ITTA-The Voice of America's Broadband Providers will be silenced. 

"ITTA will be shutting its doors effective Jan. 31, 2020 after over a one-quarter century representing wireline communications service providers in Washington," ITTA said in a statement Wednesday (Jan. 15). 

ITTA cited "financial constraints in the wireline service provider sector" for shutting its doors, saying those financial challenges had been "insurmountable." 

Related: NCTA, Others Push for Senate Version of Rural Broadband Funding 

“I am extremely proud of the work ITTA has done in Washington, DC on behalf of its member companies,” said ITTA president Genny Morelli. “ITTA’s successes in the policy arena are particularly noteworthy when measured against the size and resources of other industry stakeholders. With its lean structure, ITTA has been able to introduce innovative policy reforms and respond quickly to policy proposals as the telecom industry continues to modernize and evolve." 

Broadband providers still have a voice via ACA Connects, which represents smaller and midsized providers, NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, USTelecom, CTIA and others. 

America Connects president saluted ITTA in a tweet: 

[embed]https://twitter.com/MATTatACA/status/1217579481977835520[/embed]

Paul Raak has joined USTelecom as VP of government affairs. 

USTelecom members include AT&T, Verizon, and Frontier. 

Raak had been handling Capitol Hill advocacy for broadband association ITTA.

AT USTelecom, Raak will focus on broadband mapping and deployment and the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. 

“Paul’s passion for rural broadband started in Iowa as the son of a third-generation telephone company owner," said USTelecom president Jonathan Spalter, "so he’ll not only be a great addition to our team but an asset to our rural broadband providers in every corner of the country." 

A pair of Democratic legislators has asked the FCC to deny a request to itemize a TRS (Telecommunications Relay Service) fund fee on customer bills.

Given that the price of service is often a topic of Capitol Hill concern and criticism from advocacy groups, carriers tend to want to let customers know what portion of that bill can be attributed to various government fees and subsidies.

In this case, ITTA-the Voice of America's Broadband Providers in May 2018 asked for a declaratory ruling from the FCC that it is able to display the TRS fund fee its subs are having to pay. It told the FCC such a ruling was "in full accord with the Commission’s TRS and Truth-in-Billing precedents, as well as longstanding industry practice."

But Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), the latter the chair of the House Communications Subcommittee, say that since the TRS fee is to subsidize telephone service to those with hearing and speech disabilities, could lead to stereotyping them as a societal cost burden.

“To specifically identify the cost of any ADA service (whether it be for a handicap accessible ramp or TRS) on any consumer or corporate bill in the form of a surcharge, fee, or any other form of a line-item discriminates against and ostracizes people with disabilities," they said in a letter Wednesday (May 1) to FCC chair Ajit Pai.

"What began as connecting the country via telephone lines — which were, in those early days, sometimes fashioned from cattle wire — has evolved into the innovative broadband and fiber networks of the digital age." —Jonathan Spalter, USTelecom 

In a recent spending bill, Congress made $600 million available for additional broadband deployment to America’s rural areas. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has been tapped to administer these funds through a new pilot program.

Without question, this funding is a welcome and needed addition to the growing arsenal now aimed squarely at closing the digital divide to rural Americans once and for all. USTelecom members have led the way on connecting these communities for more than a century, through companies often run by generations of the same family. 

What began as connecting the country via telephone lines — which were, in those early days, sometimes fashioned from cattle wire — has evolved into the innovative broadband and fiber networks of the digital age.

Private investment from our nation’s broadband providers has placed them among the leading investors in the U.S. economy, putting, since 1996, more than $1.6 trillion of their own capital on the line to upgrade and expand the nation’s digital infrastructure. As a result, over the past 10 years, broadband in rural homes has risen 117%.

This private investment, paired with dedicated federal programs, will connect millions more in the coming years. That’s why great care must be taken to maximize the RUS program’s effectiveness.

Coordination Is Key

Unquestionably, coordination with existing rural broadband programs and guidance from agencies with a proven track record of supporting successful deployment are critical to ensuring broadband gets deployed to the communities and households that actually need it.

Related: FCC Rural Broadband Office Bill Introduced

I emphasize this point because some prior funding efforts have resulted in duplicative construction rather than maximizing coverage across truly unserved areas. Lack of coordination between agencies and existing programs not only led to the overbuilding of broadband networks, but also to the distortion of competition in the ongoing efforts to deploy broadband.

In a blog published in April, Federal Communications Commission member Michael O’Rielly made a reasoned argument for such collaboration, encouraging RUS to coordinate with the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to ensure the funding prioritizes unserved areas and avoids overbuilding and duplicative construction.

Related: ISPs to Senate: Limit RUS Overbuilds

The smart coordination of RUS with existing programs we know already work, such as the Universal Service Fund, can best help providers extend and sustain broadband into our most rural communities. If this coordination doesn’t happen, projects selected by RUS could risk hollowing out the “Main Streets” of small communities, leaving another program, such as USF, to pick up the surrounding portions at much greater costs. 

New RUS funding should instead focus on areas not already reached, or not likely to be reached through programs such as the FCC’s High Cost and Remote Areas Funds, intended to bring service to many of the hardest-to-reach portions of the United States.

