FCC staff rejected a request for a regulatory stay of a business data service order, said a spokesman Monday, referring to a Wireline Bureau denial. Critics of the deregulatory BDS order that filed the request had said they would take FCC inaction as of June 30 as a denial. Last Monday, they filed for a court stay (see 1707050032), and Friday, they pressed the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit, which is reviewing an AT&T challenge to a 2016 BDS tariff investigation order. Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee, BT Americas, Granite Telecommunications, Incompas, Windstream and Sprint disputed opposition arguments of the FCC, Citizens Telecommunications and CenturyLink: that the two cases are unrelated, that the D.C. Circuit will dismiss (or remand) the AT&T tariff case, and Citizens' justification for 8th Circuit review. "The BDS Rate Order and BDS Tariff Order are as related as two agency decisions possibly can be," the critics replied (in Pacer) in Citizens Telecommunications v. FCC, No. 17-2296. "The Court should decline the opposing parties' invitation to prejudge the merits of the motions pending before the D.C. Circuit. And Citizens' explanation of why it chose to proceed in the Eighth Circuit merely reveals its motivation in this appeal: forum shopping."

Critics of the FCC's deregulatory business data service (BDS) order asked for a court stay after the agency declined to act on their request for regulatory relief (see 1706260054 and 1707030046). Windstream, BT Americas, Incompas and the Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee filed their stay motion (available here) Monday in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was selected by lottery to hear challenges to the order (Citizens Telecommunications v. FCC, No. 17-2296 and consolidated cases). The FCC Friday and Citizens and CenturyLink Monday filed oppositions (here and here in Pacer) to a recent request -- by the stay movants plus Granite Telecommunications and Sprint -- that the 8th Circuit transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit.

Critics of the FCC's deregulatory business data service (BDS) order asked for a court stay after the agency declined to act on their request for regulatory relief (see 1706260054 and 1707030046). Windstream, BT Americas, Incompas and the Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee filed their stay motion (available here) Monday in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was selected by lottery to hear challenges to the order (Citizens Telecommunications v. FCC, No. 17-2296 and consolidated cases). The FCC Friday and Citizens and CenturyLink Monday filed oppositions (here and here in Pacer) to a recent request -- by the stay movants plus Granite Telecommunications and Sprint -- that the 8th Circuit transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit.

The FCC didn't act by Friday on a request to stay its recent business data service order, said an agency spokesman Monday. He said the issue remains under consideration. Windstream, BT Americas, Incompas and the Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee had asked the commission to act by June 30 or they would consider inaction a denial (see 1706260054). The FCC rarely grants such requests, but parties are required to seek regulatory relief before asking courts for a stay. Challenges to the deregulatory order are before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Various parties asked that the case be transferred to the D.C. Circuit.

The FCC didn't act by Friday on a request to stay its recent business data service order, said an agency spokesman Monday. He said the issue remains under consideration. Windstream, BT Americas, Incompas and the Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee had asked the commission to act by June 30 or they would consider inaction a denial (see 1706260054). The FCC rarely grants such requests, but parties are required to seek regulatory relief before asking courts for a stay. Challenges to the deregulatory order are before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Various parties asked that the case be transferred to the D.C. Circuit.

Critics asked the FCC to stay its recent deregulatory business data service order (see 1704200020), and said they would treat inaction by Friday as denial. The record shows incumbent telcos are the only facilities-based provider in 86 percent of buildings with total bandwidth demand of 50 Mbps or less "because it is almost never economically feasible to build a new last-mile connection" in such situations, said a joint stay motion posted Monday in docket 16-143 by Windstream, BT Americas, Incompas and the Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee. They said competitors must buy last-mile connections from the ILEC to compete, and also often must buy dedicated BDS transport from ILECs. The FCC traditionally used price-cap regulation to control rates, but new leadership "abruptly changed course without seeking further comment" and "adopted results-driven new rules divorced from well-established market analysis principles, precedent and" the previous commission's 2016 proposals, said the motion. ILECs will be allowed to detariff Aug. 1 "and to replace discontinued BDS with higher-cost alternatives, creating the prospect of enormous disruption and uncertainty as the industry migrates to a new paradigm of Commission indifference to competition," said the groups, arguing they met the requirements for a stay: "Moreover, a stay would not harm the ILECs, and instead would avoid massive and permanent losses that would be unrecoverable in the event of reversal." The FCC, stay movants and ILECs didn't comment. The FCC rarely approves such requests, leaving critics to seek court action. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was recently chosen by lottery to hear challenges to the BDS order (see 1706160022), but Incompas and Sprint said Friday they would ask that court to transfer that case to the D.C. Circuit, which has before it an AT&T challenge to a 2016 BDS tariff investigation order. Incompas and Sprint opposed an FCC motion the D.C. Circuit remand the tariff case to the agency (see 1706260015).

