The New America Foundation met with FCC Office of Strategic Planning Chief Jonathan Chambers to push for creation of an “Upgrade Fund” in an E-rate revamp, to facilitate widespread fiber investment (http://bit.ly/1byCWiE). “If the Upgrade Fund were considered to be the ‘carrot’ to encourage fiber investment ... a ’stick’ in the form of actual service requirements would help ensure that internet service providers (or, in some cases, communities themselves) actually take advantage of the dedicated infrastructure funding available,” NAF said. The group also asked the commission to review its support of “non-traditional” students: “Use of current state definitions of elementary and secondary education have led to unequal treatment of learners in Head Start, pre-kindergarten, career and technical education, and juvenile justice programs across states. The FCC should seek to ensure students have the same access and opportunities for learning, regardless of the state in which they happen to reside.” The data collection process in the E-rate program could be improved by supporting integration with other datasets, like those maintained by the National Center for Education Services, NAF said. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is looking to use E-rate to upgrade the Internet speeds schools get, to high-speed broadband (CD Feb 6 p4).

The FCC Wireline Bureau released a list of census tracts in high-cost price cap areas that may be suitable for IP transition experiments, it said in a public notice Thursday (http://bit.ly/1fXGFHl). The agency last week voted to accept proposals for experiments (CD Jan 31 p1). “Proposals in price cap territories will be entertained at the census tract level, with [Connect America] funding only provided for locations in eligible census blocks within that census tract,” the notice said. Eligible locations include only those in census blocks that are unserved by any provider of 3 Mbps/768 kbps, and those where the average cost per location equals or exceeds the likely monthly funding threshold per location, it said.

Maps of “illustrative results” for version 4.0 of the Connect America Cost Model are available, the FCC Wireline Bureau said in a public notice Thursday (http://bit.ly/1khYYuN). The maps display areas potentially eligible for Connect America Fund Phase II offers of model-based support to price cap carriers. The maps offer a visualization of census blocks eligible using two potential funding thresholds: $48 (http://fcc.us/1khZf14) and $52 (http://fcc.us/1khZk4R). The thresholds refer to per-location, per-month costs: A $52 funding threshold, for instance, would mean support is only provided in census blocks where the average cost per location is at least $52, the notice said.

"We treat all traffic equally, and that has not changed,” Verizon said in a statement responding to an article in Hacker News alleging Verizon was throttling Netflix speeds (http://bit.ly/1ercGtd). “Many factors can affect the speed a customer experiences for a specific site, including that site’s servers, the way the traffic is routed over the Internet, and other considerations,” Verizon said. A Verizon customer noticed speed problems connecting to Netflix, and asked an online Verizon support technician for help troubleshooting. “Is Verizon now limiting bandwidth to cloud providers like Amazon’s AWS services?” the customer asked, according to a widely distributed screenshot. “Yes, it is limited bandwidth to cloud providers,” the technician responded. “I suppose this started recently and this is why my Netflix quality is also bad now,” the customer said. “Yes, exactly,” the Verizon representative responded. Verizon’s official statement said the company representative was “mistaken.” Verizon plans to “redouble our representative education efforts on this topic,” it said.

There’s an “urgent and compelling need” to restore transparency and fairness to the local number portability administrator (LNPA) selection process, Neustar told the FCC in a letter Monday (http://bit.ly/1boeOvL). Neustar, the current administrator, said it was responding to a filing from Telcordia’s counsel stating similar concerns. But Telcordia’s remedy -- a revised timeline -- is “insufficient because the process utilized to date has been flawed,” Neustar said. “It is time for the Commission to intervene” in the process conducted by North American Portability Management, Neustar said. “The Commission should resolve the question whether there should be an additional round of offers” before any new timeline is issued, Neustar said. It also asked the commission to direct the Future of Number Portability Administration Center subcommittee to receive additional proposals. “The publication of a new timeline that fails to address these issues would be no more than a blatant end-run around lawful administrative procedure and the dictates of transparency and fairness in the LNPA selection process,” Neustar said. Neustar has long been lamenting a perceived lack of transparency and responsiveness in the number portability administrator bidding process (CD April 26 p7).

