There is "no good reason" for the FCC to switch local number portability administrators, but a transition “will be costly and could have dire consequences,” officials from the current LNPA, Neustar, told FCC Chief of Staff Ruth Milkman and Chairman Tom Wheeler’s wireline aide Daniel Alvarez, said an ex parte filing posted Tuesday in docket 09-109. Porting would be delayed, calls wouldn't complete, and identifying the cause of the malfunctions will be “time-consuming and leave customers with impaired service,” said Neustar CEO Lisa Hook, Len Kennedy, general counsel, and Scott Deutchman, deputy general counsel, at the Thursday meeting. "Neustar's argument is that it is too entrenched to be replaced -- even though it failed to offer a competitive bid," said Wiltshire Grannis telecom lawyer John Nakahata, who represents Telcordia. Telcordia was recommended to receive the LNPA contract. "Competitive bidding -- which Neustar once endorsed -- requires changing the incumbent when they lose. It is time for the FCC to finish the selection process and honor the results of competitive bidding, to the benefit of consumers and service providers."

Opposition to forbearing from provisions of Title II reveals that the “end game" of broadband reclassification proponents is not to pass rules to ensure an open Internet, "but regulation for regulations sake,” Verizon said in a letter to the FCC, posted Tuesday in docket 14-28. The provisions from which Title II proponents are willing to forbear are “not forbearance at all, or would involve forbearance from only those provisions of little practical consequence,” the letter said. Repeating its opposition to reclassification, Verizon said even “extensive” forbearance” wouldn't solve “the intractable legal problem” that neither the Communications Act nor the Constitution allows the agency to impose common carrier obligations on broadband providers, Verizon said. Title II proponents would “inevitably" also challenge the commission’s forbearance decisions, creating “investment-chilling uncertainty over the scope of future regulation, particularly given the inevitable propensity for regulatory creep,” Verizon said. Approving reclassification at the commission’s Feb. 26 meeting, but delaying forbearance decisions, would only be a “hollow promise of potential forbearance, of uncertain scope, at some uncertain future time,” the company said. “Separate forbearance proceedings would likely take years,” Verizon said, and “would be especially dangerous for the market because the possibility of legacy Title II regulations would hang over the entire industry like Damocles’ sword suspended by a single hair.” Separately, the American Cable Association urged the commission in a letter to the agency made available to us Tuesday to exempt small- and medium-sized broadband providers from any additional transparency requirements. Smaller ISPs “do not have the incentive or ability to engage in unreasonable or discriminatory practices, much less anti-competitive acts, which harm consumers and edge providers,” ACA said in the letter, which hadn't been posted by the FCC by our deadline. Additional disclosure requirements would “not only add untenable burdens on these ISPs, but provide no corresponding benefits for consumers or edge providers,” ACA said. Edge providers “have been shown to possess sufficient tools to alert them to whether an ISP is prioritizing its own content or discriminating against unaffiliated content. These parties have not hesitated to publicize suspected violations widely on the Internet,” the letter said. Consumer Watchdog urged the commission in a letter posted Tuesday not to forbear from 14 Title II sections, particularly Section 222. That section “is perhaps the most important provision from a consumer’s perspective,” the group said. “It was explicitly put in place so that telephone companies could not exploit their copper networks to impact people’s privacy. This vital protection should exist related to private information secured from digital networks.”

The FCC plans to fine Advanced Tel of Simi Valley, California, $1.6 million for failing to make required payments to USF and other federal telecom programs, the Enforcement Bureau said in a news release Monday. “All phone companies are required to participate in universal access programs so that consumers everywhere have access to critical telecommunications services,” Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc said. “Service providers who flagrantly avoid these responsibilities damage these programs and the public interest, and we demonstrate today that we will hold them accountable.” The carrier did not make payments to USF and the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund, as well as the Local Number Portability Administration, and federal regulatory fees, the release said. Advanced Tel did not immediately comment.

