The FCC faces no shortage of opinions on how best to move forward with its reform of the Rural Health Care Program, as telecom associations, healthcare providers and states offered suggestions in comments in docket 02-60 last week. Groups widely supported the program, and discussed the importance of exercising fiscal responsibility, but differed on whether the funds should be used for infrastructure buildout. Proposed reporting requirements also attracted disagreement.
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell will continue to push for USF contribution reform, though he still has an “open mind” about steps to take next, he said in an interview. McDowell has long championed taking on the contribution side of USF (CD Jan 9 p1). The FCC approved an order in October addressing the distribution side of USF and an order on the USF’s Lifeline program in January. In May, the FCC released a 182-page further notice of proposed rulemaking on contribution reform.
Representatives of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association discussed “ongoing concerns” on the “transparency, accuracy, and predictability of regression analysis-based caps on universal service fund support,” in a meeting with aides to Commissioners Robert McDowell, Ajit Pai and Jessica Rosenworcel. “NTCA raised the need to address these issues consistent with the Applications for Review filed by NTCA and many others,” the group said in an ex parte filing (http://xrl.us/bnmn8d). “NTCA further asserted that the Commission’s broadband policy objectives can only be achieved through clear and well-tested ‘business rules’ that provide sufficient support and enable company managers to predict with a reasonable degree of certainty what investments and operations will be recoverable (or unrecoverable) through USF support prospectively. NTCA explained that many of the necessary and appropriate changes can be achieved in short order without affecting USF ‘budgetary’ objectives or creating any technical or administrative concerns, and expressed commitment to working with the Commission to address these issues."
In the last two years, he has perhaps submitted more comments to the FCC than any other party. He has chimed in on dozens of dockets, from media ownership to USF. He has no law degree or experience in working in the telecom industry. So far this month, he has submitted more than 300 comments.
The National Public Safety Telecom Council began a working group to explore questions raised by public safety’s pending loss of the T-band, which was part of the February spectrum law. Public safety got the 700 MHz D-block in the legislation, but had to give up the T-band, heavily used in 11 major metropolitan areas. NPSTC sent out a questionnaire (http://xrl.us/bnkk2a) to gather information as the group prepares a report, targeted for release near the end of the year. Among the major cities where public safety uses the band are Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, New York, Houston and Washington, D.C. The legislation required public safety users to clear the band within nine years so it can be resold in an FCC auction.
Comments filed on USF contribution reform show little agreement and point to the need for more discussion, Verizon and Verizon Wireless said in FCC reply comments. That conclusion was seconded by many companies and groups filing replies this week. Though many suggested short-term fixes, most agreed there is little consensus to move to a numbers-based or connections-based approach.
More than 650 telecom providers signed a letter to commissioners “to ensure” the FCC and Congress “have clear and unambiguous notice of our collective concerns with the ‘regression analysis'-based caps” on USF support (http://xrl.us/bngrm9). A NTCA spokeswoman said the letter was an industry-wide effort in which several national and state associations, other groups and individual members “all reached out collectively to raise the visibility of this issue among policy makers in Washington.” The commission has received eight waiver petitions dealing with support reductions, of which one has been granted interim relief, a spokesman said. The commission also got two expedited waiver petitions dealing with boundary data, which it granted.
Of the dozens of comments filed this week in response to the FCC’s rulemaking on USF contribution reform, there was little agreement about whether to stick with a revenue-based system for assessing contribution fees, to move to a system that uses connections or numbers, or even whether to assess fees on broadband service. The only universal sentiment that might be teased out of the plethora of comments filed is that, as AT&T put it, the current system is “dysfunctional.” Carriers differed, but generally supported a modified revenue-based system, while VoIP providers preferred a connections-based system.
The FCC’s plans for special access reform became a prominent issue during a House Communications Subcommittee hearing Tuesday where members queried the commissioners on a broad spectrum of regulatory issues. Chairman Julius Genachowski conceded that the current framework for special access is “not working” but said the commission lacks the necessary data to determine how exactly it should be reformed.
Special access reform and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s initial push for a vote on an order rejecting AT&T and Windstream pricing flexibility petitions are expected to be key areas for questions July 10 when commissioners are scheduled to appear before the House Communications Subcommittee for an oversight hearing. Other likely topics include USF/intercarrier compensation reform, progress on a voluntary incentive auction of broadcast spectrum and other spectrum issues, the Verizon Wireless/cable AWS deals and privacy regulations, said government and industry officials.