Comments are due Feb. 19 on a USTelecom petition for waiver of the FCC’s rules on “non-exogenous cost data filing requirements” for the short-form tariff review plan, a public notice said Tuesday (http://bit.ly/1boedKs). USTelecom asks that all price cap LECs receive a waiver from the requirement that they submit PC-1 and IND-1 forms. They also seek a deadline extension. Reply comments in WC docket 14-18 are due March 3.

Several NTCA members met with FCC Wireline Bureau officials Sunday to discuss the recent order to approve IP transition trials (CD Jan 31 p1), an ex parte filing said (http://bit.ly/1bohFVs). After a presentation by Deputy Bureau Chief Carol Mattey, NTCA members asked three questions, the filing said: (1) How will reforms to the high-cost program for rural rate-of-return carriers let them recover costs incurred for past investments under then-current rules? (2) Would the commission consider eliminating or scaling back its five-year network deployment plan requirement? (3) What steps might be needed to ensure the availability of high-cost support for networks where certain consumers cease to take voice telephony services offered to them and instead procure only broadband Internet access services?

Several electric utilities asked Congress to remove FCC jurisdiction over pole attachments, in a letter sent Friday to the House Commerce Committee. The FCC “lacks any experience or expertise whatsoever in the safe and efficient distribution of electric services to consumers across the country,” said the letter sent on behalf of Consumers Energy, FirstEnergy, National Grid, Northeast Utilities and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. Oversight over “pole attachments” goes to the FCC under the Communications Act, but it really belongs at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the electric utilities said. The companies took issue with the FCC’s April 2011 pole attachment order that expanded its jurisdiction to encompass joint use relationships between pole-owning entities. The decision only drives down ILEC costs and “unfairly” shifts burdens “from the communications industry to the electric utility industry,” the utilities said. They asked Congress to prevent the FCC from regulating the electric utility/ILEC joint use relationship, and to require that attachment rates be increased “so that communications companies pay a more appropriate share” of pole distribution expenses. “What does the FCC know about electric utility safety, reliability, and efficiency?” said Jack Richards, partner at Keller and Heckman, which represents the utilities. “It’s the Federal Communications Commission. It’s not surprising they favor Comcast, Cox, Verizon, AT&T, Frontier and other communications companies over electric utilities.” The Supreme Court in October declined to hear electric utilities’ challenge to the pole attachment order (CD Oct 8 p1).

The FCC Wireline Bureau must “act quickly to address the uncertainty resulting from [the Universal Service Administrative Co.’s] attempt to pull apart an integrated information service to find telecommunications revenue,” Cisco told agency officials Jan. 24, according to a Thursday ex parte filing (http://bit.ly/1bWNqF8). Cisco’s WebEx product is “undoubtedly an information service,” with specialized audio inputs that “go far beyond” mere “transmission” of information, and therefore should not be treated as telecommunications under the Communications Act, the company said. The FCC should act promptly, because “making a series of fact-based decisions will provide the industry with needed guidance, and thereby encourage ongoing investment in information services like WebEx,” it said. Cisco asked the FCC in May to review USAC’s decision (CD May 20 p6).

The results of the six-month experiment giving VoIP providers direct access to numbers are in. In a report Friday, the FCC Wireline Bureau found that “it is technically feasible for interconnected VoIP providers to obtain telephone numbers directly from the numbering administrators” (http://fcc.us/LiPXSU). “The trial did not identify technical problems regarding number porting, VoIP interconnection, or intercarrier compensation,” the report said. There “may be some confusion regarding parties’ rights and obligations with respect to porting and interconnection, but the Bureau believes that these matters could be addressed in pending rulemakings addressing those topics,” it said: Those rulemakings will provide “additional clarity and guidance."