Adam Bender

The FCC could grant forbearance to Verizon and Qwest without either Bell filing a me-too forbearance petition. Late Friday, the FCC sought comments on whether to give both carriers relief from cost-assignment rules requiring Bell companies to keep records that, among other tasks, separate interstate and intrastate costs. The FCC granted an AT&T forbearance on the subject in April (CD April 28 p5).

Don’t let Core Communications revamp its intercarrier compensation, AT&T, Verizon and six phone trade groups told a federal appeals court. In an intervening brief filed last week, they urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to deny Core’s appeal of an FCC order denying forbearance. The forbearance petition sought in effect to replace access charges with reciprocal compensation (CD July 27 p8). Oral argument is Oct. 7. In its brief, the phone group panned the Core appeal as “the latest in a long series of efforts by [Core] to promote its own short-term interest in regulatory arbitrage at the expense of rational, pro-competitive regulation.” Besides AT&T and Verizon, the brief was signed by the National Exchange Carrier Association, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, Nebraska Rural Independent Companies, Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies and Western Telecommunications Alliance. Core had no basis for seeking forbearance in the first place, said the intervenors. A carrier may ask for forbearance only from a regulation governing itself or a “class of telecommunications carriers” of which it’s a part, they said: “Core sought to impose a new set of regulations on other carriers… as a means of gaining competitive advantage.” Forbearance wouldn’t have given Core automatic relief, but create a “regulatory vacuum,” they said. Core’s petition “was, in substance, a request for new regulation, not a request for forbearance,” they said. Core didn’t comment. “Our reply brief is due on June 17, and we'll use that opportunity to address any issues raised by intervenors that merit a response,” said Michael Hazzard, the company’s lawyer. The forbearance appeal isn’t Core’s only case on ISP compensation. The D.C. Circuit also is weighing whether to grant a writ of mandamus forcing the FCC to clarify its ISP- bound traffic rules (CD May 6 p1). Reversing the forbearance order would give Core future relief only, whereas a mandamus could lead to retroactive relief.

The FCC should seek more comment on emergency calling issues for IP-based telecom relay services after it adopts a 10-digit numbering plan, said Sorenson Communications. In a meeting with the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau, Sorenson urged the FCC to “move forward to E911 as quickly as possible,” according to an ex parte. Sorenson raised several questions, including how interpreters should handle emergency calls and how to update location information. Commissioners will vote on an order and further notice of proposed rulemaking on the plan at the June 12 FCC meeting (CD June 6 p4). The order will require implementation of the plan by the end of 2008, while the further notice will ask about CPNI, slamming, cost recovery, E911 and related issues, said a lawyer close to the proceeding. The FCC aims to release an order on the further notice before fully implementing the 10- digit plan, the lawyer said.

FCC commissioners are unlikely to oppose a proposed order circulated on a 10-digit numbering plan for IP-based telecom relay services, said an industry source close to the proceeding. “The commission has a strong interest in making sure that the new 10-digit plan gets rolled out promptly,” the source said. It doesn’t seem that the commissioners will vote before the June 12 meeting at which the order is set for consideration, the person said. But an FCC source said an early vote is “certainly possible,” not only on the 10-digit plan but also on the other two wireline items set for the meeting. They include a proposed order to extend indefinitely FCC enforcement of the federal do-not-call list and a notice of proposed rulemaking about providing TRS speech-to-speech services. Of three 10-digit plan proposals, a pitch by AT&T and GoAmerica (CD June 2 p10) most closely resembles the draft. GoAmerica and the sources of the other two proposals, NeuStar and CSDVRS, are doing “heavy lobbying” -- but the commissioners and their staff “have been intentionally vague and not going into specifics” in meetings with industry, said another industry official close to the proceeding. That’s not unusual, the source said. “They need to be careful not to do anything that could derail their internal process.”

CompTel President Matt Salmon led more than a dozen competitive local exchange carrier CEOs into FCC headquarters Tuesday, urging commissioners Kevin Martin, Michael Copps, Jonathan Adelstein and Deborah Tate to deny a Qwest forbearance petition. They went to Capitol Hill a day later, meeting with 25 House and Senate members, mostly delegates from the CLECs’ service areas. The group included CEOs from Covad, EarthLink and 14 other companies. Qwest seeks relief from loop and transport unbundling rules in Denver, Phoenix, Seattle and Minneapolis (CD May 30 p7). Getting so many CLEC officials together in one room was like “herding cats,” Salmon said in an interview, but it impressed upon regulators how “robust” the CLEC industry is and how “very important” forbearance decisions are to its future. Qwest forbearance hasn’t gotten much attention from commissioners, he said. The group also urged commissioners to adopt forbearance procedural rules, but only received a “polite ear,” indicating FCC action isn’t “imminent,” Salmon said. The CompTel group didn’t meet with Commissioner Robert McDowell, who was out of town, he said. In the last two months, CLECs have submitted a plethora of studies they paid for on Qwest forbearance. It’s “been a good strategy,” but the companies don’t plan to submit more in the near term, Salmon said.

