Attorneys general of 42 states said the FCC should adopt proposed rules for curbing spoofed robocalls. Commissioners approved the rulemaking 5-0 in February, implementing part of Ray Baum's Act (see 1902140039). Other commenters urged caution. “It is evident that the explosive growth of caller ID spoofing and robocalls is being driven primarily by scams,” the AGs replied, posted Monday in docket 18-335. Experts estimated by the end of 2018, U.S. consumers would have received 40 billion robocalls, the group said: “Unfortunately, the problem appears to have been even worse than predicted. The industry estimates that 47.8 billion robocalls were made in the U.S. in 2018, a 56.8 percent increase over 2017.” Incompas supported rules but urged the FCC to make sure they apply only to “illegitimate activity and instances of fraud without discriminating against legitimate uses and competition.” Competitive carriers offer “a wide range of legitimate use cases that are driven by consumer demands which must be considered both by the Commission and industry as the two aim to cooperatively develop solutions to the problems of illegal robocalls and malicious caller ID spoofing,” Incompas said. EZ Texting said the rules must be narrowly written to “target illegitimate spoofing while leaving legitimate caller ID modification intact.” In some legitimate cases, companies alter ID information, EZ Texting said. “Domestic violence shelters may need to alter their caller ID information to ensure the safety of domestic violence victims,” the company said: Ride-hailing services frequently use a “temporary phone number to facilitate communication between drivers and passengers, while protecting drivers and passengers from further contact after the ride has finished.”

A group including Dish Network, small carriers, public interest and consumer groups and labor unions sent a letter to DOJ Antitrust Division Chief Makan Delrahim Thursday asking the department to block the T-Mobile/Sprint deal. T-Mobile and Sprint, meanwhile, had a key meeting at the DOJ Thursday to discuss their proposed transaction, industry officials said. “If allowed to proceed, this transaction would consolidate the nation’s wireless market from four to just three carriers, lead to price increases for virtually all wireless customers, substantially raise wholesale rates for smaller wireless carriers, and cause significant job losses -- all while failing to deliver the promised benefits of accelerated 5G deployment or expanded rural coverage,” the letter argues. “The parties have had more than 11 months to make a convincing argument that their deal is in the public interest and that it will not harm competition. To date, they have failed to make this case.” Among those signing on are the AFL-CIO, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, Consumer Reports, The Greenlining Institute, Incompas, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Next Century Cities, the Open Markets Institute, Public Knowledge, the Rural Wireless Association and the Wireless ISP Association. The companies didn't comment. "An honest review of the facts clearly shows that this merger is in the best interest of American consumers -- the New T-Mobile will deliver the nation’s best 5G network, create more competition and drive jobs growth," A T-Mobile spokesperson said in response: "This opposition group is clearly focused on maintaining a status quo that benefits them, instead of truly improving things for consumers. We are confident the transaction will be judged on its merits."

A group including Dish Network, small carriers, public interest and consumer groups and labor unions sent a letter to DOJ Antitrust Division Chief Makan Delrahim Thursday asking the department to block the T-Mobile/Sprint deal. T-Mobile and Sprint, meanwhile, had a key meeting at the DOJ Thursday to discuss their proposed transaction, industry officials said. “If allowed to proceed, this transaction would consolidate the nation’s wireless market from four to just three carriers, lead to price increases for virtually all wireless customers, substantially raise wholesale rates for smaller wireless carriers, and cause significant job losses -- all while failing to deliver the promised benefits of accelerated 5G deployment or expanded rural coverage,” the letter argues. “The parties have had more than 11 months to make a convincing argument that their deal is in the public interest and that it will not harm competition. To date, they have failed to make this case.” Among those signing on are the AFL-CIO, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, Consumer Reports, The Greenlining Institute, Incompas, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Next Century Cities, the Open Markets Institute, Public Knowledge, the Rural Wireless Association and the Wireless ISP Association. The companies didn't comment. "An honest review of the facts clearly shows that this merger is in the best interest of American consumers -- the New T-Mobile will deliver the nation’s best 5G network, create more competition and drive jobs growth," A T-Mobile spokesperson said in response: "This opposition group is clearly focused on maintaining a status quo that benefits them, instead of truly improving things for consumers. We are confident the transaction will be judged on its merits."

Incompas objected to incorporating any party's highly confidential and confidential business data services information collected in BDS proceedings into the USTelecom forbearance petition proceeding. Tuesday was the deadline for lodging an objection (see 1904030061). “Doing so would be inconsistent with and undermine the Commission’s forbearance rules, and would violate basic principles of procedural fairness,” Incompas said in a Tuesday posting in docket 18-141. “Allowing this additional data to be used in support of the Petition would violate the ‘complete-as-filed’ rule. … USTelecom could have proposed a modification of the BDS Protective Order at the time it filed its petition, but did not do so, even though it bore the burden of production.”

The FCC approved a process for sharing in the upper 37 GHz band, despite complaints from Commissioners Mike O’Rielly, Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks (see 1904100071). The two Democrats partially dissented. Chairman Ajit Pai, meanwhile, announced that the 37, 39 and 47 GHz auction will start Dec. 10 -- the FCC's third high-band auction. Commissioners approved a public notice on rules for the auction amid complaints by Rosenworcel and O’Rielly. Agency members also approved telecom and cable items.

