Frontier Communications agreed to accept $283.4 million in annual USF support to provide broadband access to more than 650,000 unserved rural locations over the next few years, the company said Tuesday in a news release. Frontier accepted the entire amount it was offered under the FCC Connect America Fund Phase II program, becoming the first price-cap telco to announce its decision. The FCC gave price-cap carriers until Aug. 27 to decide whether to accept CAF Phase II funding, state by state (see 1504290066). Frontier accepted funding for all its 28 states.
Frontier Communications agreed to accept $283.4 million in annual USF support to provide broadband access to more than 650,000 unserved rural locations over the next few years, the company said Tuesday in a news release. Frontier accepted the entire amount it was offered under the FCC Connect America Fund Phase II program, becoming the first price-cap telco to announce its decision. The FCC gave price-cap carriers until Aug. 27 to decide whether to accept CAF Phase II funding, state by state (see 1504290066). Frontier accepted funding for all its 28 states.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler circulated a proposal for reforming the $1.7 billion USF Lifeline program, providing limited funding for broadband (see 1505270048). In an apparent peace offering to Republicans concerned about an expanding program, FCC officials said the commission will seek comment on whether this is the right time to consider a cap on the program's size. FCC officials said Thursday that many new Lifeline customers are wireless, but the rules don't discriminate against wireline service. Wheeler is, as some predicted, seeking a vote at the FCC’s June 18 meeting (see 1505010051). House Republicans signaled resistance to any proposal to expand the program.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler circulated a proposal for reforming the $1.7 billion USF Lifeline program, providing limited funding for broadband (see 1505270048). In an apparent peace offering to Republicans concerned about an expanding program, FCC officials said the commission will seek comment on whether this is the right time to consider a cap on the program's size. FCC officials said Thursday that many new Lifeline customers are wireless, but the rules don't discriminate against wireline service. Wheeler is, as some predicted, seeking a vote at the FCC’s June 18 meeting (see 1505010051). House Republicans signaled resistance to any proposal to expand the program.
FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn urged on the FCC to move forward on overhaul of the USF Lifeline program. “The criticism that Lifeline does not serve its targeted audience because people already have phone service is a myth,” Clyburn said in a speech Monday at NTCA. “Too many consumers are struggling to maintain service, and we have a duty to respond.” FCC officials said Monday the agency appears headed toward an NPRM on a Lifeline overhaul, possibly this summer.
FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn urged on the FCC to move forward on overhaul of the USF Lifeline program. “The criticism that Lifeline does not serve its targeted audience because people already have phone service is a myth,” Clyburn said in a speech Monday at NTCA. “Too many consumers are struggling to maintain service, and we have a duty to respond.” FCC officials said Monday the agency appears headed toward an NPRM on a Lifeline overhaul, possibly this summer.
Release of the FCC net neutrality order brought limited clarity to how the rules and the commission’s accompanying reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service will affect state telecom regulation, state telecom lawyers and observers said in interviews last week. That lack of clarity largely stems from continued uncertainty about whether the net neutrality rules -- and particularly Title II reclassification -- will survive legal scrutiny, lawyers said. Alamo Broadband and USTelecom filed lawsuits Monday seeking reviews of the net neutrality order at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, respectively (see 1503230066). The order faces continued scrutiny on Capitol Hill (see 1503200048).
Release of the FCC net neutrality order brought limited clarity to how the rules and the commission’s accompanying reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service will affect state telecom regulation, state telecom lawyers and observers said in interviews last week. That lack of clarity largely stems from continued uncertainty about whether the net neutrality rules -- and particularly Title II reclassification -- will survive legal scrutiny, lawyers said. Alamo Broadband and USTelecom filed lawsuits Monday seeking reviews of the net neutrality order at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, respectively (see 1503230066). The order faces continued scrutiny on Capitol Hill (see 1503200048).
Telecom deregulation advocates are following up recent successes in four states that passed statutes deregulating aspects of wireline and VoIP services by renewing their push for passage of similar legislation in the Idaho and Minnesota legislatures. Both states are considering bills that would prohibit VoIP regulation: Idaho’s S-1105 and Minnesota’s HF-776/SF-895. Minnesota is also considering HF-1066/SF-736, legislation that would let ILECs be regulated the same as CLECs. None of those bills advanced as far as statutes that passed or were enacted in Kentucky, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Thirty-two states deregulated wireline service by the end of December, while three others and the District of Columbia significantly limited wireline oversight, said National Regulatory Research Institute Principal Researcher Sherry Lichtenberg.
Telecom deregulation advocates are following up recent successes in four states that passed statutes deregulating aspects of wireline and VoIP services by renewing their push for passage of similar legislation in the Idaho and Minnesota legislatures. Both states are considering bills that would prohibit VoIP regulation: Idaho’s S-1105 and Minnesota’s HF-776/SF-895. Minnesota is also considering HF-1066/SF-736, legislation that would let ILECs be regulated the same as CLECs. None of those bills advanced as far as statutes that passed or were enacted in Kentucky, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Thirty-two states deregulated wireline service by the end of December, while three others and the District of Columbia significantly limited wireline oversight, said National Regulatory Research Institute Principal Researcher Sherry Lichtenberg.