USTelecom won't oppose motions to extend FCC comment dates on its petition for incumbent telco forbearance relief from discounted wholesale network-sharing obligations and related requirements, said a filing posted Tuesday in docket 18-141 on a discussion officials of the ILEC group, AT&T, CenturyLink and others had with Wireline Bureau Chief Kris Monteith and other staffers. Competitors, state regulators and consumer advocates asked the FCC to extend June 7 and June 22 deadlines for comments and replies by two to four months (see 1805210049). The U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy backed the previous requests for more time, and the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable asked for extensions to Sept. 5 and Oct. 5. USTelecom said its petition met FCC standards for being "complete as filed," contrary to arguments of Incompas and others seeking dismissal (see 1805110059). "We also assured staff of our readiness and willingness to submit additional confidential and proprietary data (subject to Protective Order), explanations of our data analyses, and other supporting evidence into the record, as the Commission deems necessary and appropriate," said the ILEC group. But Incompas and Windstream said USTelecom failed to include all necessary information. "Even with respect to any public data sources incorporated into USTelecom’s charts, commenters should not have to guess at the values of the actual data in the charts, nor should they have to guess," said a joint filing on a meeting with bureau staffers. "At minimum, the Commission should (1) direct USTelecom to file all the underlying data, including confidential data, (2) adopt a protective order, and (3) reset the comment dates to permit an adequate, 90-day comment period once the Petition is actually complete as filed and the ordinary process for clearing counsel and experts to access confidential materials has been completed."

More parties asked the FCC to extend comment deadlines or dismiss a USTelecom petition seeking incumbent telco forbearance relief from wholesale network-sharing and related requirements (see 1805040016). State regulatory commissions in California and Ohio, the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and Northwest Telecommunications Association (NTA) sought or supported comment date extensions in recent days. The Wholesale Voice Line Coalition backed Incompas requests to dismiss the petition or at least extend deadlines (see 1805110059).

Two telecom groups backed Incompas asking the FCC to delay the deadline for comments (see 1805090004) on USTelecom's wholesale forbearance petition (see 1805110059). The California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies seeks to have comments and oppositions due Aug. 6 and replies Sept. 5, while the Midwest Association of Competitive Communications backed the Incompas request, Caltel and MACC posted Monday in docket 18-141. The issues "are complex and require a detailed record that takes time to prepare," said MACC. Caltel said "that the Commission does not routinely grant extensions," but "they are warranted when, among other things, the additional time will serve the public interest." A USTelecom spokeswoman said "parties routinely ask for extensions." It’s time for the commission "to remove these obsolete regulations and put in place a modern framework that reflects today’s competitive broadband market,” she said. The FCC declined to comment Monday.

Incompas asked the FCC to dismiss USTelecom's wholesale forbearance petition, or at least provide more time for parties to file comments. “This 'competition cut off' petition should be stopped dead in its tracks," said Incompas CEO Chip Pickering in a release Friday. "It only benefits a handful of the biggest telecom companies, and hurts millions of small businesses that rely on affordable competitive broadband service." Incompas said it filed two motions on the USTelecom petition that seeks relief from "unbundled" network sharing discounts and other competition duties (see 1805040016). The first asked that the petition be dismissed because it isn't "complete-as-filed," since it relies on confidential data and purported interviews that weren't included, Incompas said. The second asks for an extension of the time for comments and replies, currently due June 7 and June 22 (see 1805090004). "The petition involves complex issues and, if granted, the impact would be widespread and detrimental to multiple parties and industries," Incompas said. "The Commission should gather necessary data to truly understand the market impact, provide access to data, and allow time for parties to provide economic analysis. The Commission also must engage in a thorough cost-benefit analysis." A USTelecom spokeswoman emailed: “These rules are harming competition and consumers, not helping. Today’s broadband market has evolved tremendously and is now extremely competitive. It’s time for all providers to pay their fair share if they choose to offer service. And it’s way past time for the Commission to modernize these regulations. Our petition lays out in a detailed and fact driven way why the Commission should do so.” The FCC didn't comment.

The FCC order rolling back net neutrality regulation takes effect June 11, the commission said Thursday, the day before official notice is to hit the Federal Register. Chairman Ajit Pai and allies hailed the coming change and critics decried it. Some expect broadband providers to be cautious in exercising their new regulatory freedoms in the market; others suggested FCC opponents could seek a stay and the commission would ask the Supreme Court to dismiss litigation over the previous FCC's Title II net neutrality decision under the Communications Act. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who is pushing a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution aimed at reversing the FCC's rescission order (Senate Joint Resolution-52), said the date announcement helps the cause.

The FCC order rolling back net neutrality regulation takes effect June 11, the commission said Thursday, the day before official notice is to hit the Federal Register. Chairman Ajit Pai and allies hailed the coming change and critics decried it. Some expect broadband providers to be cautious in exercising their new regulatory freedoms in the market; others suggested FCC opponents could seek a stay and the commission would ask the Supreme Court to dismiss litigation over the previous FCC's Title II net neutrality decision under the Communications Act. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who is pushing a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution aimed at reversing the FCC's rescission order (Senate Joint Resolution-52), said the date announcement helps the cause.