To that end, along with NCTA–The Internet & Television Association, the American Cable Association and ITTA (Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance), we submitted a letter this week to the Senate Agriculture Committee which is considering the Farm Bill, asking them to modify the RUS Broadband Loan Program to better achieve its goal of helping truly unserved areas.

In a strapped budget climate, it is imperative that federal agencies work in lockstep to ensure that taxpayer dollars are stretched to their full potential. Rural Americans who are still waiting on fast and reliable broadband service to reach their front door can’t afford anything less.

Jonathan Spalter is president and CEO of USTelecom, the telecommunications industry trade association.

Both sides were quick to weigh in Thursday (Oct. 27) after a politically divided FCC adopted new broadband privacy rules that give users more control over how their Web information is used and how it is protected by ISPs.

Some critics were already saying "See you in court."

“Although well-intentioned, the FCC’s decision to impose expansive new consumer privacy rules on ISPs far exceeds its statutory authority," said Genny Morelli, president of ITTA, which represents mid-sized telecoms. "The authority to apply the complex and burdensome privacy regime adopted today is nowhere to be found in the Communications Act or its legislative history.  ITTA looks forward to participating in the legal challenge to today’s decision and is confident the decision will be found unlawful."

Related:Broadband Privacy Rules Continue to Draw Reaction

NCTA: The Internet & Television Association also opposed the decision, saying: “The Commission’s decision to break with the FTC’s proven privacy framework in favor of a cobbled-together approach that abandons principles of fair competition is profoundly disappointing. Instead of creating a consistent and uniform approach to privacy that consumers can easily understand, today’s result speaks more to regulatory opportunism than reasoned policy. We strongly agree with the bipartisan commissioners’ comments that the federal government should develop a common approach to online privacy, as there is no lawful, factual or sound policy basis to justify a discriminatory approach that treats ISPs differently from some of the largest companies in the Internet ecosystem that engage in similar practices but operate under different regulatory standards.”

Commissioner Republicans, who dissented from the item, warned it would be taken to court and agreed it would not stand up.

Reed Smith counsel Sam Cullari, formerly Comcast deputy general counsel focusing on privacy, said it was impossible to square the FCC's professed consumer focus with the decision. 

"Huge corporations with competing interests like Comcast and Google aligning in opposition to an FCC proposal should be an obvious red flag that the FCC is charging in the wrong direction," he said. "Most consumers connect to the Internet through multiple providers, and Internet browsers like Google Chrome and social networks like Facebook are privy to a broader universe of customer information than any single ISP. Chairman Wheeler's proposal would impose strict opt-in consent restrictions on ISPs for the use of geo-location and Web browsing data while giving edge providers a pass on utilizing the exact same data."

Read more about broadband privacy.

But the decision had plenty of fans as well.

"“These broadband privacy rules are the next logical step since enshrining net neutrality in our telecommunications playbook," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). "These rules will ensure that as technology changes, our core values do not -- that consumers, not corporations, have control over their personal information. Consumers should be able to know at any given time what kind of information is being collected about them by their Internet service provider and how that information is being used. I applaud chairman Wheeler and the FCC for putting rules on the books that honor Americans’ right to privacy.”

“Consumers demand strong privacy protections online so I commend the FCC for today’s vote to enact new privacy rules," said Energy & Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N,J.).  "I believe that no consumer—regardless of their income—should be forced to choose between their privacy and staying connected.  I will therefore be reading the new pay-for-privacy rules closely to make sure consumers come out ahead.”

Public Knowledge Policy fellow Dallas Harris said: “This marks a significant step forward in protecting consumer privacy. For the first time, Internet Service Providers will be required to get consumer consent prior to using the sensitive information they collect. While much remains to be done to protect consumers online writ large, the Commission’s rules establish a baseline level of protection for all. Thanks to the rules passed by the Commission today, consumers now have more control over how their information is used online than ever before. Yet, consumer protection rules are only as strong as their ability to be enforced, so it is imperative that the Commission follow these strong rules with strict enforcement.”

Joan Marsh, AT&T SVP of federal regulatory, said: “AT&T has long been committed to a clear and transparent approach to ensuring that the privacy rights of our customers are protected. For this reason, AT&T is pleased that the FCC listened to the parties to this proceeding, including the FTC, and adopted a privacy framework that mirrors in many ways the approach taken by the FTC, which regulates the privacy practices of virtually all other companies operating in the internet ecosystem. We also support the decision by the Commission to expand the permissible scope of reasonable first-party marketing and to harmonize the voice and data rules to ensure consistent implementation and enforcement.

“The framework adopted today, however, departs from the FTC regime in significant and illogical ways, most importantly in the treatment of web browsing and app history data," she added. "In this regard, the FCC’s order falls short of recognizing that consumers want their information protected based on the sensitivity of the information collected, not the entity collecting it. The FCC’s divergent approach will ultimately serve only to confuse consumers, who will continue to see ads based on their web browsing history generated by edge providers even after they have been told by their service provider that their consent is required for use of such information.”

Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, said: "CDD would have preferred an earlier version of the commission’s privacy proposal that didn’t make distinctions between what is sensitive and non-sensitive data. This is a concept that is increasingly irrelevant today, because of technological advances in “Big Data” analytics and the massive growth of consumer data across all devices where innocuous data can be used to generate highly personal and sensitive details.  But today’s FCC decision is a critical advance to protect our information."