The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund order on reconsideration put on circulation last week rejects the Illinois Office of Broadband and Vermont Department of Public Service petitions for reconsideration of the RDOF order (see here and here), an FCC official told us Monday. The recon order wouldn't affect the RDOF auction, one said.
Matt Daneman
Matt Daneman, Senior Editor, covers pay TV, cable broadband, satellite, and video issues and the Federal Communications Commission for Communications Daily. He joined Warren Communications in 2015 after more than 15 years at the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, where he covered business among other issues. He also was a correspondent for USA Today. You can follow Daneman on Twitter: @mdaneman
The satellite industry expects at least some changes to the FCC International Bureau earth station siting guidance that's the subject of a reconsideration petition, given the seeming unintended consequences of it, we're told. Since it's about staff guidance and not an order, the outcome isn't exactly clear. The Satellite Industry Association had petitioned for changes.
While the FCC eyes sticking with telework at least through next June (see 2007240053), many law firms with communications practices tell us they're taking a wait-and-see stance with the pandemic, with no time frame for returning to their facilities. Others have tentative dates in mind for reopening or have partially reopened. Many see increased telework as the norm post-pandemic.
The clock started ticking Thursday for incumbent C-band fixed satellite service earth station operators to decide whether to take the lump sum for spectrum clearing transition costs. Some expect relatively few to take that option after the agency made only some cost estimate changes sought by many MVPDs (see 2007060051). The Wireless Bureau public notice set Aug. 31 for the lump sum election and laid out the cost category schedule and dollar amounts. The FCC seems unlikely to budge on the deadline or inclined to hand out waivers, said broadcast lawyer Anne Crump of Fletcher Heald.
The iconectiv petition asking the FCC to move to a competitive bidding process for selecting a toll-free numbering administrator (TFNA) (see 2006300003) got no clear industry consensus in docket 20-174 postings Thursday. AT&T said the TFNA's tariff use "is an anomaly" compared with competitive bidding and contracts the FCC uses for other numbering administrators. Going to a competitive process for the local number portability administrator resulted in hugely reduced costs, it said. Also backing the petition, USTelecom said FCC use of competitive bidding for numbering services shows market-based approaches lead to more efficiency. Now isn't the time to change TFNAs since the pandemic has been a major disruption to so many businesses already, and such a switch raises the risk of some kind of interruption that could hurt those relying on toll-free numbers, Unisys said. No one has shown that incumbent TFNA Somos hasn't been doing the job adequately, it said. Iconectiv should be commended for pointing out lack of Somos transparency, but its petition is meritless because it says TFN rates have gone up without reason when it's common knowledge Somos has been doing sizable technology upgrades, responsible organization Vanity International said. "This is nothing but a land grab by a 3rd party venture fund," it said. Iconectiv's complaint about use of a tariff-based approach would hold true no matter who is TFNA, and it would be nice to have multiple providers, but that isn't technologically feasible now, said EZ Texting. Somos is an independent, nonprofit TFNA, and someone else selected through competitive bidding might focus on cost control to the exclusion of protecting the public from scammers using toll-free numbers, Duke Energy said. Establishing a competitive bidding process for selecting a TFNA needs to carry guarantees the new TFNA provides the scam protection services Somos does, it said. Make sure new rules don't significantly interfere with or require changes to the way providers interface with the TFNA and don't require costly changes, said ATIS. Somos, in posting on meetings with aides to Commissioners Geoffrey Starks and Jessica Rosenworcel, said any consideration of changing processes to select a TFNA and changing the tariff structure requires issuing an NPRM. It said the current system "is working well." Its comments said similar.
Amid talk of federal regulation of social media platforms' editorial privileges, FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly called it "First Amendment gibberish" to argue such regulation is pro-free speech. He spoke to the Media Institute Wednesday, also seeking less regulation of other industries and to get localities out of cable franchising. The social media regulatory step would curtail free speech through government action, he said in prepared and actual remarks.
A North American Numbering Council working group report on use of IP local routing numbers for nationwide number portability (NNP) drew fire Tuesday, with the FCC advisory group unable to get unanimous support for it and the focus on IPLRN coming under criticism. Others argued that IPLRN focus is what the FCC wanted in its charge letter to the working group. The FCC didn't comment. NANC also adopted a working group report on interoperable video calling.
With the FCC 27-month-and-counting freeze on new C-band fixed satellite service earth station registrations (see 1804200003), operators with stations not on the list -- particularly operators who never had a chance to register earth stations they bought after the freeze -- are concerned they'll have to shoulder the expense of the relocation. The commission hasn't said how it will handle the dozens of filings it received this month after it solicited corrections (see 2007070037). That public notice said the International Bureau won't take applications seeking to qualify for incumbent status but instead is looking for "minor corrections" such as site address or GPS coordinate fixes. The FCC didn't comment Monday.
Backing Charter Communications' ask the FCC sunset two Time Warner Cable-Bright House Networks transaction conditions in May (see 2006180050) are free-market and small-government advocacy groups, swarms of local business groups and local elected officials. Opponents are primarily public interest groups, as expected (see 2007090009), in docket 16-197 postings Thursday. Replies are due Aug. 6.
Maine's bid to have Charter's lawsuit challenging the state's law requiring prorated refunds when customers end service partway through a billing cycle (see 2006030036) could focus on whether a cable TV subscription is analogous to buying fruit at the store. State and Charter outside counsel and U.S. District Judge Jon Levy of Bangor all toyed with that analogy Tuesday during oral argument on Maine's motion to dismiss (docket 20-cv-00168). A decision is expected after Aug. 24 when briefing is to be finalized. Buying lemons and then returning some moldy ones for a refund doesn't change the rate the store charges, argued Maine Attorney General's Office lawyer Paul Suitter: Same holds true for a prorated refund, and thus Maine's law doesn't run afoul of Section 543 of the Cable Act, barring state or federal cable rate regulation. He said the state law doesn't affect ongoing rates consumers pay other than not charging consumers for service post-cancellation. He said even if the court finds there's ambiguous language in the state statute, Maine is entitled to a presumption against federal preemption. Pressed by Levy whether a cabler gets to define the quantity of service it provides, Suitter said a subscription is an ongoing relationship rather than buying a discrete piece of produce. But asked by Levy about a scenario where the Maine legislature requires cable operators to bill customers weekly rather than monthly, Suitter acknowledged that gets at rate structure issues. Since that's a different matter, Suitter told the judge, "Thankfully that's not the call you have to make." And even if it is rate regulation, Suitter said, once service has been canceled a cable company is no longer protected by Section 543. "There is some wordplay going on here," replied Charter counsel Matthew Hellman of Jenner & Block, because the issue is straightforward -- Charter sells subscriptions on a monthly basis, and requiring it to be sold on a daily basis is rate regulation. He said courts and the FCC have reached that conclusion repeatedly in different prorating contexts.