleading cycle ... deprives interested parties of a reasonable opportunity to participate in this rulemaking.” Incompas and CCA disputed the ILECs’ “tired” and “implausible claim” that proceeding delays were the fault of competitors that have been seeking a new special-access framework for a decade. “Of course, it is the incumbent LECs, not the competitive LECs, that have a powerful incentive to delay the resolution of this proceeding since every extra day of delay is one more day of unreasonably high special access service profits for the incumbent LECs,” said the two competitive carrier groups. They said their members “must pay those high prices" and thus want to complete the proceeding as soon as possible. Sprint said the delays were “directly traceable to the actions of USTelecom’s members,” noting CenturyLink and Verizon filed “corrective” data submissions. Sprint, Incompas and CCA countered the USTelecom/ITTA arguments that an extension was needed to analyze the complex industry data collected by the FCC, with the competitive groups saying an ILEC expert’s declaration “exaggerates the problems with the data and the impact that these issues will have on the parties' ability to conduct a timely analysis.”

Sprint and two carrier groups urged the FCC not to extend comment dates again in the special-access rulemaking, as requested by USTelecom and ITTA (see 1511100068). "This request amounts to yet another transparent, groundless attempt to delay action in this important rulemaking,” Sprint said in opposition filed in docket 05-25 Thursday. It said the FCC should “promptly reject this request and thereby send an unambiguous message that it is committed to moving this proceeding to an expedited conclusion.” Incompas, joined by the Competitive Carriers Association, noted the incumbent telco request came less than two weeks after the commission largely granted a previous ILEC request by extending comment and reply deadlines to Jan. 6 and Feb. 5. “This time, the incumbents ask that the deadlines be delayed until 12 weeks from the time when the data set is ‘stable’ and all 'remaining impediments' to analyzing the data are removed,” Incompas and CCA said in their opposition. “The incumbent LECs have failed to show that the newly-established pleading cycle ... deprives interested parties of a reasonable opportunity to participate in this rulemaking.” Incompas and CCA disputed the ILECs’ “tired” and “implausible claim” that proceeding delays were the fault of competitors that have been seeking a new special-access framework for a decade. “Of course, it is the incumbent LECs, not the competitive LECs, that have a powerful incentive to delay the resolution of this proceeding since every extra day of delay is one more day of unreasonably high special access service profits for the incumbent LECs,” said the two competitive carrier groups. They said their members “must pay those high prices" and thus want to complete the proceeding as soon as possible. Sprint said the delays were “directly traceable to the actions of USTelecom’s members,” noting CenturyLink and Verizon filed “corrective” data submissions. Sprint, Incompas and CCA countered the USTelecom/ITTA arguments that an extension was needed to analyze the complex industry data collected by the FCC, with the competitive groups saying an ILEC expert’s declaration “exaggerates the problems with the data and the impact that these issues will have on the parties' ability to conduct a timely analysis.”

USTelecom filed a legal challenge to the FCC IP technology transition decisions adopted in August that were intended to safeguard competition and consumers as telcos switch from copper-based traditional services to IP-based services over fiber networks (see 1508060044). USTelecom filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1414) against FCC orders that grew out of a 2014 FCC NPRM, declaratory ruling and subsequent USTelecom petition for reconsideration. "In the Order and Order on Reconsideration, the Commission not only denied USTelecom's petition for reconsideration of the Declaratory Ruling, but also took a number of final actions in the rulemaking it initiated in the Notice, including: adopting new rules governing the retirement of copper facilities; declaring that a carrier must seek Commission approval under § 214(a) if a change in its service will cause a wholesale customer of that carrier to discontinue, reduce, or impair its own retail service offerings; and adopting a new rule under which it will condition its approval of § 214(a) applications for certain services on the applicant's provision of a reasonably comparable, wholesale Internet Protocol service, on reasonably comparable rates, terms, and conditions," USTelecom said. Incompas General Counsel Angie Kronenberg emailed us Monday: “First, the Bells tried lobbyists. Now they will try the lawyers, but they cannot fight the future. Competition is the answer, and it’s driving new networks.” Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld emailed us: "This is not unexpected. USTA and its members have made their opposition to the FCC's order fairly clear. We believe the FCC acted entirely within the scope of its authority and in a manner reasonably calculated to protect and advance the pro-consumer and pro-competition goals of the Act -- and that the court will ultimately affirm the Commission." FCC spokesmen had no immediate comment.