The Save the Internet Act net neutrality bill (HR-1644) remains likely to clear a Tuesday House Communications Subcommittee markup but by a potentially narrow margin, lobbyists told us. All sides of the net neutrality policy debate say the more dramatic aspect they will monitor is whether enough House Communications Democrats end up supporting an expected set of GOP-sponsored amendments aimed at altering the bill’s intent. The markup is to begin at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.

The Save the Internet Act net neutrality bill (HR-1644) remains likely to clear a Tuesday House Communications Subcommittee markup but by a potentially narrow margin, lobbyists told us. All sides of the net neutrality policy debate say the more dramatic aspect they will monitor is whether enough House Communications Democrats end up supporting an expected set of GOP-sponsored amendments aimed at altering the bill’s intent. The markup is to begin at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.

CLECs urged the FCC to deny ILECs relief from an "avoided-cost resale requirement," at least for TDM-based phone service over copper loops, as USTelecom requested in a forbearance petition targeting Telecom Act wholesale network-sharing duties. USTelecom hasn't met its burden to demonstrate that the public and competition "will be advantaged by forbearance from that requirement," and a Dec. 28 AT&T letter "provides no basis for the Commission to conclude otherwise," filed Granite Telecommunications, Manhattan Telecommunications and AccessOne, posted Thursday in docket 18-141. They derided "baseless" AT&T arguments attempting "to explain away the inadequacy" of petition information and data by asserting the FCC need not analyze relevant TDM service geographic and product markets, where ILECs have "substantial and persisting market power." WorldNet discussed its opposition to the petition as applied to Puerto Rico, it filed, posted Friday, on meetings CEO David Bogaty and others had with Commissioners Geoffrey Starks and Mike O'Rielly, their aides, aides to other commissioners and Wireline Bureau staffers. Incompas said a Feb. 21 AT&T letter and a Feb. 27 USTelecom letter "further demonstrate that USTelecom’s original Petition fails to meet the basic procedural requirement that forbearance petitions must be complete as-filed." The FCC should grant a petition dismissal motion of Incompas and others, filed the CLEC group, posted Thursday. USTelecom and members "discussed publicly available data and data in the record" supporting its "request for a finding that Section 251(c) unbundling and resale mandates are no longer necessary," filed the ILEC group on meeting an aide to Chairman Ajit Pai. The data "demonstrate significant competition for voice and broadband service for consumers and businesses."

The FCC should end price caps on large telco business data service transport, incumbents said in replies posted through Tuesday on a Further NPRM proposal. A 2017 commission decision to end such ex-ante regulation, remanded by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for lack of notice, "was backed by strong evidence and a rational policy choice," replied USTelecom and ITTA in docket 17-144. "Nothing in the record of the current proceeding should alter the Commission’s prior conclusion." AT&T said no party disputes "key facts" showing BDS transport competition was "essentially ubiquitous" in price-cap regions as of 2013 -- even with cable deployment understated -- and it cited "substantial" competitor investments since then. "Reversing course at this juncture would upset industry expectations, disrupt carriers and their customers, and strain the overall [BDS] regulatory framework," said Verizon. In initial opposition (see 1902110027), Incompas and Sprint "just recite arguments" the FCC rejected in 2017, said CenturyLink: "These parties appear to have forgotten that the Eighth Circuit denied all the CLECs’ substantive challenges to the BDS Order and remanded that order solely to cure a single procedural error. ... Given that court decision, the Commission’s key findings in the BDS Order are on even firmer ground today." The 8th Circuit's substantive affirmation of the 2017 order "is in many ways the end of the inquiry," said Frontier Communications. As USTelecom and ITTA said previously, the "FNPRM leaves RLECs wishing to elect price cap regulation for their transport elements in limbo," said NTCA. It backed an "ITTA/USTelecom recommendation that the same policy considerations that the Commission found justified moving price cap carriers’ TDM transport services to incentive regulation equally apply to RLECs’ TDM transport services."

The FCC should end price caps on large telco business data service transport, incumbents said in replies posted through Tuesday on a Further NPRM proposal. A 2017 commission decision to end such ex-ante regulation, remanded by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for lack of notice, "was backed by strong evidence and a rational policy choice," replied USTelecom and ITTA in docket 17-144. "Nothing in the record of the current proceeding should alter the Commission’s prior conclusion." AT&T said no party disputes "key facts" showing BDS transport competition was "essentially ubiquitous" in price-cap regions as of 2013 -- even with cable deployment understated -- and it cited "substantial" competitor investments since then. "Reversing course at this juncture would upset industry expectations, disrupt carriers and their customers, and strain the overall [BDS] regulatory framework," said Verizon. In initial opposition (see 1902110027), Incompas and Sprint "just recite arguments" the FCC rejected in 2017, said CenturyLink: "These parties appear to have forgotten that the Eighth Circuit denied all the CLECs’ substantive challenges to the BDS Order and remanded that order solely to cure a single procedural error. ... Given that court decision, the Commission’s key findings in the BDS Order are on even firmer ground today." The 8th Circuit's substantive affirmation of the 2017 order "is in many ways the end of the inquiry," said Frontier Communications. As USTelecom and ITTA said previously, the "FNPRM leaves RLECs wishing to elect price cap regulation for their transport elements in limbo," said NTCA. It backed an "ITTA/USTelecom recommendation that the same policy considerations that the Commission found justified moving price cap carriers’ TDM transport services to incentive regulation equally apply to RLECs’ TDM transport services."