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.

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.

There’s a strong interest in “dark fiber,” dark fiber provider Fatbeam told the FCC in a filing Thursday (http://bit.ly/1byBVXC). Of the 11 school districts the company services via the E-rate program, five decided to subscribe to dark fiber. “This shows a strong interest in dark fiber,” said the firm. “The Commission should equalize the funding between dark and lit fiber.” Schools lease dark fiber because of the promise of lower monthly charges, and they can increase capacity “by simply replacing electronics,” Fatbeam said. “Dark fiber provides the district the ability to enter into long term contracts without concern of future bandwidth limitations or cost increases."

"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.

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?

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 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).

Just a day after the unanimous vote (CD Jan 31 p1), the FCC released its order and further notice approving the IP transition trial framework Friday (http://fcc.us/LiOQmv). “We must act with dispatch,” the order said. “Technology transitions are already underway.” Modernizing communications networks will help dramatically reduce network costs, catalyze further investments in innovation and improve the lives of millions of Americans, it said. The order set out procedures for proposing service-based tests, and submitting “expressions of interest” in conducting rural broadband experiments. “The goal of all of these experiments and initiatives is to learn about the impact of the technology transitions on the customers -- and communities -- that rely on communications networks,” the order said. “Though the task before us is daunting, we take comfort that we are not alone in our efforts to encourage technology transitions while protecting the enduring values established by Congress for our nation’s communication networks.” Organizations from across the telecom industry applauded the FCC for unanimously approving the framework. The New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute said the end results of the transition should be consumers being better off. “They should benefit from an increase in competition rather than a decrease, and they should continue to benefit from all of the additional protections that exist where competition fails,” said Sarah Morris, OTI’s senior policy counsel. Public Knowledge said it agreed with the FCC that the new network must be “rigorously tested to ensure that consumers have a system that is even better” than the network Americans rely on today. “If the principles adopted today are the road map to the future, then these trials are a vital first step on that road,” Senior Vice President Harold Feld said. “Chairman [Tom] Wheeler got it right,” said the Broadband Coalition in a statement. “With the principles of competition at the core, the FCC’s statement of values can guide a successful move to IP technology.”