The FCC’s waiver process for USF and intercarrier...

Coalition, an alliance of rural telecom and broadband providers. Since the 2011 USF/ICC order, many impacted parties have filed petitions for waiver with limited or no relief, Alexicon said. The waiver process doesn’t give affected carriers an effective avenue to address shortfalls in the new rules, it said. “As a matter of good public policy, the FCC should have aimed for a net zero change in regulatory burden between the pre- and post-ICC/USF Transformation worlds,” Alexicon said: A decrease in funding would be OK if accompanied by a decrease in regulatory obligations, for instance. “This plainly has not happened,” the consultant said. A review of the waiver requests reveals that “the process is expensive, untimely, and in general not working properly,” Alexicon said. For example, it said, the Texas companies that sought waivers “met the substantial burden” required to file, but had their requests dismissed in a single order because of the existence of alternative remedies through a state process (CD May 1 p8). The Wireline Bureau “moved the goal posts,” Alexicon said, because nothing in the USF/ICC order mentioned seeking state relief as a prerequisite for obtaining a waiver of FCC rules. Alexicon urged the commission to “reconsider the rules causing the most harm” instead of relying on “an untested waiver process” that has an “ever-changing set of requirements."