Verizon agreed to a $5 million settlement with the FCC to resolve an inquiry into whether the company failed to investigate low answer rates in 26 rural areas around the country, the Enforcement Bureau said Monday. Verizon will pay a $2 million fine and commit to spend $3 million over the next three years to improve rural call completion, an agency news release said. Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc said, “Phone companies are on notice that the FCC will hold them accountable for failures to investigate and ensure that calls go through to the rural heartland of the country.” Verizon failed to investigate evidence of low completion rates “over a period of many months” in 2013, the release said. Verizon said in a statement that its networks are “highly reliable and successfully complete calls to all destinations -- including rural areas.” The company has been working with the agency and rural partners to analyze and test the completion of phone calls in rural areas, the company said. The consent decree puts in place a formal plan to do the analysis. The settlement "is an important reminder that rural areas like Vermont deserve equal access to quality communications services," said Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., in a statement. "Vermonters rightly expect that when they pick up the phone, their calls will go through." Improving rural call completion rests on providers tracking "whether calls are completing and to investigate why calls may be failing," said NTCA CEO Shirley Bloomfield in a statement, applauding the enforcement action.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler “has made it clear” that his agenda is to increase the benchmark for broadband deployment to 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload, and then use the higher standard to “justify reclassification of broadband under Title II” of the Communications Act and pre-empt state laws posing obstacles to municipal broadband, said TechFreedom President Berin Szoka in a letter to the agency, posted Friday in docket 14-28. Wheeler may also use a finding that broadband is not being deployed sufficiently under the higher standards to “justify blocking (or at least heavily conditioning)" Comcast's planned buy of Time Warner Cable, Szoka said. The FCC is expected to approve an annual report on the progress of broadband deployment, which calls for the higher standards, as well as issue a notice of inquiry on how to increase deployment at its Jan. 29 meeting (see 1501070046). Pre-emption from municipal broadband laws will be taken up at the Feb. 26 meeting (see 1501140048). Concern that the higher speeds will be used to justify other steps was also reflected in a letter from NCTA to the commission, also posted in the docket Friday. The commission “should make it clear,” as it has in previous Broadband Progress Reports, that the speed benchmark “has no regulatory significance," NCTA said. Attempting "to graft this reporting benchmark onto other contexts -- e.g., determining support levels under the Connect America Fund ... or deciding which entities should be subject to open Internet rules -- would present inevitable tensions given the divergent legal standards and regulatory objectives at play,” NCTA said. Increasing the benchmark from 4 Mbps download/1 Mbps isn't legally or factually supportable, the letter said, and there's "no basis in the record" to justify using that standard to evaluate whether broadband is being deployed in a "'reasonable and timely'" fashion. The agency didn't comment.

USTelecom’s petition asking the FCC to reconsider a Nov. 25 declaratory ruling (see 1411210037) widening requirements for getting agency permission before discontinuing services should be denied, Comptel said in a filing submitted at Friday’s deadline for oppositions. Communications Act Section 214 bars carriers from discontinuing, reducing or impairing service to a community without obtaining a certificate from the commission that there will not be adverse impacts, Comptel said. The declaratory ruling clarified that the services requiring approval when they are being discontinued are not limited to whether they're included in tariff filings, and that a community's views are relevant.USTelecom argued an NPRM should have been issued because the law already was clear that “service” is defined by the terms of a tariff or contracts. Comptel disagreed, saying the definition was clear and argued the commission was allowed to clarify the law through the ruling. For instance, Comptel said, Verizon has said that shifting from copper to fixed wireless IP voice service may not support fax machines, credit card machines, some medical alert devices and some alarm systems. Verizon has said the change “does not constitute a discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of a service if those services/functionalities are not specifically listed as a supported service/functionality in its tariff," Comptel said. Verizon did not comment Friday. USTelecom's petition for recon called the declaratory ruling’s new definition of service “impermissibly vague," and said that "instead of terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty, it creates unnecessary confusion.” As a result, “providers are unable to gauge what services or aspects of their products or services might require a section 214 filing to discontinue or grandfather,” USTelcom said. “We don’t think providers should be required to preserve unknown features and unintended functionalities of their legacy services when transitioning to IP networks," said USTelecom Senior Vice President-Law and Policy Jonathan Banks in a statement to us Friday. Consumers should be informed about service changes, but the commission should "focus more on educating consumer about the advantages that new service offerings will provide," he said. "With adequate information to inform their choices, we believe the vast majority of consumers will welcome the transition to IP networks." If consumers still have concerns, Banks said, the commission should "work with providers to resolve issues as they arise, rather than add unnecessary hurdles that will delay or impede transition.”

