While praising the FCC for taking on “sunny day” 911 outages caused by software and other problems as opposed to storms, the National Association of State 911 Administrators is still reviewing the wide-ranging NPRM approved Friday (see 1411210037), Director Evelyn Bailey told us on Tuesday. Several LECs we contacted were also still reviewing the NPRM and had no comment. The notice deals with changes it says have made providing 911 more “complex.” While legacy 911 services were provided by ILECs, a growing number of system service providers (SSPs) have become involved, offering “specialized components … within the chain of connectivity previously provided by a single entity,” the NPRM said. “A growing number of disruptions to 911 service are caused by software malfunctions, database failures, and errors in conversion from legacy to IP-based network protocols,” the proposal said. The SSPs can be located in a different state than public safety answering points (PSAPs), and “have the potential to affect many states at once, or even all of a service provider’s customers nationwide,” the NPRM said. The seven-state 911 outage in April (see 1410170057) was caused by a software coding error at an SSP’s call routing facility, it said. In response, the NPRM proposes a policy statement that it “encourages and supports” local authority over 911. But in saying the commission has a responsibility to oversee “the increasingly complex component pieces of the nation’s 911 infrastructure,” it proposes a greater role for the agency. It would expand rules on 911 reliability to cover “all entities that provide 911, E911, or NG911 capabilities … regardless of whether they provide such capabilities under a direct contractual relationship with a PSAP.” The NPRM also proposed expanding requirements on providers to mandating “the reliability and testing of software and databases used to process 911 calls.” The NPRM also seeks comment on whether service providers should be required to notify the commission and the public of any major changes to the providers’ 911 network architecture or services, and whether to require commission approval to “discontinue, reduce, or impair” 911 services. States would continue to have authority to certify new 911 providers in their areas, but given the impact providers can have across state lines, the NPRM also proposed requiring new providers to certify to the commission they have the “technical and operational capability to provide reliable 911 service.” The new providers, though, would not be subject to commission approval, it said. The NPRM was approved on a party-line vote, with both commissioners Mike O’Rielly and Ajit Pai saying in dissents that the FCC was overstepping its authority into what’s been a local responsibility. “Replacing state and local governance with Washington-knows-best bureaucracy will leave 911 systems less nimble and responsive to the needs of local communities,” said Pai, who opposed the certification process. He asked, “How many 911 providers will simply decide not to offer an innovative, new capability because of the FCC’s all-encompassing process?” O’Rielly said the notice “does not even bother to attempt a cost-benefit analysis for this greatly expanded regulatory scheme.”

Comments are due Jan. 5, replies Jan. 20 in docket 12-375 on the FCC rulemaking notice on inmate calling services (ICS), said a Wireline bureau public notice Friday. The commission is seeking comment on making interim interstate rate caps permanent and on creating intrastate caps, and on how to deal with payments to correctional facilities, and ancillary fees (see 1410230026). A single rate for inmate calling service providers could “result in ICS providers refusing to provide service to smaller facilities and jails,” Blooston Mordkofsky’s Mary Sisak, representing the National Sheriffs' Association, and Breanna Bock-Nielsen, NSA director-government affairs, told Wireline Bureau pricing policy division staff Nov. 19, said an ex parte notice filed and posted on Friday. Global Tel*Link responded to Praeses’ Oct. 3 ex parte filing that argued the payment of commissions is not prohibited. Praeses, a consultant to correctional facilities, receives a portion of the commissions, and “its position regarding site commissions may be heavily influenced by its self-interest,” Global Tel*Link said in a letter to the commission posted as an ex parte notice, also Friday. Praeses didn't comment on Monday.

The FCC should create net neutrality rules under both Title II and Section 706 and focus the debate on what sections to forbear from Title II,” AOL Chief Counsel-Global Public Policy Leigh Freund and Steptoe & Johnson’s Pantelis Michalopoulos told Gigi Sohn, Chairman Tom Wheeler’s special counsel-external affairs Nov. 19, according to an ex parte filing posted in docket 14-28 Monday. They said banning paid prioritization under both Section 706 and Title II “provides the appropriate analytical framework that can accommodate different views on the scope of regulation and forbearance. Reasonable minds can disagree over that scope -- some favor total forbearance, while others prefer more limited forbearance,” AOL said. “But that conversation should occur with a firm ban on pay-to-play arrangements” as the essential backdrop, the company argued. Both complete or limited forbearance “allow for exceptional arrangements that might be permissible subject to prior Commission approval (for example, a request by an independent Internet Service Provider who does not have market power and does not charge end users for authority to deploy a different price model),” AOL said. The commission should not forbear from all or part of Sections 201, 202, 208, 222, 251, 255 and 256, Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood and Policy Counsel Lauren Wilson told commission General Counsel Jonathan Sallet and Associate General Counsel Stephanie Weiner Nov. 19, according to an ex parte filing posted Monday. “Sections 201, 202 and 208 form the core of the Title II, and the heart of the entire Act in many respects, with that trio of statutes providing sufficient authority for strong Open Internet rules,” Free Press said. The group, though, “discussed the possibility of deferring decisions on forbearance … until a later date while staying their application’ until then. Further research is needed “of that procedural question,” said the group, which said it will provide further analysis on the issue, the filing said. Free Press also said, “the record in this docket is complete” on “which statutes the Commission must retain in order to adopt Open Internet rules -- namely, Sections 201, 202, and 208.” The record is also complete on “which statutes may be necessary (as a basis of authority in other proceedings) to promote important policy goals such as broadband competition, universal service, and consumer protection, even if some few questions remain as to how and when to make those determinations in other proceedings,” Free Press said.

