NAB and Tech Groups Disagree on Reg Fees
NAB and tech industry groups still don’t agree on proposals to expand the base of regulatory fee payors, according to reply comments filed in 21-190 by Monday’s deadline. “It is inconceivable that Congress would prefer to see small broadcasters struggle…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
to provide service to their local communities so they can subsidize massive technology companies,” said NAB. The FCC doesn’t have the authority to charge fees to companies it doesn’t regulate, said TechFreedom: “Especially after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, an administrative agency can’t undertake new regulations just because it’s a good idea -- they must be grounded in clear statutory authority.” In the short term, the FCC should exempt broadcasters from paying for the costs of the USF and for Media Bureau full-time equivalents connected with broadband policy, and cap the fee increases for broadcasters in the current draft order at 5%, said NAB. A group of 53 broadcasters said the agency should credit application fees against regulatory fees. “Cherry-picking one type of regulatee to exclude from contributing their share of the Commission’s indirect costs would threaten the administrability of the regulatory fee program as a whole,” said CTIA. The FCC “lacks legal authority to add a new regulatory fee category for broadband internet service providers,” said the Wireless ISP Association. The agency should develop a reduced fee category for small satellites and charge an interim fee in the meantime, said Spaceflight and Turion Space. “It is essential to the development" of the on-orbit services industry, "and not premature, that the Commission act now so that regulatory fees developed for traditional" non-geostationary satellite orbit "are not imposed on OOS missions,” said Spaceflight. The Satellite Industry Association disagreed: “The record supports the Commission’s conclusion that OOS services are still too immature for their own regulatory fee category at this time,” said SIA. “An interim regulatory fee schedule as suggested by Spaceflight is unnecessary.”