March 2017

FBI Director James B. Comey acknowledged that his agency is conducting an investigation into possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign in a counterintelligence probe that could reach all the way to the White House and may last for months. At the same time, Comey repeatedly refused to answer whether specific individuals close to the president had fallen under suspicion of any criminal wrongdoing, “so we don’t wind up smearing people” who may not be charged with a crime.

The extraordinary disclosure came near the beginning of a sprawling, 5.5 hour public hearing by the House Intelligence Committee, the panel’s first into the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. The FBI traditionally does not disclose the existence of an investigation, “but in unusual circumstances, where it is in the public interest,” Comey said, “it may be appropriate to do so.” Comey also said he was authorized by the Justice Department to confirm the existence of the wide-ranging probe into Russian interference in the electoral process.

In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice), we propose a further eighteen month extension of the freeze of jurisdictional separations category relationships and cost allocation factors for rate-of-return incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) while we continue to work with the Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations (Joint Board) to overhaul our separations rules.

The separations rules have long been frozen in recognition of the sweeping technical and regulatory changes that have been occurring in the communications sector over the last two decades. Having made progress in implementing changes to our intercarrier compensation regime and to the high cost universal services support program, and having recently reformed our Part 32 accounting rules, now is the time to address the separations rules. In this Further Notice, we seek comment on the proposed extension and describe the path we envision towards comprehensive reform of the jurisdictional separations procedures embodied in the Commission’s rules.

[Commentary] It is important that we engage policymakers at the state and national level to force them to make better policy decisions. There is no reason for these legislative battles we’re seeing in Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri and elsewhere other than to heed the call of incumbents’ lobbyists out to stifle competition. States have to follow the lead of Georgia, where their state legislators declared all options – including municipal networks – viable in an “all hands on deck” approach to broadband deployments.

Policymakers must have broadband funding and grant programs that follow suite. Wireless providers must have seats at that table. For many years, wireless internet service providers have enabled communities that otherwise would never see the broadband light of day except for their efforts. They repeatedly have proven their ability to do great things with little money. Now is the time to capitalize on that experience.

[Craig Settles assists communities develop broadband business and marketing plans, and help them raise money for broadband projects.]