Comments are due Dec. 22, replies Jan. 7 in docket 12-353 on CenturyLink’s proposed IP trial (see 1411130048) on business voice traffic in 12 wire centers in Las Vegas, said the FCC Wireline Bureau in a public notice Friday.

“Older households are at particular risk in an unregulated transition environment,” said AARP Senior Vice President Joyce Rogers in a statement Friday, praising FCC release of an NPRM looking into the IP transition (see 1411210037). “Older households, which disproportionately continue to maintain phone service through landlines, rely on health monitoring and other safety features supported by traditional telephone services."

Level 3 asked the FCC in meetings with aides to commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel to take up the interconnection issue as part of any net neutrality order. Consumer demand for video “is driving significant growth in overall traffic volume on the Internet,” Level 3 General Counsel Michael Mooney, CEO Jeff Storey and other executives told Clyburn’s aide Monday, said a Level 3 ex parte filing. Content providers, such as streaming video services, have “multiple competitive options for delivering their content to the ISP,” but “the ISP itself offers the only path for that content to reach the end user,” Level 3 said. Several of the largest ISPs “are leveraging that bottleneck control over access to their users, demanding arbitrary tolls from providers like Level 3 who carry the Internet content requested by the ISPs’ end users from the global Internet to the ISPs’ last mile networks,” the company said. “If Level 3 will not pay these arbitrary and discriminatory tolls, these ISPs refuse to augment interconnection capacity that is congested to a degree that any network engineer would agree must be augmented for the Internet to function properly. … These ISPs are degrading the experience of their own customers as a means to leverage the collection of arbitrary access tolls from the rest of the Internet.” Other Level 3 officials at the meeting were John Blount, president-North America; John Ryan, chief legal officer; and Scott Seab, senior corporate counsel. Broadband Internet access providers have a "terminating access monopoly over end users that gives them the incentive and ability to demand new access tolls from some parties, leaving degraded local delivery for online content and services end users want," Joseph Cavender, Level 3 assistant general counsel, and others told Rosenworcel’s aide on Tuesday, according to a Computer & Communications Industry Association ex parte filing provided by CCIA. Also advocating for interconnection regulations at the meeting, according to the filing, were Catherine Sloan, CCIA vice president-government relations; Dave Schaeffer, Cogent Communications CEO; Brian Chase, Foursquare Labs general counsel; Melanie Wyne, National Association of Realtors senior policy representative; Angie Kronenberg, Comptel general counsel; Sarah Morris, senior policy counsel at the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute; and Phillip Berenbroick, policy director of the Internet Freedom Business Alliance. "Absent strong FCC rules against commercial discrimination by such access providers, we indicated that realtors, social media and other tech entrepreneurs, long haul transit providers, CDNs and others who depend on an open Internet for transmission of online video are all at risk in the near future," said the filling made in docket 14-28. Level 3 and other proponents of interconnection rules are encouraged the FCC will take it up (see 1411130042).

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler "needs to tell the American public when the FCC’s going to implement real net neutrality safeguards and how they're going to get it done," Free Press President Craig Aaron said in a statement Thursday after a tentative agenda released by the agency for December's commission meeting did not, as expected, include action on net neutrality. The FCC had no immediate comment. "The FCC should have all of the information and motivation it needs to make the right decision and protect Internet users by reclassifying broadband providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act," Aaron said. “President Obama has joined nearly 4 million Americans in calling on the agency to protect real Net Neutrality. Now it’s time for the FCC to take action."