The FCC should avoid the costs and delays of switching local number portability administrators by awarding the contract to current LNPA Neustar, Blair Levin, representing the company, told commission Chief of Staff Ruth Milkman and adviser Daniel Alvarez Jan. 15, said an ex parte filing posted Wednesday in docket 09-109. The agency should do an independent analysis of the potential risks of changing companies before making a decision, said Levin. He was chief of staff to then-FCC Chairman Reed Hundt. He has advised Neustar over the past year but the Jan. 15 meeting was the first time he had met with the agency, emailed Levin. The services Telcordia, selected to win the contract, would deliver “will have the same functionality as the current system and users will see no changes to business rules, processes or porting times,” Telcordia CEO Richard Jacowleff said in a statement to us. “This is just one more reason why the FCC should complete the selection soon, so that all parties can begin implementation. If appointed as the next LNPA, we look forward to working will work with the industry, regulators, law enforcement and the incumbent to ensure a smooth transition."

A new poll found widespread support, even from conservatives, for the FCC adopting strong net neutrality rules, said the Internet Freedom Business Alliance, which commissioned the Vox Populi Polling survey. The survey found 81 percent support strong rules, IFBA said Wednesday. Eighty percent of Republicans either somewhat or strongly agreed with the idea of the FCC adopting rules against blocking, throttling or paid prioritization, IFBA said in a news release. Communications Act Title II opponents downplayed the poll’s significance as Congress began holding hearings on the issue, and noted the survey doesn't specifically mention Title II or reclassification. “This poll only tells us what we already knew: that 'net neutrality', like 'privacy' and 'competition' sounds great to consumers," emailed TechFreedom President Berin Szoka, an opponent of reclassification. "The real debate is over whether the FCC should try to impose its own rules, and risk losing in court for the third time, or whether Congress should finally resolve the issue -- and, if so, how exactly these abstract principles should be operationalized." In response to our inquiry, IFBA released the questions asked in the poll. On net neutrality, it noted that in “speaking about rules preventing Internet service providers from blocking or slowing down websites and applications and from charging content companies for ‘prioritized’ downloads, Chairman Wheeler said, ‘We're going to propose rules that say that no blocking (is allowed), no throttling, no paid prioritization.’ Do you agree or disagree with Chairman Tom Wheeler’s statement?” The poll found that Wheeler’s comments suggesting he will propose reclassification in February (see 1501070054), “played well across the nation," said IFBA Executive Director Andrew Shore in the release. "Unfortunately, the term net neutrality has become a political football in an intense partisan debate. What this polling shows is that if you move beyond the partisanship and focus on the issues at hand, net neutrality is about free markets, competition and enabling a level playing field for small businesses by keeping the cable giants and dominant telephone companies from monopolizing the Internet. We must have a free and open Internet, which is something all Americans can agree with." Comptel CEO Chip Pickering, in a statement, echoed the idea the poll showed widespread support for net neutrality rules. “While inside the beltway, many like to divide opinions on the open Internet down party lines, the IFBA’s poll confirms that across the country, a majority of citizens -- whether they’re Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal -- are concerned about the power dominant incumbents can wield over the Internet,” he said. The poll of 868 active voters in the U.S. was conducted Jan. 13 and 14 and has a margin of error of 3.3 percent, said poll results supplied to us.