Rural wireless carriers made clear in reply comments on three Universal Service Fund rulemaking notices that the FCC could face legal challenge if it kills the identical-support rule. VoIP carriers and American Indian tribes, meanwhile, entered the debate over a USF overhaul, urging a broadband- specific fund. They had sat out an earlier comment round.

The FCC should “strongly reject the cable industry’s calls for protection,” and adopt an April 11 Enforcement Bureau recommended decision on customer-retention practices (CD April 15 p5), Verizon said in a letter to commissioners. Verizon submitted a CedMagazine.com article that it said included “candid statements” by Comcast. Quotes attributed to Mike Doyle, president of Comcast’s eastern region, “reveal that the position taken by the cable incumbents’ attorneys in this proceeding is not only incorrect and unsupported by the record evidence, it is belied by the cable providers’ own conduct and statements,” Verizon said. Doyle “makes clear” that “customers benefit from retention marketing,” that cable’s complaint “is designed to impose an artificial regulatory constraint on Verizon,” and that “competition to retain customers has everything to do with intense competition among communication service bundles, in which the cable incumbents enjoy significant market advantages,” Verizon said. Retention marketing to video customers differ from that in the phone realm due to the number porting process, said a Comcast spokeswoman. “They're doing this during a period where they control an essential piece of information that has no like context in the video world,” she said.

Five submarine cable operators urged the FCC to create a new regulatory fee category for submarine cable systems. The firms now are in the international bearer circuit category. The proposed SCS fee would cover systems linking international points for which the FCC has issued a separate cable landing license, said Level 3 and four other companies in comments on 2008 regulatory fee assessment and collection. FCC rules require that the agency annually collect regulatory fees for “costs associated with the Commission’s enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information, and international activities.” IBC regulatory fees for services sometimes exceed revenue, said Level 3, among the companies filing. The IBC fee “distorts the market by grossly overcharging high-capacity systems” and “discourages innovative submarine cable offerings,” the backhaul provider said. Fees must be updated to reflect industry changes, it said. The FCC still assesses submarine cable operators’ fees according to capacity though they haven’t had to ask the FCC for consent to add circuits since the 1996 Telecom Act, it said. To triple capacity, for example, Level 3 has to pay three times in regulatory fees, even though the FCC need do nothing more, it said. The five operators suggested the FCC split today’s IBC fee revenue requirement 50-50 between new IBC and SCS fees. To set each company’s SCS fee, the FCC would divide the revenue requirement by the number of payers, they said. The FCC should reduce submarine cable operators’ fees, but not at other companies’ expense, AT&T said. Changes to IBC fees “should not result in increased fees for other services or service providers,” it said. AT&T also claimed the current system has not handicapped the industry. “There is… no apparent adverse impact on industry growth from the existing fees, with Commission data showing a massive on- going expansion of U.S. submarine cable international circuit capacity, including substantial capacity increases by many private cable operators.”

The FCC probably will extend a deadline on an AT&T forbearance petition seeking relief from Automated Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS) requirements, an FCC official told us. The petition’s 12-month shot clock expires June 8, but forbearance rules let the FCC extend it 90 days. No order has been circulated, the official said. The commission usually circulates orders three weeks before the due date, which in this case would have been May 16. An extension wouldn’t be surprising because the FCC commonly extends forbearance deadlines, the source added.

A draft order on an FCC 10-digit numbering plan for IP relay services recommends a system proposed by AT&T and GoAmerica, FCC officials told us. The commissioners will vote on the order at the June 12 meeting. The draft recommends a single database of phone numbers and IP addresses, shared by all relay providers, an FCC source said. A neutral party would maintain the list, with access limited to relay providers, an official said. Commissioners’ offices are studying the draft, the official said. An alternate proposal by CSDVRS also recommended a central database, but on the open Internet for access by relay users, too. NeuStar recommended a multiple-database system in which relay providers have direct access to their customers’ addresses but must work with other relay providers to complete calls to those providers’ customers. It’s unclear whether the draft adopts any aspects of the NeuStar or CSDVRS proposals. The FCC discussed the industry proposals at an April workshop, and compromise seemed possible (CD May 1 p1). “We're pleased that the FCC is moving forward and will support any solution the FCC requires the providers to implement,” said GoAmerica President Ed Routhier. “It remains our position that it is a matter of public safety that any solution must be able to be implemented per the timeline provided by the FCC, and that the solution we jointly proposed with AT&T is the only solution capable of this. It appears the FCC shares this view.” NeuStar declined to comment. CSDVRS didn’t respond to a request for comment.