The FCC should proceed “deliberately” before imposing “new, onerous and costly mandates” to provide backup batteries or power supplies to subscribers, American Cable Association officials told Chairman Tom Wheeler’s legal adviser Daniel Alvarez, as well as aides to the four other commissioners in separate meetings, according to an ex parte notice posted in docket 13-5 on Tuesday. The Nov. 13 and 14 meetings were among several in which providers urged caution in enacting new requirements on backup batteries, as the commission is set at Friday’s meeting to consider a draft NPRM Wheeler is circulating on issues related to the IP transition. Among them is whether the commission should take steps to oversee backup power, a top FCC official told us earlier this month, because unlike phone service on traditional copper lines, service on fiber and other networks rely on backup batteries during power outages (see 1410310047). While the item could change before Friday’s meeting, sources in industries involved in the debate expected the NPRM to seek comments on most issues, including the battery issue. An exception is that the NPRM is expected to make a tentative conclusion that incumbents have to offer competitive carriers an alternative at reasonable rates, terms and conditions when retiring last-mile services that competitors need to reach business customers, the sources said. In addition, industry sources were also expecting the commission to circulate an order before Thursday’s deadline to put items on December’s commission meeting agenda to increase CAF’s minimum broadband speed requirements from 4 Mbps to 10 Mbps. The commission declined to comment on Wednesday. Charter Communications Vice President-Regulatory Affairs Christianna Barnhart also told aides to commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn in meetings Nov. 13 and 14 that the commission should balance “the benefits of new backup power obligations with the cost to consumers and providers,” according to an ex parte notice posted Wednesday. Verizon Vice President-Federal Regulatory Affairs Maggie McCready and Vice President and Associate General Counsel William Johnson described to aides of commissioners Rosenworcel and Ajit Pai on Nov. 13 the company’s efforts provide “consumer-friendly backup power solutions for customers receiving service over fiber,” according to an ex parte notice.

Although the Rev. Jesse Jackson urged FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler not to reclassify broadband as a Title II Communications Act service to impose net neutrality rules (see 1411180058), the reclassification argument is as strong as ever, a MoveOn.Org spokesman told us Wednesday. He referred to a statement by Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, responding to President Barack Obama’s Nov. 10 backing of Title II: “With millions of Americans having submitted comments to the FCC in support of Net Neutrality and Title II, the pressure is now squarely on Chairman Wheeler and the other FCC commissioners to quickly deliver on the vision that President Obama and the American public share -- an Internet free and open for all.” Jackson expressed concern Title II would deter broadband deployment in minority communities, said a TechFreedom ex parte notice on the Nov. 13 meeting. A Title II approach “would effectively redefine broadband as a regulated telecommunications service, which could subject the broadband industry and its services to existing state and local taxes,” said an ex parte letter sent by the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research, posted in docket 14-28 on Wednesday. Higher taxes would “raise consumer prices," it said. "In turn, higher consumer prices would reduce both subscribership and consumer welfare. For the broader economy, demand suppression would reduce economic output, jobs and employment earnings.”

Capital investments by broadband providers could decline by as much as nearly a third over the next five years if the FCC bases net neutrality rules on Communications Act Title II, said a study released Wednesday by USTelecom, which has said it would challenge reclassification in court. In an ex parte letter USTelecom also asked Wednesday for the commission to review the study. Title II proponents Free Press and Public Knowledge quickly dismissed the study. “This is another example of a made-to-order industry study, with predictions giving them the result they want, facts be damned,” said Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood. The study’s authors, Kevin Hassett and Robert Shapiro, said they had devised a new model that measures investment trends for services covered under Title II and not covered by the classification, then estimates the impact reclassification to Title II would have for both wireline and wireless. The study estimates that under the current regulatory structure, broadband providers are expected to make about $218.8 billion in new capital investments over the next five years. If the commission opts for reclassification, investments by ISPs would drop over the next five years to as low as $173.4 billion. Additional regulation, as well as the current regulatory uncertainty over net neutrality, and whether other aspects of the Internet will fall under Title II, would reduce the rate of return on the investments and deter spending, said Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He was chief economic adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain during the 2000 primaries. Responding to a question, Shapiro said it’s not possible to factor how forbearance from Title II, as reclassification’s proponents advocate, would affect their projections. “To what level [there will be forbearance], how long it would take, what the legal process would be are all in a state of uncertainty,” said Shapiro, chairman of Sonecon, and chief economic adviser to President Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. A reduction in investment would be significant, Shapiro said, because “the Internet plays such a critical role in the economic, social and political life” of the U.S. “Reclassification of broadband as Title II would be contrary to the national interest of broadband deployment and investment,” USTelecom President Walter McCormick said during a call with reporters. Wood called the study “absurd,” and said telecom investment reached its peak while still under Title II. “USTA's flimsy study is nothing more than a cynical attempt to scare Washington policymakers,” Wood said. The study didn’t factor in that the same infrastructure is used for voice, video and data, which are regulated differently, said Free Press Research Director Derek Turner. It also measured all capital investments, when nine “out of every 10 capital dollars spent by cable companies goes to set-top boxes and modems, not to the network,” Turner emailed. Turner's criticisms "unfortunately do not advance the debate," Hassett and Shapiro said in a statement to us. The economists said they included "reasonable assumptions" to account for the use of the same infrastructure by various services. The researchers said they did not examine cable, and stood by measuring capital investments, calling that the "the best metric for the overall impact of Title II regulation." Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld also criticized USTelecom’s request for the study to be considered. “Of course the FCC will 'review' it, just like they review any other submission," Feld said. Of USTelecom, he said, "What do they want, a gold star?”