Though widely considered to be a likely supporter of the Communications Act Title II net neutrality approach FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is expected to unveil later this week, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said in an interview that she wants to make sure “everyone is able to point to something in the order that benefits them.” By that, Clyburn, who acknowledged she backed Title II in the 2010 net neutrality order, said she doesn’t want only the “well-heeled” to benefit, and wants the commission to maintain a regulatory backstop if needed. She also doesn't want to damage the continued deployment of broadband, Clyburn told us Friday.
Federal Universal Service Fund
The FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to fund programs designed to provide universal telecommunications access to all U.S. citizens. All telecommunications providers are required to contribute a percentage of their end-user revenues to the Fund, which the FCC allocates for four core programs: 1. Connect America Fund, which subsidizes telecom providers for the increased costs of offering services to customers in rural and remote areas 2. Lifeline, which directly subsidizes low-income households to help pay for the cost of phone and internet service 3. Rural Health Care, which subsidizes health care providers to offer broadband telehealth services that can connect rural patients and providers with specialists located farther away 4. E-Rate, which subsidizes rural and low-income schools and libraries for internet and telecommunications costs The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) administers the USF on behalf of the FCC, but requires Congressional approval for its actions. Many states also operate their own universal service funds, which operate independently from the federal program.
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.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler may be moving toward basing net neutrality rules on Title II (see 1501070054), but how he goes about it has become intertwined with another controversial issue -- whether to require broadband customers to begin paying into the USF. If the FCC approves reclassification, and forbearance from Section 254, the agency could block its own ability to require broadband to contribute to the fund, an NTCA official told us. The group made the case to the agency last week. ITTA, which like NTCA has called for requiring broadband providers to begin contributing to the fund, also opposes forbearing from the section, said ITTA President Genny Morelli in an interview.
In a move FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the commission's Democratic majority said would bring more broadband and Wi-Fi connections to schools and libraries, commissioners on a party-line 3-2 vote Thursday raised E-rate’s annual spending cap by $1.5 billion. They signaled their intent to approve another reform aimed at giving people more access to the Internet, adding broadband to Lifeline (see 1411120026). Republican commissioners, while backing the aim of E-rate, opposed raising the spending cap.
While NCTA and Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott joined those arguing that a Title II Communications Act net neutrality approach could lead to billions of dollars in state and local tax and fee increases on consumers, telecom attorneys and other advocates differed whether that would actually happen. That is partly because broadband may be considered an interstate service not subject to state and local tax, they said in interviews.
Communications Act Title II opponents seized on a Progressive Policy Institute study’s estimate Monday that reclassifying broadband would create $15 billion nationally in new federal, state and local taxes and fees, and predicted it would dampen public enthusiasm for basing net neutrality rules on Title II. The “sleeping giant has been awakened, and once the size of the fee increases becomes more widely understood, I think consumers will react,” said Free State Foundation President Randolph May.
Top telecom issues set for discussion at NARUC’s annual meeting this week in San Francisco include states’ authority under Communications Act Section 706, 911 reliability, the USF contribution base and municipal broadband, NARUC members said in interviews.
Going into more detail about the issues he sees facing a Title II approach than he has said publicly, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler told public interest advocates that the agency would have to grapple with its legal authority to impose net neutrality rules on wireless, given a section of the Communications Act that some say prohibits treating mobile as common carriers, said three people who attended the Nov. 10 meeting. Wheeler also raised questions about the impact reclassification would have on privacy, according to the attendees, as well as an issue commissioners Mike O'Rielly and Ajit Pai brought up Friday at a Free State Foundation panel discussion on net neutrality: Would broadband providers have to begin paying into the USF?
Eighteen seats on 10 states’ public utilities commissions (PUCs) were up for election Tuesday. Industry observers said in recent interviews that the results of elections to the Montana Public Service Commission and Nebraska Public Service Commission are the ones that could have the most impact on telecom regulation. Two Montana PSC seats were up for a vote, and one Nebraska PSC seat was on the ballot.
Congress received divided views on how important state authorities should be in any new communications regimen, in comments due Friday to the House Commerce Committee on a white paper about overhauling Communications Act USF policy (CD Sept 22 p7). Groups representing smaller telecom companies and state regulators emphasized the importance of an ongoing state role, and several commenters pointed to the FCC Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service and its potential importance for federal-state cooperation. Bigger industry groups such as CTIA advocated more limited state involvement.