A Securus Technologies patent is the "Stupid Patent of the Month," the Electronic Frontier Foundation said. Identifying three elements in the inmate calling service provider's patent, EFF said Tuesday it boiled down to this: "When an inmate gets booked into the local jail, Securus robocalls a family member to ask if they are willing to set up a pre-paid phone account." EFF said there were two serious problems: "First, the claims are directed to a mind-numbingly mundane business practice and should have been rejected as obvious. Obvious uses or combinations of existing technology are not patentable. Second, the claims are ineligible for patent protection under the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice v. CLS Bank -- that holds that an abstract idea (like contacting potential third-party payers) doesn’t become eligible for a patent simply because it is implemented using generic technology. That the system failed to register either of these defects shows deep dysfunction." Securus didn't comment.

The FCC Wireline Bureau denied TransWorld Network objections to the release of its sensitive business data, subject to a protective order, in the special-access rulemaking. TransWorld objected to the release of the data until potential reviewing parties disclosed whether they specifically sought to view the company's confidential and highly confidential data, and their reasons for wanting to do so. AT&T and the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates had asked the bureau to dismiss the four TransWorld objections. In an order Tuesday denying TransWorld's objections in docket 05-25, the bureau said all 86 potential reviewing parties challenged by TransWorld had executed acknowledgements certifying they were seeking access to the data solely to participate in the rulemaking. It also said it was sticking with a previous decision to make available to all potential reviewers all the business data the FCC collected from industry parties and not require individual reviewers to specify which data they wanted to examine.

CenturyLink and Cogent said they entered into a long-term interconnection agreement for their public IP networks, after months of negotiations (see 1508070061). "This agreement allows the exchange of Internet traffic in a balanced, scalable and mutually economical manner to accommodate the growing use of the Internet," said a joint news release Tuesday. The Internet backbone company and other ISPs have reached various interconnection agreements in recent months following the FCC's February net neutrality order.

All video relay service (VRS) rates should be frozen, not just those for the smallest three companies (see 1511040061), said consumer groups and industry representatives in ex parte filings in dockets 10-51 and 03-123. The National Association of the Deaf said in its Friday filing that it has seen and "been alarmed by the deterioration of VRS, which appear[s] to be exacerbated each time the Commission reduces the rates." Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing said in its Friday filing that the "extraordinary focus on cost cutting is contrary to the mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act for functionally equivalent telecommunication services for deaf and hard of hearing individuals." A mix of four large and small companies that offer VRS said in their Monday filing that a freeze is necessary to protect the quality of the service until the "FCC reaches a sustainable, market-based compensation mechanism because the current compensation mechanism is fundamentally and fatally flawed." Comments are due Dec. 9 (see 1511180026).

The FCC seeks comment by Dec. 18 on AT&T's application to stop taking new orders for three legacy services in its IP transition trials in Carbon Hill, Alabama, and Kings Point, Florida: BellSouth Analog Voice Grade Private Line Services, BellSouth Analog Video Service-TV-1 and BellSouth Program Audio Service. AT&T said its "initial plans to 'grandfather' the Affected Services would entail continued service to existing customers and the offer of only next generation wireless and wireline Internet Protocol (IP)-based alternatives for new orders," said a public notice in docket 15-274. AT&T's application will be deemed granted Jan. 17 unless the commission notifies the company otherwise, but the authorization to grandfather the services wouldn't take effect until Feb. 16 in light of AT&T's business plans, said Wednesday's PN. "These services have very few or no customers, and thus are distinct from the more widely deployed retail and wholesale services that were the focus of the January 2014 Technology Transitions Order and the narrative that accompanies AT&T’s February 2014 filing," the PN said. "If and when AT&T seeks Commission authority to move forward with the trial for such services, the Bureau expects that it will issue a standalone public notice setting a comment cycle outside of the typical [Communications Act Section] 214 process."

Duke Energy said it "will vigorously challenge" Comcast’s complaint to the FCC (see 1511190006) alleging the utility is denying the cable operator access to its poles in Indiana, hurting broadband deployment. Duke will file a response to the complaint soon, the company emailed us Thursday. "Duke Energy has spent $1.3 million to correct numerous improper line and equipment installations on Duke Energy utility poles by Comcast -- installations that represented serious safety hazards and violations of the National Electrical Safety Code." The utility said the cable operator made more than 20,000 unauthorized line and equipment installations on the utility's poles in Indiana and noted Duke's lawsuit against Comcast over pole-attachment cost recovery is pending.