Incompas and Sprint opposed an FCC motion that a court remand business data service tariff litigation in which AT&T is challenging a 2016 agency order that found certain incumbent telco BDS tariff provisions unlawful (see 1706140012). Granting the commission's request, which cited a 2006 BellSouth v. FCC ruling, "would needlessly delay resolution of a case" affecting much of the telecom industry, said the two intervenors in their opposition (in Pacer) Friday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in AT&T v. FCC, No. 16-1166. Incompas and Sprint also said they intend to ask the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to transfer separate challenges to the FCC's recent deregulatory BDS order to the D.C. Circuit "so that both cases may be heard by the same panel." Windstream and others asked the FCC to stay that BDS order (see 1706260054). In their opposition, Incompas and Sprint noted the FCC's 2016 tariff investigation order required AT&T and other major ILECs to remove from their pricing plans "unjust and unreasonable" contract provisions, including "all-or-nothing" terms and some volume-shortfall and early-termination penalties. They said voluntary remand is usually granted when there's new evidence or a new event that may affect the validity of agency actions. "None of those circumstances has occurred here," said their opposition. "Instead, the Commission asks -- without confessing error -- for remand to consider an eleven-year-old case that ... is not relevant." Meanwhile, the FCC Friday in a status report (in Pacer) asked the D.C. Circuit to continue to hold in abeyance a USTelecom case challenging an interim technology transitions wholesale access rule that will expire with the implementation of new special access (BDS) rules, which were adopted in April and most of which take effect Aug. 1 (see 1706020060). In USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1414, the telco group also is challenging the previous FCC's interpretation of Communications Act Section 214, which the current commission proposed to reverse in a recent wireline broadband deployment NPRM that drew many comments this month (see 1706160041).

Incompas and Sprint opposed an FCC motion that a court remand business data service tariff litigation in which AT&T is challenging a 2016 agency order that found certain incumbent telco BDS tariff provisions unlawful (see 1706140012). Granting the commission's request, which cited a 2006 BellSouth v. FCC ruling, "would needlessly delay resolution of a case" affecting much of the telecom industry, said the two intervenors in their opposition (in Pacer) Friday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in AT&T v. FCC, No. 16-1166. Incompas and Sprint also said they intend to ask the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to transfer separate challenges to the FCC's recent deregulatory BDS order to the D.C. Circuit "so that both cases may be heard by the same panel." Windstream and others asked the FCC to stay that BDS order (see 1706260054). In their opposition, Incompas and Sprint noted the FCC's 2016 tariff investigation order required AT&T and other major ILECs to remove from their pricing plans "unjust and unreasonable" contract provisions, including "all-or-nothing" terms and some volume-shortfall and early-termination penalties. They said voluntary remand is usually granted when there's new evidence or a new event that may affect the validity of agency actions. "None of those circumstances has occurred here," said their opposition. "Instead, the Commission asks -- without confessing error -- for remand to consider an eleven-year-old case that ... is not relevant." Meanwhile, the FCC Friday in a status report (in Pacer) asked the D.C. Circuit to continue to hold in abeyance a USTelecom case challenging an interim technology transitions wholesale access rule that will expire with the implementation of new special access (BDS) rules, which were adopted in April and most of which take effect Aug. 1 (see 1706020060). In USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1414, the telco group also is challenging the previous FCC's interpretation of Communications Act Section 214, which the current commission proposed to reverse in a recent wireline broadband deployment NPRM that drew many comments this month (see 1706160041).

Critics asked the FCC to stay its recent deregulatory business data service order (see 1704200020), and said they would treat inaction by Friday as denial. The record shows incumbent telcos are the only facilities-based provider in 86 percent of buildings with total bandwidth demand of 50 Mbps or less "because it is almost never economically feasible to build a new last-mile connection" in such situations, said a joint stay motion posted Monday in docket 16-143 by Windstream, BT Americas, Incompas and the Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee. They said competitors must buy last-mile connections from the ILEC to compete, and also often must buy dedicated BDS transport from ILECs. The FCC traditionally used price-cap regulation to control rates, but new leadership "abruptly changed course without seeking further comment" and "adopted results-driven new rules divorced from well-established market analysis principles, precedent and" the previous commission's 2016 proposals, said the motion. ILECs will be allowed to detariff Aug. 1 "and to replace discontinued BDS with higher-cost alternatives, creating the prospect of enormous disruption and uncertainty as the industry migrates to a new paradigm of Commission indifference to competition," said the groups, arguing they met the requirements for a stay: "Moreover, a stay would not harm the ILECs, and instead would avoid massive and permanent losses that would be unrecoverable in the event of reversal." The FCC, stay movants and ILECs didn't comment. The FCC rarely approves such requests, leaving critics to seek court action. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was recently chosen by lottery to hear challenges to the BDS order (see 1706160022), but Incompas and Sprint said Friday they would ask that court to transfer that case to the D.C. Circuit, which has before it an AT&T challenge to a 2016 BDS tariff investigation order. Incompas and Sprint opposed an FCC motion the D.C. Circuit remand the tariff case to the agency (see 1706260015).

FCC efforts to spur wireline broadband advances sparked a strong response, as scores of parties submitted a wide range of views on a rulemaking notice and related items aimed at removing barriers to fiber network deployment. Telecom, cable and fiber providers generally supported the commission's direction, backing steps to ease pole attachments. Incumbent telcos also sought reduced copper-retirement regulation, but CLECs and consumer and labor groups opposed relaxation. Numerous localities and some state interests opposed possible FCC pre-emption of their oversight, and the electric utility industry objected to any heavy-handed pole-attachment intervention, though some supported "one-touch, make-ready" (OTMR) changes if properly conditioned.