Title I or Title II of the Communications Act would bar the New York Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), said amici supporting ISP groups in briefs Friday at the U.S. Supreme Court. NCTA, a cable industry group that didn’t join the original May 2021 challenge that several national telecom associations filed in a district court, said the ABA “would impose unprecedented and unlawful rate regulation on broadband services.” The Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC) also condemned the state law. “If the ABA becomes effective, it will achieve the opposite of what it purports to accomplish, making it harder for communities of color to subscribe to broadband.”

There's "no viable proposed timeline" for larger make-ready pole orders that account for "the fundamental realities of broadband deployment," USTelecom told the FCC in a letter Friday in docket 17-84. The commission sought comment on the item in a December Further NPRM (see 2312130044). USTelecom noted such orders are "more complicated and time-consuming," making it "impossible" to determine how long an order for more than 3,000 poles will take (see 2408210034). Timelines for larger pole orders must account for "workforce limitations," workflow management, and coordination between pole owners and attachers, USTelecom said, adding it's "impossible to predict solely from the number of poles involved" how long a make-ready request for more than 3,000 poles will take, it said. "That there are real-world obstacles to deployment is a reason to ensure that any timeline includes a robust good faith exception capturing all situations where the pole owner cannot meet the timeline due to circumstances beyond its control," USTelecom said. The group also opposed several proposals from other groups on cost-allocations for pole replacements, one-touch, make-ready mandates and professional engineer certification requirements.

Verizon faced tough cross-examination Friday as consumer advocates hammered the company’s petition for Connecticut deregulation. Paul Vasington, the carrier's senior director-regulatory and government affairs, said during a Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) virtual hearing that the market where the ILEC seeks deregulation has reached “full potential” competitively given many VoIP and wireless options. However, officials from the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) questioned whether Verizon competitors offer services that are the functional equivalent of landlines.

Commenters largely showed support for NTIA's proposed guidance that would allow the use of alternative technologies for broadband, equity, access and deployment program projects in locations where fiber may not be the most suitable option (see 2408260048). Comments were due Tuesday. Additional comments will be made public after an initial review, an NTIA spokesperson told us.

CTIA presented a 109-page argument against California regulating wireless service quality. Comments were posted through Tuesday at the California Public Utilities Commission. The commission is weighing a staff proposal that moves away from the CPUC’s light-touch approach to wireless and interconnected VoIP. While industry widely panned the plan and hinted at lawsuits, public advocates said expanding regulation of newer voice services is a must.

The White House Office of the National Cyber Director released guidance Tuesday, dubbing it a "roadmap," addressing "key vulnerabilities" in border gateway protocol (BGP) security. ONCD urged "every network operator use a risk-based approach to address BGP vulnerabilities" through the adoption of resource public key infrastructure (RPKI), which includes route origin authorization and origination, calling it a "mature, ready-to-implement approach to mitigate BGP’s vulnerabilities."

The FCC Wireless Bureau on Friday agreed to delay by three weeks the comment deadlines on a Further NPRM on the broadband data collection process as sought by CTIA, USTelecom and the Competitive Carriers Association (see 2408260010). With the delay, comments are now due Oct. 7, replies Nov. 5 in docket 19-195. “Given the importance of receiving both timely and accurate BDC data submissions as well as robust input on the questions raised in the Fourth Further Notice, we find there is good cause to grant Joint Petitioners’ request,” the bureau said.

ISPs challenging the FCC’s updated data breach notification rules made their case at the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court about why the rule should be overturned. The filing elaborates on their argument that the agency exceeded its Communications Act authorities when it adopted the rule in December. The Ohio Telecom Association (docket 24-3133), the Texas Association of Business (docket 24-3206) and CTIA, NCTA and USTelecom (docket 24-3252) brought the challenge. The 6th Circuit is considered among the most conservative federal circuits.

CTIA, USTelecom and the Competitive Carriers Association jointly asked that the FCC delay by three weeks the comment deadlines on a July Further NPRM on the broadband data collection process (see 2408150009). The groups asked that the initial comment deadline be delayed from Sept. 16 to Oct. 7 and the reply comment deadline moved from Oct. 15 to Nov. 5. “The FNPRM raises complex issues … that warrant a robust record from those directly impacted, including member companies of the Joint Petitioners,” said a filing posted Monday in docket 19-195. “Key subject matter experts at the member companies dedicated to BDC issues are currently preparing the next BDC filing” due on Sept. 3, the groups said: “The intervening Labor Day holiday further reduces the time available to respond to the multitude of system-specific questions asked in the FNPRM. A brief three-week extension is consistent with precedent, in the public interest, and warranted to afford the Joint Petitioners’ member companies sufficient time to develop a complete record.”

California appropriators last week halted multiple telecom-related bills meant to help vulnerable communities. Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D) blamed the broadband industry after the Senate Appropriations Committee held back her bill that would have banned digital discrimination as the FCC defines it (AB-2239). However, that committee and its Assembly counterpart advanced several other telecom and privacy bills to final floor votes.