Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Funding Broadband & Net Neutrality Implications for the
State
Lynn NotarianniPUC Telecom Section Chief
2014 Telecom Reform - Recap HB14-1328 – modified §40-15- 208 & 502 & added §40-15-
509.5 (3)
Creates the Broadband Deployment Board & Fund
Allows the PUC to allocate monies from the Colorado High Cost Support Mechanism(HCSM) for the deployment of broadband in unserved areas of the state where monies are no longer needed to support high cost voice service
Also allows for all monies that the general assembly may appropriate to the fund
HB14-1331 – modified §40-15- 208 & 502
Revises the policies and guidance regarding the HCSM for voice service & disallows support if an area is found to be effectively competitive (ECA)
PUC Proceeding No. 13M-422T
First round of 56 CenturyLink wire centers found to be ECAs. Just over $3 million to be allocated to the Broadband Fund. Is currently being disputed in district court however $200K has been allocated for administrative expenses
CO Broadband Board- Update 16 Member Board appointed
Broadband Board Activity
• Administrative funding received• Multiple Board meetings held• Board has intervened in HCSM District Court proceeding• In process of obtaining staffing support & defining grant process
Brian Shepherd Governor's Office of information Technology* (Chair)Charles Unseld Colorado Department of Local AffairsDavid Shipley Rye Telephone CompanyEdmond Bostick CO Telehealth NetworkJane Blackstone Steamboat Chamber of CommerceJeff Brown Viaero WirelessJeremy Weathers Stormy ProductionsLisa R. Scalpone ViaSat, Inc.Lynn Notarianni Public Utilities Commission* (non-voting)Meridith Marshall Office of Economic Development and International TradeMichael Nelson ComcastMike Brazell Park County Commissioner* (Secretary)Richard Smith Mayor of Bayfield* (Vice Chair)Roberta Robinette ATT ColoradoMark Soltes CenturyLinkRoger Partridge Douglas County Commissioner
PUC ECA- Update Proceeding No. 14M-0947T – ECA Round II
104 CenturyLink wire centers being evaluated in two phases. Forty-eight wire-centers are in the first phase & 56 will be in the second phase
PUC Staff has filed initial recommendation & supporting data
46 of 48 Wire centers recommended for ECA designation as having sufficient competition for voice service. Other parties will file responses in early July, 2015
Four Public Comment Hearings scheduled for July 13-16, 2015
DenverDeltaColorado SpringsFort Morgan
PUC Hearing scheduled to begin November 9, 2015
PUC ECA- Round II 104 CenturyLink Wire centers
PUC ECA- Round II Phase I48 CenturyLink Wire centers
PUC 2015 HCSM- Update
Multiple factors impacting 2015 HCSM distributions
•Legal•Policy•Structural/Operational
PUC Proceeding No. 15M-0158T – opened in 3/2015 to provide guidance on distributions including 1Q2015 interim distributions
Any additional allocations from the PUC to the Broadband Fund will be guided by:
•ECA outcomes•15M-0158T decisions•HCSM contributions level
FCC Connect America Fund (CAF) Activity CAF I – Colorado
CenturyLink was allocated $6.1 million in CAF I Phase I support $1.7 million in CAF I Phase II to support broadband in unserved locations
CAF II – Colorado
The FCC is providing an offer of support to CenturyLink in Colorado of $26, 509,143 for six years. The offer must be accepted or declined by August 27, 2015.
Key FCC CAF II documents:
•WCB Announcement – Phase II support offered•CAF Cost Model Final Results Report – Offer by Carrier & State•List of Census Blocks Funded by Final Connect America Cost Model•Guide to Working with the Census Block List•Connect America Phase II – Final Eligible Areas Map
https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connecting-america
Contributions Conundrum Steady decline of contributions to both the State HCSM &
Federal USF pose significant challenges to both voice & broadband funds
• HCSM has experienced declining contributions for the past three years ranging from 8% to 5%
• There is a legislative cap of 2.6% of intrastate revenues within which funds, if available, can be allocated to the Broadband Fund
• The current USF fee of 16.8% continues to climb in order to sustain the program at total current funding levels
• The FCC has recently opened a general contributions proceeding & a rulemaking to address shifting rural incumbent phone companies USF to a broadband fund. Preliminary estimates appear to have Colorado losing several million dollars in USF funding potentially putting further pressure on the State HCSM
Key Proceedings• CO PUC – 15M-0158T – 2015 HCSM• FCC Contributions (FCC 14-16 & WC Docket No. 06-122)• FCC Broadband (FCC 10-90 & DA 15-429)
FCC Report & Order On Remand, Declaratory Ruling & Order
Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet
Reclassified Broadband from an information service to a Title II Common Carrier telecommunications service
Focuses narrowly & specifically on the principle that individuals should be free to access legal content and applications equally, regardless of the source, without broadband service providers discriminating against specific online services or websites, or “Net Neutrality”
Prohibits additional universal service fund contribution assessments from Broadband service providers at this time
Released March 12, 2015
Net Neutrality Defined &–FCC Rules
Simply Put – Internet openness & the disallowance of blocking, throttling and paid prioritization of internet traffic for fixed & mobile broadband
FCC Bright Line Rules (see https://www.fcc.gov/openinternet)
•Blocking - broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices*
•Throttling - broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices*• Paid Prioritization - broadband providers may not favor some lawful
Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates
• *Allows for “reasonable network management”
Broadband Internet Access Service – Sources of Legal Authority
Telecommunications Act
SEC. 706. ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS INCENTIVES(a) In General: The Commission and each State commission with regulatory jurisdiction over telecommunications services shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment
Communications Act – Title II47 U.S.
Code Part I - Common Carrier Regulation
Prescribes the requirements for wireline & wireless telecommunications services & providers including but not limited to just & reasonable rates, terms & conditions, complaints, privacy, accessibility, & interconnection
No Forbearance • Does not forbear from a limited number of sections of statute
necessary to ensure consumer protection, & promote competition & universal access
§201 - requiring terms of service to be just and reasonable ¶ 441-52
§202 - generally bans unreasonable discrimination ¶ 441-52
§208 - complaint procedures ¶ 453-55 Along with § 206, § 207 & § 209
§§216 & 217 - extends Title II obligations to carrier successors in interests/agents ¶ 453-55
§222 - customer privacy protections
§224 - provides telecom carriers with regulated access to poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way;
§§225, 255, & 251(a)(2) - access for persons with disabilities
§224 - promoting universal access to broadband but do not immediately mandate USF contributions
Forbearance
Yes – 27 Provisions of Title II & 700 FCC Rules & Regulations
including generally:• Federal Tariff filing
• Ex ante rate regulation
•Network unbundling rules for last mile facilities
•§214 discontinue service notice requirements
•252 interconnection arbitrations procedure but will handle interconnection disputes if
they come up
•Requiring BIAS to contribute to universal service fund at this time
FCC Stated Impact to States
States are bound by forbearance directives in the decision, for example:
•May not “tax” the internet• May not impose a state-level contribution on broadband providers
that do not presently contribute
But…….
“finding that this service is jurisdictionally interstate does not by itself preclude all possible state requirements regarding this service. Given the specific federal recognition of a State role in broadband data collection, we anticipate that such State efforts will not necessarily be incompatible with the federal efforts or inevitably stand as an obstacle to the implementation of valid federal policies.”
