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.

The FCC asked a court to remand a business data service investigation case in which AT&T is challenging a 2016 order that found certain incumbent telco BDS tariff provisions were unlawful (see 1604280057). In its statement of issues to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, AT&T had said the order is contrary to the court's 2006 BellSouth v. FCC ruling that vacated a previous commission tariff order. "The Order on review did not address BellSouth," said an FCC motion for voluntary remand Tuesday in AT&T v. FCC, No. 16-1166. "Because that case, like the Order on review, addresses the lawfulness of BDS tariff terms, the Commission believes that it would be appropriate to consider the extent to which the reasoning in the Order is compatible with the BellSouth decision." The FCC said DOJ and intervenor CenturyLink consent to its motion; intervenors Sprint and Incompas are studying it; intervenor Ad Hoc Telecommunications Committee doesn't consent; and the agency discussed the motion with a counsel to intervenor Level 3 but the company didn't respond. Sprint, Incompas, Ad Hoc and Level 3 didn't comment Wednesday.

The FCC asked a court to remand a business data service investigation case in which AT&T is challenging a 2016 order that found certain incumbent telco BDS tariff provisions were unlawful (see 1604280057). In its statement of issues to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, AT&T had said the order is contrary to the court's 2006 BellSouth v. FCC ruling that vacated a previous commission tariff order. "The Order on review did not address BellSouth," said an FCC motion for voluntary remand Tuesday in AT&T v. FCC, No. 16-1166. "Because that case, like the Order on review, addresses the lawfulness of BDS tariff terms, the Commission believes that it would be appropriate to consider the extent to which the reasoning in the Order is compatible with the BellSouth decision." The FCC said DOJ and intervenor CenturyLink consent to its motion; intervenors Sprint and Incompas are studying it; intervenor Ad Hoc Telecommunications Committee doesn't consent; and the agency discussed the motion with a counsel to intervenor Level 3 but the company didn't respond. Sprint, Incompas, Ad Hoc and Level 3 didn't comment Wednesday.

The nomination of Jessica Rosenworcel to return to the FCC as a commissioner (see 1706140065) could provide additional impetus for Commissioner Mignon Clyburn to announce her eventual retirement from the agency, industry officials said. Clyburn has been under some pressure from opponents of Chairman Ajit Pai’s deregulatory agenda to step down in July after her term expires this month to leave the FCC without a quorum (see 1704140061). Clyburn has had little to say on the topic and gave no indication she will leave soon. Clyburn spoke to the Voices for Internet Freedom Public Forum in Atlanta Tuesday night in defense of the 2015 net neutrality rules.

The nomination of Jessica Rosenworcel to return to the FCC as a commissioner (see 1706140065) could provide additional impetus for Commissioner Mignon Clyburn to announce her eventual retirement from the agency, industry officials said. Clyburn has been under some pressure from opponents of Chairman Ajit Pai’s deregulatory agenda to step down in July after her term expires this month to leave the FCC without a quorum (see 1704140061). Clyburn has had little to say on the topic and gave no indication she will leave soon. Clyburn spoke to the Voices for Internet Freedom Public Forum in Atlanta Tuesday night in defense of the 2015 net neutrality rules.

Building and real-estate groups backed a bid for FCC pre-emption of a San Francisco code that requires multi-tenant buildings to allow occupants to request access to competing communications service providers (see 1612150006). Initial comments "overwhelmingly support" the petition of the Multifamily Broadband Council to pre-empt Article 52 of the San Francisco Police Code, which "conflicts with federal law, will impede broadband deployment and infrastructure investment in multiple dwelling units ('MDUs') and will increase prices and reduce service quality for MDU residents," replied the National Multifamily Housing Council. Most replies were posted Friday and Monday in docket 17-91. Initial comments (see 1705190040) showed Article 52 "will harm competition, MDU residents, and building owners in San Francisco" by stripping "providers of the ability to secure financing for broadband deployment," replied MBC. Others filing replies backing the petition were: Alliance Residential; Camden Property Trust, Essex Property Trust; InfoSmart Partners and Converged Service Partners; Mill Creek Residential Trust; Sares Regis Group, Sequoia Equities and RealtyCom Partners; and a group of 24 apartment owners. San Francisco replied that the advocates of the petition largely ignored that it concerns whether federal law and FCC regulations pre-empt Article 52: "While many of the proponents ask the Commission to find that Article 52 'conflicts' with federal law and Commission policy, they provide scant legal analysis and nothing supporting such a finding. Rather, they urge the Commission to find that the policy reasons for adopting Article 52 are misguided and that San Francisco’s law, while intended to foster competition, 'discourages competition' and 'infrastructure investment' in [MDUs]. ... What is clear from the proponents’ comments is that they like the status quo." Industry providers and property owners backing the petition want the FCC "to allow them to continue to operate under the exclusive access agreements they have enjoyed," San Francisco said. Also filing replies in opposition to the petition were Boston, Fiber Broadband Association and Incompas. Article 52 is a "pro-competitive, barrier-removing local ordinance, with a now-proven track record for helping providers gain access" to MDUs, Incompas replied. FCC members tentatively plan to vote June 22 on a notice of inquiry that would seek comment on ways to improve competitive broadband access in multi-tenant buildings (see 1706010049).