Comcast complained to the FCC that Duke Energy is denying it access to poles in Indiana, hindering broadband development across the state. Comcast said the denial is based solely on a protracted dispute over some charges from a build-out for a third party that is being litigated. Duke’s “actions flatly contravene [Communications Act] Section 224, its implementing rules and express Commission precedent, and should be dealt with as soon as possible,” Comcast Indianapolis told the FCC in a complaint posted Wednesday. Comcast asked for expedited FCC review and an order forcing Duke to immediately lift a permit moratorium and process Comcast applications for pole attachments. The cable company also asked the commission to fine Duke “for its deliberate disregard of the Commission’s rules and agency precedent.” Comcast said the FCC already has decided the primary issue in the dispute: “that pole owners may not deny access based on upon an attacher’s refusal to pay disputed charges.” Duke hasn't justified its refusal to process the pole-attachment applications beyond saying they are “currently suspended,” Comcast said. Duke’s refusal is based solely on Comcast’s dispute of invoices for work associated with a build-out for KDL Windstream, a company formerly affiliated with Duke, Comcast said. “The KDL payment dispute is the subject of ongoing litigation brought by [Duke] in federal district court,” Comcast said. “To be clear, the KDL work has no connection whatsoever to the suspended [Comcast] permit applications.” Comcast said it tried to resolve the dispute over 19 months through talks with Duke and FCC Enforcement Bureau mediation, but to no avail. It’s now clear Duke’s denial will last throughout the KDL litigation, which doesn’t go to trial until January 2017, necessitating the complaint, said Comcast. Duke Energy had no comment Thursday.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said he plans to circulate a draft rural USF item in December, but said he isn't going to be "held hostage to the calendar." Wheeler was asked at the FCC's news conference Thursday about his intentions on rate-of-return USF mechanisms in light of rural telco concerns that a broad overhaul could need more time combined with pressure from some commissioners to fix the "stand-alone broadband problem" that prevents carriers from receiving support for broadband customers using other providers for voice service (see 1511160043). Wheeler said he is working with Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Mike O'Rielly on possible changes to the current USF support mechanisms for rate-of-return carriers. He said central to that effort is taking steps to encourage broadband expansion and not just ensuring carriers get paid for existing broadband. He said the parties are making "good progress." He repeated he's "not going to be held hostage to the calendar."

USTelecom disputed Granite Telecommunications arguments opposing ILEC relief from certain FCC wholesale obligations. USTelecom said Granite believes Communications Act Section 271 Bell duties and ILEC 64 kbps wholesale voice duties give CLECs a "regulatory backstop" to obtain UNE-P (unbundled network element platform) replacement products from the incumbent telcos. “Granite’s imagined ‘regulatory backstop’ is not real and has been expressly disavowed by the FCC. UNE-P replacement products are the result of marketplace conditions that have enabled negotiated commercial agreements,” USTelecom said in a letter posted Wednesday in docket 14-192. "Regulatory obligations did not cause these agreements, and they do not ‘backstop’ them. Any savings claimed by Granite resulted from market conditions, not regulatory ‘backstops.’” Granite recently suggested it would stop serving 1.4 million lines and there would be consumer welfare loss of $4.4 billion to $10.2 billion if CLECs lost wholesale rights targeted by a USTelecom forbearance petition, which is due for a decision Jan. 4 (see 1511120031). USTelecom said the provisions Granite cites require ILECs to offer wholesale access to certain network elements, but don’t require them to offer a wholesale voice platform. “By implying that they do, Granite resurrects and tries to re-litigate issues that were settled years ago in the Commission’s UNE proceedings,” USTelecom said. “There is no requirement that companies assemble the various elements available under the sections and rules Granite cites into a finished wholesale business voice service.” A 2011 FCC amicus brief in a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case (BellSouth v. Kentucky PSC, No. 10-5311) confirmed that ILECs aren't required to recreate UNE-P, USTelecom said. A Granite representative had no comment Wednesday. The company did respond to a recent Verizon filing in the docket that argued a 2005 FCC forbearance order -- citing strong cable competition to Qwest (now CenturyLink) in Omaha, Nebraska -- supported the USTelecom petition. Granite said that order didn’t address the kinds of multilocation business customers Granite serves, the “vast majority” of which don’t have cable alternatives. Granite said there is no basis to assume Verizon and other ILECs would lose many customers to cable if CLECs have to pull back due to ILEC wholesale relief. CLECs have no concrete assurances Verizon and other ILECs will continue to offer commercial platform services in the absence of the regulations, Granite said.

Different sets of comment periods were triggered on FCC video relay service proposals after a summary of a Further NPRM appeared in Wednesday's Federal Register. Comments on proposed VRS compensation rates are due Dec. 9, replies Dec. 24; comments on possible VRS service improvements are due Jan. 4, replies Feb. 1 (all in dockets 10-51 and 03-123). The Further NPRM proposed to freeze the compensation rate of the smallest VRS providers at $5.29 per minute between July 1, 2015, and Oct. 31, 2016, which otherwise would be lower under ongoing rate cuts previously ordered by the commission (see 1511030064). The notice also seeks comment on other “measures that could enhance the functional equivalence of VRS,” which provides video-connected interpreters for the deaf and hard of hearing to communicate with phone callers. Three small VRS providers welcomed the rate-freeze proposal, but two of them along with Sorenson Communications, a larger provider, voiced varying degrees of concern that the commission didn't go further in its proposals to assist them in their efforts (see 1511040061).