“Broadband" differs from "advanced telecommunications capability" but is key to an ATC statutory mandate, the FCC said in a Broadband Progress Report it released Friday after approving it Thursday (see 1601280064). The report said for simplicity’s sake, the commission sometimes used the term “broadband” to refer to “advanced telecommunications capability” in past inquiries on whether ATC was being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion to all Americans pursuant to Section 706 of the 1996 Telecom Act. But it said “advanced telecommunications capability” is a statutorily defined term that differs from “broadband” as it’s used in other contexts. “Thus, in this Inquiry, we do not equate the term 'broadband' with the statutory term 'advanced telecommunications capability,' but we do necessarily consider the availability of various broadband services that contribute to advanced telecommunications capability in our analysis under the statute,” it said. The report cited various data for why the FCC said ATC isn’t being deployed “broadly enough and quickly enough” to meet the Section 706 mandate. It said one in 10 Americans lacks 25/3 Mbps (download/upload) broadband availability, and ATC deployment disparities persist between urban areas and rural and tribal areas. It elaborated on why the FCC believes both mobile and fixed broadband availability are necessary under the statutory mandate. It said there are various marketing, usage and adoption differences that dispel the notion that current fixed and mobile broadband services give consumers the same or substitutable services. “On the contrary, they are distinct services with complementary strengths and weaknesses, distinguishable in capability, pricing, and in the utility they provide consumers,” it said. The report said the FCC couldn’t yet define adequate mobile broadband speed or service standards, and it noted the FCC may consider different mobile and fixed speed benchmarks. The report said there are “many and varied” barriers to ATC deployment, and cited past and ongoing FCC efforts on rural broadband, E-rate and Lifeline USF modernization, and other matters. It said if consumers’ personal information can be protected, that could spur broadband service, investment and deployment, consistent with the 1996 act’s goals. Consumer groups are pushing the FCC to issue an NPRM opening a broadband privacy rulemaking (see 1601190077).

The regulatory fee battle raged as the American Cable Association and ITTA urged the FCC to shift some fees from wireline to wireless companies, while CTIA opposed that. CTIA also opposed NAB’s proposal to reapportion regulatory fees to the wireless sector because of the planned incentive auction, which will allow wireless providers to bid for broadcast TV spectrum. ACA and CTIA filed reply comments (here and here), while ITTA made an ex parte filing this week in docket 15-121 on a recent meeting with FCC officials. NAB met with officials last week to discuss its proposal (see 1512030061).

The NAB said some broadcast regulatory fees should be reassigned to wireless carriers to reflect the expected spectrum transfer between sectors from the upcoming incentive auction. “The only equitable approach is for the regulatory fees to ‘follow the spectrum.’ The spectrum to be repurposed through the incentive auction will benefit wireless service providers,” said the NAB in comments as industry parties responded to an FCC Further NPRM in docket 15-121 this week (replies are due Dec. 7). CTIA didn’t address the possible broadcast fee shift in its written comments and had no comment to us Tuesday.

The FCC should get going on reforming its USF contribution system, ITTA and the Montana Telecommunications Association (MTA) said Friday. There is “growing pressure on the Universal Service Fund as the Commission considers expanding the scope of services supported by USF programs,” said midsize-telco group ITTA in a filing posted in docket 10-90 summarizing an Oct. 28 meeting with Gigi Sohn, counselor to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. “We urged the Commission to undertake USF contribution reform and broaden the base of contributors before taking any further steps to modify the Lifeline program to include support for broadband services.” MTA also urged the FCC to address contribution reform, “particularly given the increasing pressure on the high cost reform efforts caused by budgetary restraints and the shrinking contributions base,” the association said in a filing on its meetings with aides to Wheeler and Commissioners Mike O'Rielly and Jessica Rosenworcel. An FCC spokesman said the issue was before a federal-state joint board. Carriers currently contribute 16.7 percent of their interstate and international telecom revenue to USF, a rate that has trended up over the years as subsidies have increased and the industry revenue base has eroded. Carriers generally pass the fees along to consumers.

Industry parties and others continued to support FCC proposals to Lifeline USF subsidies to broadband service and revamp administrative oversight, but divisions remain over specifics. In reply comments filed in docket 11-42 responding to initial comments on the FCC’s NPRM (see 1509010073 and 1509040045), parties generally backed giving low-income consumers expanded choice and shifting responsibility for verifying Lifeline subscriber eligibility from telecom carriers to a third party. But there was disagreement over whether the FCC should establish minimum Lifeline standards for broadband/voice service. Numerous tribal groups also filed reply comments urging the FCC to retain and even increase enhanced Lifeline tribal support.

Industry parties and others continued to support FCC proposals to Lifeline USF subsidies to broadband service and revamp administrative oversight, but divisions remain over specifics. In reply comments filed in docket 11-42 responding to initial comments on the FCC’s NPRM (see 1509010073 and 1509040045), parties generally backed giving low-income consumers expanded choice and shifting responsibility for verifying Lifeline subscriber eligibility from telecom carriers to a third party. But there was disagreement over whether the FCC should establish minimum Lifeline standards for broadband/voice service. Numerous tribal groups also filed reply comments urging the FCC to retain and even increase enhanced Lifeline tribal support.