Dealing with interconnection in a net neutrality order is unnecessary, Verizon Vice President-Federal Regulatory Affairs Maggie McCready and other company officials told FCC Associate General Counsel Stephanie Weiner, Wireline Bureau Deputy Chief Matthew DelNero and Chief Technology Officer Scott Jordan Jan. 15, said an ex parte filing posted in docket 14-28 Wednesday. Arguments by Netflix “and its allies” that broadband providers have incentives to thwart the open Internet at interconnection points are “misplaced,” Verizon officials said. “Internet interconnection has always been handled through an unregulated system of voluntary commercial agreements," said the ISP. "This flexible approach has been a resounding success that has encouraged investment and provided flexibility for innovative interconnection arrangements that accommodate new business models, new types of Internet traffic and changes in end users’ preferences.” Paid direct interconnection agreements are a “longstanding way to ensure a high quality connection and adequate capacity, particularly where traffic flows are not balanced,” the company said. “These arrangements ensure great service for mutual customers, and help to cover a portion of the costs associated with the content provider’s traffic.” Verizon also said it's not using paid prioritization, but if the commission were to adopt rules prohibiting it, the outlawed practice should be defined as broadband providers charging a fee to deliver bits faster than the bits of others over the last mile. Under that definition, the rules would not apply to arrangements other than in the last mile. Any rules on throttling should be focused on intentionally slowing particular traffic based on “the traffic’s source, destination, or content,” Verizon said, not impacting the option consumers have to slow all Internet traffic after reaching a certain threshold of data usage to avoid overage charges. The company reiterated its opposition to a Communications Act Title II approach and said forbearing from parts of the section is no “no panacea to address the many harms that would result from reclassification.” Opposition to forbearing from certain sections of Title II shows that the end game” of reclassification proponents “is not rules to ensure an open Internet, but regulation for regulation’s sake,” Verizon said. Also representing the company at the meeting were William Johnson, associate general counsel, Roy Litland, assistant general counsel-legal regulatory affairs, and David Young, vice president-public policy. The American Cable Association in a letter to the commission posted in the same docket also urged the commission, if it reclassifies broadband providers including cable operators as telecom providers, to “take immediate action” to eliminate or reduce higher pole attachment rates telecom providers can be charged compared to cable operators. While the commission reduced the disparity between attachments rates paid by telecom carriers and cable operators in 2011, “there can still be a considerable disparity when a pole owner uses the actual average number of attachers on its poles in the formula, rather than presumptions provided in the Commission’s rules,” ACA said. The association reiterated its stance that small ISPs should be excluded from reclassification, or if they are reclassified, they should be foreborn from Title II’s requirements (see 1501130049).

The FCC should refrain from imposing net neutrality rules on wholesale interconnection, Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) President Dean Garfield and ITI Senior Vice President-Government Affairs Vince Jesaitis told Philip Verveer, senior counsel to Chairman Tom Wheeler, and aide Daniel Alvarez Jan. 14, said an ex parte filing posted in docket 14-28 Tuesday. Including interconnection in the net neutrality order expected in February is still up in the air (see 1501150054). The commission should not act until it develops “a more robust record” on the need for regulatory intervention, defines the problem that needs to be solved, and finds that regulation would not harm the wholesale broadband market or residential consumers’ Internet experience, ITI said. “At a minimum the technical aspects and business implications of peering and interconnection need to be understood fully before deciding on the best path forward,” said ITI, which said regulatory intervention “based on the limited record” could “do more harm than good.” Members include Akamai, AOL, Dell, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, says the ITI website. Meanwhile, in its separate comments in the docket, Verizon called the New Network Institute’s Jan. 13 petition for the commission to investigate the company “frivolous,” in a letter to the agency, posted Tuesday. NNI accused Verizon of “massive deception,” Verizon said, because the telco had relied on Title II in cable franchise applications as the source of its authority to deploy fiber, while opposing a Title II net neutrality approach for broadband. “But there is no ‘gotcha’ here,” Verizon said. Verizon offers plain old telephone service (POTS) over its fiber network, which is subject to Title II. It also offers other services over the same network, like FiOS TV and FiOS Internet, which haven’t been subject to Title II, Verizon said. “Offering POTS over the network -- and relying on our traditional telephone franchise for purposes of deploying networks that are still used to offer traditional telephone services -- is irrelevant to the question of the regulatory classification for broadband Internet access services or what the best regulatory framework is to encourage continued investment in broadband Internet access.”