USTelecom asked the FCC to relieve incumbent telcos of "outdated" wholesale duties in the 1996 Telecommunications Act that "distort competition and investment decisions." The association asked the commission to forbear from applying "unbundling obligations, which require some ILECs ... to sell access to parts of their networks to certain competitors at extremely low rates set by regulators," blogged CEO Jonathan Spalter Friday: "Once the FCC forbears from these rules, consumers and the economy overall will benefit. A market analysis shows that consumer savings could reach $1 billion over the next ten years, and removing these regulatory handicaps could lead to more than $1.8 billion in new investment over the same timeframe, creating more than 6,000 jobs." Since the 1996 mandates were adopted, "there has been a staggering decline in ILEC switched access voice subscriptions, from 186 million in 2000 to a projected 35 million this year," said the petition. "In residential markets, only 11 percent of U.S. households are projected to have an ILEC switched voice line by the end of this year. Indeed, 60 percent of Americans will have abandoned wireline voice service entirely in favor of wireless alternatives. Of the remaining 40 percent, a majority will obtain service from a non-ILEC -- often a cable company or other provider of [VoIP]. There is also intense competition in the business data services marketplace. ... A regime that imposes special burdens on providers that hold a small and shrinking share of the market distorts competition, harms consumers, and simply makes no sense." USTelecom member Windstream is strongly opposed to the petition, said Kristi Moody, general counsel. “This is an attempt by large incumbent providers to improperly use their market position in an anti-competitive way, especially in light of their proposal for a mere 18-month period for competitive carriers to transition away from these crucial facilities," Moody said. “To be clear, if this petition is granted, less competition will result, and schools, hospitals, libraries, nonprofit organizations and small and medium-sized businesses will see their rates go up.” Incompas CEO Chip Pickering said in a statement: “Big telecom’s 'competition cut off' will freeze broadband deployment and burn consumers and small businesses with higher bills. Cutting off access and kicking the little guy where it hurts is a brazen move, and we urge the FCC to reject the measure outright. The facts are clear, where smaller competitors have access and are deploying new networks, big telecom incumbents are forced to upgrade their service and lower prices. USTA’s petition delays the future and will incentivize large incumbent telecom providers to raise rates on older, slower lines for much longer." The FCC didn't comment.

There were 14 comments filed on an FCC broadband ISP transparency rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a commission spokesman told us Monday. The Office of Management and Budget must approve the information collection requirements in the rule before the commission's "internet freedom" order repealing Title II net neutrality can take effect. OMB didn't comment. None of the almost two dozen trade groups and ISPs we queried acknowledged filing comments, but numerous parties said they didn't file: the American Cable Association, AT&T, Comcast, Competitive Carriers Association, Cox Communications, CTIA, Frontier Communications, Incompas, ITTA, Mediacom Communications, NCTA, NTCA, Sprint, US Cellular, USTelecom and Wireless ISP Association. Others didn't respond or had no comment.

There were 14 comments filed on an FCC broadband ISP transparency rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a commission spokesman told us Monday. The Office of Management and Budget must approve the information collection requirements in the rule before the commission's "internet freedom" order repealing Title II net neutrality can take effect. OMB didn't comment. None of the almost two dozen trade groups and ISPs we queried acknowledged filing comments, but numerous parties said they didn't file: the American Cable Association, AT&T, Comcast, Competitive Carriers Association, Cox Communications, CTIA, Frontier Communications, Incompas, ITTA, Mediacom Communications, NCTA, NTCA, Sprint, US Cellular, USTelecom and Wireless ISP Association. Others didn't respond or had no comment.

The FCC should "address barriers to both fiber and small cells," said an Incompas filing posted Monday in docket 17-79 on a meeting with Commissioner Brendan Carr. "The Commission should use its authority to establish guardrails around what are reasonable fees and timeframes, with an effective enforcement mechanism, for state and local government to act on licensing and franchise agreements to be in rights-of-way." Incompas CEO Chip Pickering and others urged the FCC "to quickly adopt a one-touch, make-ready (OTMR) process for pole attachments" as recommended by the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee. Reject incumbent provider proposals "that would gut the OTMR proposal, such as allowing them to escape their public policy obligations through private contracts, indemnification provisions for consequential or punitive damages, and allowing existing attachers to pre-select the contractors used," it said, citing letters from AT&T, the Communications Workers of America and NCTA. Pressing for access to multiple tenant environments (MTEs), Incompas sought consideration of "a new rulemaking proceeding that would prohibit practices that amount to an end-run around the Commission’s current rules," and said the agency should "encourage, rather than consider preemption of ... laws that promote competitive entry to MTEs, like Article 52 of the San Francisco Police Code."