TracFone resisted AT&T Lifeline proposals for the FCC to overhaul the USF support program for low-income consumers. TracFone opposed AT&T suggestions that carriers be removed from all Lifeline enrollment functions and that eligibility be initially tied solely to the federal food stamps program, which TracFone said would have a “devastating impact on Lifeline availability.” The comments came in a response posted Tuesday to a Nov. 23 AT&T filing flowing from an NPRM (see 1506180029). Other parties filing recently in docket 11-42 included the Cherokee Nation, Incompas, Lifeline Connects Coalition and Smith Bagley, with many comments addressing proposed minimum service standards for Lifeline broadband/voice coverage.

Pointing to entry into the mobile services market and better services for small and mid-sized businesses, Charter Communications is trying to shore up its public interest argument for its proposed purchases of Bright House Network and Time Warner Cable. But critics of the $89.1 billion pair of transactions continue to issue broadsides.

Pointing to entry into the mobile services market and better services for small and mid-sized businesses, Charter Communications is trying to shore up its public interest argument for its proposed purchases of Bright House Network and Time Warner Cable. But critics of the $89.1 billion pair of transactions continue to issue broadsides.

Incompas disputed AT&T arguments that the FCC must overcome high hurdles before revising policies on packet-based services, such as switched ethernet, in the special-access business market (see 1509290036). “There is no basis for AT&T’s arguments” because commission policies “have not engendered ‘serious reliance interests’” for ILECs “even for those services encompassed by the Commission’s grants of forbearance,” Incompas said in a letter posted Wednesday in docket 05-25. “Reversing forbearance from applying dominant carrier and other regulations to these services would not require that the Commission overcome unusually difficult administrative or legal obstacles.” The FCC’s forbearance grant doesn’t even apply to all incumbent telco packet-based special-access services, the group said. When the FCC in 2007 gave AT&T forbearance relief from various duties, it limited the deregulation to its "existing non-TDM-based, packet switched services capable of transmitting 200 kbps or greater in each direction," and "existing non-TDM-based, optical transmission services," said Incompas, which said other agency relief orders were also limited to existing services. At the time, AT&T offered "OPTical Ethernet Metropolitan Area Network" switched ethernet service in special-access tariffs, but in 2010 it introduced an upgraded service called "AT&T Switched Ethernet Service" (ASE) that was functionally different, Incompas said. The FCC forbearance relief thus didn't apply to ASE, said Incompas, which called for reviewing the regulatory treatment of other newer ILEC packet-based services. "Perhaps even more importantly, forbearance would not apply to any packet-based special access services that the incumbent LECs introduce in the future," the group said. "This fact puts the lie to any incumbent LEC claim that they are relying on the absence of regulation as a basis for making investment decisions for packet-based special access services to be introduced in the future." A "comprehensive reassessment" is in order, it said.

Broadband competition pushed by the FCC is spurring consumer online shopping, including over Black Friday, Small Business Saturday and Cyber Monday, said Incompas President Chip Pickering in a Medium post. More than 300 businesses have written the FCC “calling for more choice in broadband service by preserving and protecting common sense competition policy  -- both in the tech transitions and the special access proceeding,” he said. “Industry associations representing 150,000 gas stations and convenience stores and 70% of all the electricity providers powering homes and businesses also wrote to the FCC to ask that competition be enshrined for future networks.” Pickering said the FCC tech transitions order would “unleash investment and new ideas” from nonincumbent providers, "but challenges remain as lobbyists and lawyers from the largest incumbent providers threaten to pick that deal apart.” He also credited the FCC for moving ahead with the special-access rulemaking and an investigation “into egregious terms and conditions that lock up customers and lock out competition.”

Broadband competition pushed by the FCC is spurring consumer online shopping, including over Black Friday, Small Business Saturday and Cyber Monday, said Incompas President Chip Pickering in a Medium post. More than 300 businesses have written the FCC “calling for more choice in broadband service by preserving and protecting common sense competition policy  -- both in the tech transitions and the special access proceeding,” he said. “Industry associations representing 150,000 gas stations and convenience stores and 70% of all the electricity providers powering homes and businesses also wrote to the FCC to ask that competition be enshrined for future networks.” Pickering said the FCC tech transitions order would “unleash investment and new ideas” from nonincumbent providers, "but challenges remain as lobbyists and lawyers from the largest incumbent providers threaten to pick that deal apart.” He also credited the FCC for moving ahead with the special-access rulemaking and an investigation “into egregious terms and conditions that lock up customers and lock out competition.”

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.