USTelecom filed a legal challenge to the FCC IP technology transition decisions adopted in August that were intended to safeguard competition and consumers as telcos switch from copper-based traditional services to IP-based services over fiber networks (see 1508060044). USTelecom filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1414) against FCC orders that grew out of a 2014 FCC NPRM, declaratory ruling and subsequent USTelecom petition for reconsideration. "In the Order and Order on Reconsideration, the Commission not only denied USTelecom's petition for reconsideration of the Declaratory Ruling, but also took a number of final actions in the rulemaking it initiated in the Notice, including: adopting new rules governing the retirement of copper facilities; declaring that a carrier must seek Commission approval under § 214(a) if a change in its service will cause a wholesale customer of that carrier to discontinue, reduce, or impair its own retail service offerings; and adopting a new rule under which it will condition its approval of § 214(a) applications for certain services on the applicant's provision of a reasonably comparable, wholesale Internet Protocol service, on reasonably comparable rates, terms, and conditions," USTelecom said. Incompas General Counsel Angie Kronenberg emailed us Monday: “First, the Bells tried lobbyists. Now they will try the lawyers, but they cannot fight the future. Competition is the answer, and it’s driving new networks.” Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld emailed us: "This is not unexpected. USTA and its members have made their opposition to the FCC's order fairly clear. We believe the FCC acted entirely within the scope of its authority and in a manner reasonably calculated to protect and advance the pro-consumer and pro-competition goals of the Act -- and that the court will ultimately affirm the Commission." FCC spokesmen had no immediate comment.

From breaking out the cost of renting a cable modem on customers' bills to making any conditions indefinite, opponents of Charter Communications buying Bright House Networks and Time Warner Cable put multiple proposed conditions before the FCC by the Thursday deadline for replies or responses to opposition. Parties argued in comments posted Friday in docket 15-149 for conditions to govern New Charter activities if the $89.1 billion pair of deals were to go through. Multiple Charter/TWC/BHN filings urged outright, unconditional opposition, often pointing to possible injury to online video distribution (OVD). "The single biggest barrier to providing video services is obtaining access to reasonably priced programming, followed by competing with other providers," NTCA said in its filing. "This merger will exacerbate both of these significant competitive issues."

From breaking out the cost of renting a cable modem on customers' bills to making any conditions indefinite, opponents of Charter Communications buying Bright House Networks and Time Warner Cable put multiple proposed conditions before the FCC by the Thursday deadline for replies or responses to opposition. Parties argued in comments posted Friday in docket 15-149 for conditions to govern New Charter activities if the $89.1 billion pair of deals were to go through. Multiple Charter/TWC/BHN filings urged outright, unconditional opposition, often pointing to possible injury to online video distribution (OVD). "The single biggest barrier to providing video services is obtaining access to reasonably priced programming, followed by competing with other providers," NTCA said in its filing. "This merger will exacerbate both of these significant competitive issues."

Senior senators from multiple committees are gearing up to advance the spectrum draft legislation that Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., began circulating Friday. He told us Tuesday that he is enlisting aid from other committees, including that of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and, as expected, plans a Commerce Committee markup of the wide-ranging spectrum package before Thanksgiving (see 1511090051).

AT&T updated a blog post in response to the concerns of Gigi Sohn, counselor to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. In the original blog Tuesday (see 1511030066), which suggested the commission’s special-access tariff investigation and broader rulemaking could undermine broadband investment, AT&T Senior Vice President Bob Quinn took note of Sohn's reported comments “at a recent CLEC gathering exhorting the crowd to apply ‘the same kind of consumer activism that helped drive the Open Internet rule changes earlier this year -- including pickets at [Chairman] Wheeler’s home and the White House.’” In the updated blog Wednesday, Quinn said Sohn objected to the use of the word “exhort” in characterizing her comment at an Incompas conference. “Out of respect to Ms. Sohn’s concerns, we removed the word ‘exhort’ from the blog," Quinn said. "It doesn’t change any of the analysis, however. We’re still not rocket scientists, and we still see where this is headed. And it’s not good for private investment.” Sohn had no comment Thursday. Her Incompas comments addressed Wheeler’s overall agenda to promote competition (see 1510200052).

AT&T updated a blog post in response to the concerns of Gigi Sohn, counselor to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. In the original blog Tuesday (see 1511030066), which suggested the commission’s special-access tariff investigation and broader rulemaking could undermine broadband investment, AT&T Senior Vice President Bob Quinn took note of Sohn's reported comments “at a recent CLEC gathering exhorting the crowd to apply ‘the same kind of consumer activism that helped drive the Open Internet rule changes earlier this year -- including pickets at [Chairman] Wheeler’s home and the White House.’” In the updated blog Wednesday, Quinn said Sohn objected to the use of the word “exhort” in characterizing her comment at an Incompas conference. “Out of respect to Ms. Sohn’s concerns, we removed the word ‘exhort’ from the blog," Quinn said. "It doesn’t change any of the analysis, however. We’re still not rocket scientists, and we still see where this is headed. And it’s not good for private investment.” Sohn had no comment Thursday. Her Incompas comments addressed Wheeler’s overall agenda to promote competition (see 1510200052).