More wireless carriers weighed in on Lifeline reform in comments posted by the FCC (see 1509010073) in docket 10-90 Wednesday. Sprint urged the FCC to use a light hand in imposing new regulations as it moves toward new Lifeline rules. “The Lifeline market -- particularly for wireless Lifeline services -- is robustly competitive, with wireless service offers improving significantly and steadily over the past several years even in the face of higher regulatory compliance costs, higher risk, and higher churn,” Sprint said. While the voice-only support amount should remain at $9.25 monthly per line, a $9.25 subsidy for broadband service, with no subsidy for a broadband device, “will be too low to generate a meaningful increase in broadband subscription by Lifeline customers,” Sprint said. Proposals to cap the Lifeline program are “premature” and should be abandoned by the commission, the carrier said. The FCC also “should decline to adopt any proposal to recover program administration costs exclusively from Lifeline service providers,” Sprint said. “As is the case for every other federal Universal Service program, all Lifeline program costs should be recovered through the general USF contribution factor assessed on all contributors.” A group of wireless eligible telecom carriers, each with fewer than 2,000 Lifeline customers, urged the FCC to cut red tape in the program. “Lifeline providers currently face significant regulatory compliance burdens, including monthly reporting (FCC Form 497), annual reporting (FCC Forms 481 and 555), the need to develop and modify Lifeline enrollment forms, the requirement to review and process certification forms and eligibility documentation during enrollment, the need to upload and manage subscriber information in the National Lifeline Accountability Database (NLAD), the requirement to re-certify all of their Lifeline customers each year, and the need to respond to USAC audits including Payment Quality Assurance (PQA) reviews and other inquiries,” they said. While the FCC is recommending some streamlining of the rules, it's proposing additional regulatory requirements, the small carriers said. “This burden falls disproportionately on small carriers, who cannot spread the regulatory costs of Lifeline compliance -- many of which are fixed costs -- across a large customer base.” Carolina West Wireless, Cellular Network Partnership, East Kentucky Network, Pioneer Telephone Cooperative, Union Telephone and Union Wireless signed the filing.

More wireless carriers weighed in on Lifeline reform in comments posted by the FCC (see 1509010073) in docket 10-90 Wednesday. Sprint urged the FCC to use a light hand in imposing new regulations as it moves toward new Lifeline rules. “The Lifeline market -- particularly for wireless Lifeline services -- is robustly competitive, with wireless service offers improving significantly and steadily over the past several years even in the face of higher regulatory compliance costs, higher risk, and higher churn,” Sprint said. While the voice-only support amount should remain at $9.25 monthly per line, a $9.25 subsidy for broadband service, with no subsidy for a broadband device, “will be too low to generate a meaningful increase in broadband subscription by Lifeline customers,” Sprint said. Proposals to cap the Lifeline program are “premature” and should be abandoned by the commission, the carrier said. The FCC also “should decline to adopt any proposal to recover program administration costs exclusively from Lifeline service providers,” Sprint said. “As is the case for every other federal Universal Service program, all Lifeline program costs should be recovered through the general USF contribution factor assessed on all contributors.” A group of wireless eligible telecom carriers, each with fewer than 2,000 Lifeline customers, urged the FCC to cut red tape in the program. “Lifeline providers currently face significant regulatory compliance burdens, including monthly reporting (FCC Form 497), annual reporting (FCC Forms 481 and 555), the need to develop and modify Lifeline enrollment forms, the requirement to review and process certification forms and eligibility documentation during enrollment, the need to upload and manage subscriber information in the National Lifeline Accountability Database (NLAD), the requirement to re-certify all of their Lifeline customers each year, and the need to respond to USAC audits including Payment Quality Assurance (PQA) reviews and other inquiries,” they said. While the FCC is recommending some streamlining of the rules, it's proposing additional regulatory requirements, the small carriers said. “This burden falls disproportionately on small carriers, who cannot spread the regulatory costs of Lifeline compliance -- many of which are fixed costs -- across a large customer base.” Carolina West Wireless, Cellular Network Partnership, East Kentucky Network, Pioneer Telephone Cooperative, Union Telephone and Union Wireless signed the filing.

Fifteen small rural telcos would lose almost $9 million in annual USF subsidies under preliminary FCC findings to phase out support where carriers completely overlap with unsubsidized broadband competitors. A Wireline Bureau public notice posted Wednesday in docket 10-90 sought comments by Aug. 28 and replies by Sept. 28 on the initial determinations.

Industry stakeholders universally praised the FCC Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) report on communications sector cybersecurity risk management for recommending voluntary processes and assurances, with Motorola Solutions saying in comments posted Monday that those recommendations “strike an appropriate balance” between assuring cybersecurity protection and reflecting the interests of all stakeholders. The CSRIC report, adopted in March, was meant to adapt the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Cybersecurity Framework for communications sector use (see 1503180056). Industry groups CTIA and TIA similarly praised the CSRIC report for providing important guidance to the sector (see 1505290042). A separate Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF) proceeding (see 1504090049 and 1503160059) on possible cybersecurity topics the IPTF should address through multistakeholder work drew multiple filings urging the IPTF to factor the NIST framework into its process.