Proponents, Critics Think Section 214 Changes May Be Coming
Consumer groups are optimistic the FCC is moving toward adding new hurdles before providers can retire copper phone lines, attorneys representing the groups told us. Some critics of the proposed change, including former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell and Free State Foundation President Randolph May, also said changes to Section 214 discontinuation rules may be coming, citing the commission’s controversial decisions on net neutrality (see 1502260043) and municipal broadband (see 1502260030). Those orders “do not bode well for a forward-thinking modernization approach to the IP transition,” McDowell told us Friday, as Monday’s deadline for reply comments in the IP transition rulemaking approached (see 1411210037). The rulemaking involves an array of issues, including setting requirements on backup battery power.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Meanwhile, competitive carriers and groups like Comptel were encouraged that the agency could impose new requirements on incumbents when retiring TDM that wholesale services competitors rely upon to reach customers. The November NPRM had tentatively concluded incumbents should be required to offer an “equivalent service” to competitors. Comptel Chief Advocate Angie Kronenberg on Friday cited Commissioner Mignon Clyburn’s endorsement at the organization’s Feb 24 Competition and Innovation Policy Summit of adopting the requirement “in the near term (see 1408190036).” Jennie Chandra, Windstream vice president-public policy and strategy, cited support for the "equivalent service" requirement in the initial comments from all but large incumbents. She cited backing of public interest groups, business and government customers, state commissions and competitive carriers.
The wholesale access issue is coming up after an industry source told us last week an agency tariff investigation is anticipated on the related issue of restricting incumbents’ long-term special access contracts (see 1503040038). An official for a telco involved in the issue told us Friday the company “believes the FCC is seriously considering opening a tariff investigation.” The agency had no comment.
The Section 214 changes proposed by Public Knowledge, the Benton Foundation and others would require the agency to incorporate “strong and comprehensive” metrics when it evaluates discontinuation applications. The agency would evaluate whatever technology is replacing the legacy infrastructure based on a number of criteria including call quality, network capacity under stress and service to 911 and public safety answering points, the groups said. It would require the commission to then find a solution on any shortcomings before authorizing the requirements. The idea drew strong opposition in USTelecom, AT&T and CenturyLink’s initial comments (see 1502060032). They didn't comment Friday.
The commission seems to be taking IP transition issues seriously “and is ready to step in to protect consumers where needed,” Public Knowledge Senior Staff Attorney Jodie Griffin told us. The November NPRM framed the Section 214 issue “very well,” Griffin said, in that it “agreed that the public would benefit from set criteria that everyone could use to evaluate potential replacement technologies.” That the commission issued the rulemaking notice at all is an encouraging sign the agency is looking seriously at the transition’s impact on consumers, said Amina Fazlullah, Benton Foundation policy director.
The broadband benchmark, net neutrality and municipal broadband orders don't necessarily predict the agency’s approach to the IP transition, Griffin and Fazlullah said, but they illustrate the commission’s concern about competition and consumer protection.
McDowell, now at Wiley Rein, emailed that raising the bar on “permission seeking related to the construction of new IP networks” is a “top-down regime [that] will impair investment." May emailed us he's "worried that the FCC's recent actions, especially in the net neutrality proceeding, but also in others like the special access docket" indicate the agency doesn't understand how regulations "affect the rate of investment in new facilities, services and technologies." The commission's Democratic majority "will accede to the views of Public Knowledge and Free Press on the key transition issues,” May predicted, saying “this won't be good for consumers."
An AT&T spokesman referred to company Senior Vice President-Federal Regulatory Bob Quinn’s November statement responding to the NPRM, saying the rulemaking should reflect that customers “are demanding higher speeds and more capacity,” and not get in the way of the “vibrant, competitive environment" that provides "robust, innovative options.” The company said in its initial comments the proposals would impose “unnecessary and unworkable obligations on carriers, requiring voluminous new regulatory filings, increasing costs, and decreasing incentives for investment and innovation.” The FCC should “stay focused” on creating a “minimal regulatory environment,” USTelecom had said in its initial comments.