There seem to be many legal issues with the...

sufficiently adhere to the Telecom Act of 1996, he said. The FCC isn’t authorized to support a service (broadband) that it refuses to designate as a telecom service, he said. The cost model is the “brains behind the broadband plan” but it doesn’t yet exist, causing a great deal of uncertainty and making it hard to evaluate the merits of the program, he said. Consumer advocates aren’t in favor of impeding progress with unnecessary litigation but “if we determine that consumers are being harmed, we will consider legal challenges,” he said. The mandated broadband speeds would be too challenging for some companies while, and in the long term, insufficient for growing bandwidth needs, he said. Additionally, $4.5 billion as a total for all high-cost support, including new broadband subsidies, may not be sufficient to meet the broadband needs, he said. The real cost could be far higher, according to some analysts. But consumer advocates aren’t yet able to project the right number, Jortner said. The intercarrier compensation parts of the order would “artificially” remove a cost of doing business (use of incumbent’s networks) and leave revenue holes to be filled by rate increases, he said. The order also “unlawfully” preempts state jurisdiction of interstate access, he said. The order would increase prices for ILEC customers just as ILECs are losing customers to competitors, he said. Access recovery charge is “unnecessary and deceptive,” he said. The order also fails to address the downside of IP networks, he said.