Building and real-estate groups backed a bid for FCC pre-emption of a San Francisco code that requires multi-tenant buildings to allow occupants to request access to competing communications service providers (see 1612150006). Initial comments "overwhelmingly support" the petition of the Multifamily Broadband Council to pre-empt Article 52 of the San Francisco Police Code, which "conflicts with federal law, will impede broadband deployment and infrastructure investment in multiple dwelling units ('MDUs') and will increase prices and reduce service quality for MDU residents," replied the National Multifamily Housing Council. Most replies were posted Friday and Monday in docket 17-91. Initial comments (see 1705190040) showed Article 52 "will harm competition, MDU residents, and building owners in San Francisco" by stripping "providers of the ability to secure financing for broadband deployment," replied MBC. Others filing replies backing the petition were: Alliance Residential; Camden Property Trust, Essex Property Trust; InfoSmart Partners and Converged Service Partners; Mill Creek Residential Trust; Sares Regis Group, Sequoia Equities and RealtyCom Partners; and a group of 24 apartment owners. San Francisco replied that the advocates of the petition largely ignored that it concerns whether federal law and FCC regulations pre-empt Article 52: "While many of the proponents ask the Commission to find that Article 52 'conflicts' with federal law and Commission policy, they provide scant legal analysis and nothing supporting such a finding. Rather, they urge the Commission to find that the policy reasons for adopting Article 52 are misguided and that San Francisco’s law, while intended to foster competition, 'discourages competition' and 'infrastructure investment' in [MDUs]. ... What is clear from the proponents’ comments is that they like the status quo." Industry providers and property owners backing the petition want the FCC "to allow them to continue to operate under the exclusive access agreements they have enjoyed," San Francisco said. Also filing replies in opposition to the petition were Boston, Fiber Broadband Association and Incompas. Article 52 is a "pro-competitive, barrier-removing local ordinance, with a now-proven track record for helping providers gain access" to MDUs, Incompas replied. FCC members tentatively plan to vote June 22 on a notice of inquiry that would seek comment on ways to improve competitive broadband access in multi-tenant buildings (see 1706010049).

The FCC listed counties deemed “competitive” in the lower-speed business data services market and subject to price deregulation under the commission’s April BDS order. The agency released the list Monday. Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Incompas called for its release before commissioners' vote last month (see 1704100068); the FCC proposed releasing it in an April 28 notice (see 1705010019). Incompas is "shocked by the number of counties, including several rural counties, targeted by the FCC for broadband price hikes," emailed the CLEC association's General Counsel Angie Kronenberg. Incompas is still studying the list, "but it is apparent now why the FCC wanted to withhold this information from the public and Congress until after the BDS vote," she said.

The FCC listed counties deemed “competitive” in the lower-speed business data services market and subject to price deregulation under the commission’s April BDS order. The agency released the list Monday. Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Incompas called for its release before commissioners' vote last month (see 1704100068); the FCC proposed releasing it in an April 28 notice (see 1705010019). Incompas is "shocked by the number of counties, including several rural counties, targeted by the FCC for broadband price hikes," emailed the CLEC association's General Counsel Angie Kronenberg. Incompas is still studying the list, "but it is apparent now why the FCC wanted to withhold this information from the public and Congress until after the BDS vote," she said.

FARMINGTON, Pa. -- Critics of an FCC plan to roll back Title II net neutrality regulation believe the agency will struggle to justify reversing its 2015 broadband reclassification so soon after it was upheld in court. They believe little has changed since 2015 to explain a reversal other than pure politics.