The chairman of the FCC, regardless of who won Tuesday’s election, would have had to act on some big telecom issues, from pending follow ups to USF orders to preparing for an incentive auction of broadcast spectrum, government and industry officials said. The difference likely will come on merger policy and on what other issues the next chairman decides to target, as well as the issues Julius Genachowski takes on in his remaining time as chairman, with a Democratic FCC more likely to impose regulation on at least a few fronts.
Change is on the way at the FCC, with Chairman Julius Genachowski widely expected to step down some time next year after nearly four years in the job. Change won’t be nearly as sweeping as what would have followed a Mitt Romney victory and the likely reversal of several key Obama administration policy calls, starting with 2010 net neutrality rules, government and industry officials told us Wednesday.
State and local advocates cautiously praised Tuesday election results and President Barack Obama’s victory. Local governments will face major considerations involving municipal broadband, USF reform and FirstNet, they told us in interviews. “We're pleased to see that team continue,” said Joanne Hovis, president of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors board. She referred to officials in the Department of Commerce, Agriculture and at the White House. She praised American Recovery and Reinvestment Act initiatives and focus on broadband as “really successful” and a “credit” to the administration. NATOA doesn’t foresee another recovery bill but is happy with the administration’s overall direction of national communications policy, she said.
State utility commissioner elections saw widespread Republican victories Tuesday. There were 16 Republican wins, 10 featuring incumbents, and three Democratic wins. That includes three Montana Republicans, who maintain leads but weren’t formally declared as of Wednesday afternoon. Four Republicans ran unopposed, as did a Democrat.
The Texas Public Utility Commission is pleased with how its state USF fund has operated in the last year, according to a report submitted to the Texas Legislature Thursday. The USF fund is “fulfilling the fund’s purposes” and “the Commission’s rulemakings and contested cases being conducted regarding the Large and Small Company High Cost programs will result in continued decreased costs for those programs,” the PUC said (http://xrl.us/bnxn8e). The Thursday report discusses the 11 programs the fund supports as well as talks about the process of determination eligible telecom providers and gives a history surrounding the fund, it said. A 2011 Texas Senate bill requires the PUC to evaluate the USF fund, it said. Programs that receive funding include Texas’s high-cost universal service initiative for big companies as well as for small and rural ILECs, Lifeline, Relay Texas and IntraLATA. Its disbursement in fiscal year 2011 was $426 million, a decline over the past half decade, according to a chart in the report. In fiscal year 2011, “disbursements from the Large Company Area High Cost Program accounted for 63 percent of the fund’s total disbursements,” the report said. “Disbursements from the Small Company Area High Cost Program to providers serving the small ILEC study areas accounted for 19 percent of the fund’s total.” The nine remaining programs comprise 17 percent, or $77 million, of disbursements, it said.
Nov. 5 Practising Law Institute “talk like a geek” webcast, 9 a.m. -- http://xrl.us/bnudjr
New York is moving forward with its state USF talks in the form of litigation. The New York State Public Service Commission adopted its $17 million fund in August and tried to move forward with Phase III talks in September, but ran into stumbling blocks in the weeks since (CD Oct 18 p11). Phase III issues include intrastate access charges and the New York Targeted Accessibility Fund, the PSC has said. Administrative Law Judge Howard Jack scheduled a Nov. 27 procedural conference for Phase III litigation, according to a Thursday ruling (http://xrl.us/bnxf3r). Several stakeholders had argued in a joint letter they could discuss and resolve pending issues but AT&T disagreed and demanded litigation in late October, the ruling said. There’s no consensus because AT&T and Sprint are “the two biggest proponents of access reform,” as the telco told Jack. “I believe the interests expressed by both the Signatories and AT&T can be accommodated,” he said. “It is not clear right now, in advance of the procedural conference, what specific issues and procedural steps Phase III litigation will entail, including the extent to which evidentiary hearings might be included.” All parties are free to negotiate toward a joint proposal on Phase III issues in the coming weeks, the ruling said.
Verizon critiqued the Colorado Public Utilities Commission proposal to deregulate telecom. The telco wants to say Internet Protocol-enabled and interconnected VoIP service is “exempt from regulation” rather than “deregulated telecommunications services,” a document exhibit submitted Wednesday said (http://bit.ly/Sf4gFO). It said Colorado customers who come to the PUC with complaints should be notified of FCC complaint procedures, not assisted by the PUC in “resolving complaints regarding service quality or billing disputes with the appropriate provider,” as the PUC deregulation proposal’s original language said. Various Colorado stakeholders submitted their statements of positions to the PUC in briefs in late October. These briefs, including from Comcast, AT&T, PUC staff, CenturyLink’s Qwest, the Colorado Office of the Consumer Counsel and the Colorado Telecom Association, discuss the broader move toward deregulation the PUC initiated earlier this fall (CD Sept 21 p10). These parties have been debating the best way to reduce Colorado’s high-cost USF support and the proper way to regulate IP services.
Verizon’s access recovery charge (ARC) computation and allocation in its July 2012 tariff filing “follows the Commission’s rules,” the California Public Utilities Commission told the FCC Monday (http://xrl.us/bnw87f). The CPUC argued that the FCC should deny the Pennsylvania PUC petition for a ruling that Verizon’s actions violate the commission’s rules against rate discrimination (CD Oct 1 p21). The rules are meant to “confer flexibility to carriers” by letting them allocate ARCs at the holding company level, and to “exercise their own business judgment” in order to ensure rates remain affordable, CPUC said. These allocation decisions let carriers “recover lost intercarrier compensation revenues from their own customers to the greatest extend possible, thus limiting the potential drain” on the USF, CPUC said. “The fact that these rules have caused frustration and a sense of unfairness is regrettable; however, the CPUC objects to the direction of this frustration towards the residential customers of California. The CPUC does not agree that the Commission should revise Verizon’s rates in California simply because Pennsylvania (or D.C., for that matter) is unhappy with its rates.”
The Competitive Carriers Association asked FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to seek comment on how wireless carriers can use unclaimed funding from Phase I of the Connect America Fund. “Wireless carriers offer the best opportunity to bring much needed broadband services to unserved and underserved areas, and it only makes sense for the FCC to consider proposals from wireless carriers,” said CCA President Steve Berry. “Many of our members are ready and willing to build out these networks, but depend on USF support in order to do so. Wireless remains underfunded, and this could be an opportunity for the FCC to provide significant support for the services consumers want most."