USTelecom, CTIA and the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance asked the FCC to extend the comment deadlines by 30 days in the rulemaking to revamp Lifeline USF subsidies to cover broadband and make administration of the program more efficient. Instead of initial comments being due Aug. 17 and replies Sept. 15, they would be due Sept. 16 and Oct. 15, the telco associations said Friday in their request. The groups said the extension was warranted because the reform proposal was "unusually complex" and the current initial deadline fell during the traditional summer holiday period.

An FCC request to refresh the record on eligible telecom carrier (ETC) designations and duties in areas served by price-cap telcos is to be published on Monday in the Federal Register, according to a notice posted Friday. FR publication of an FCC public notice would set due dates for initial comments on Sept. 2 and replies on Sept. 17. The PN noted an updated list of census blocks where price-cap carriers continue to have ETC obligations to provide voice service after some census blocks were removed under a December partial forbearance order. The list includes census blocks that the USF Connect America Cost Model identifies to be in high-cost and extremely high-cost areas and unserved by an unsubsidized broadband/voice competitor. Price-cap carriers that decline to accept new broadband-oriented Connect America Fund subsidies in these census blocks (decisions are due by Aug. 27) will be required to continue to provide voice service there until replaced by another ETC offering voice and broadband service or unless and until the FCC gives them relief. The public notice seeks further comment on issues unresolved by the December order and pending in related proceedings, including requests by USTelecom and AT&T for greater relief from state ETC designations and associated voice duties in states where carriers decline CAF support. AT&T challenged the December order in court as not providing sufficient relief, but the FCC said the case should be held in abeyance while it resolves related issues in various proceedings (see 1507270038).

The main industry brief on the net neutrality order alleges the FCC majority, under Chairman Tom Wheeler, made a political decision in February when it opted to impose enhanced net neutrality rules on industry and reclassify broadband as a common carrier service. The brief was filed Thursday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by some of the top players in communications, including USTelecom, CTIA, NCTA, AT&T and CenturyLink, though CTIA and AT&T only join the section on wireless. The American Cable Association and the Wireless ISP Association also joined the brief.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., urged the Department of Commerce to modify its proposed rules for implementing changes to the 41-nation Wassenaar Arrangement export controls treaty that would control the export of intrusion software and IP network surveillance systems. The implementation rules proposed by Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security have come under fire from a range of U.S. cybersecurity stakeholders for being overly broad and potentially punishing legitimate security research (see 1507240054). “The goals of the proposal are laudable, and I share them: the proposal is intended to limit access to powerful surveillance tools by oppressive foreign regimes and agents,” Schumer said Wednesday in a letter to Commerce. “Unfortunately, I believe the proposal as drafted is vague and overbroad, and may inhibit the development of important cyber protection tools, as well as limiting the ability of US companies to protect their own networks.” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas; Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I.; Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif.; and Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., have also jointly voiced their concerns about the Wassenaar implementation proposal. Deputy Secretary of Commerce Bruce Andrews said during a podcast interview with Steptoe & Johnson cybersecurity lawyer Stewart Baker that there’s likely to be “a very strong effort to be responsive to those comments and to try to figure out what is the next iteration of this” along with another comment period. USTelecom President Walter McCormick said in a statement that he shares Schumer’s concerns about Commerce’s Wassenaar implementation proposal, “which could significantly hamper cybersecurity and information sharing between industry and government.” The proposed rules, “while well-intentioned, are too broad and would limit the telecommunication industry’s ability to protect its networks against intrusions by hackers, cyber-criminals, terrorists, and nation-states,” McCormick said.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) draft on Internal Report 8062 negatively affects the private sector, 12 Internet and telecom groups wrote in a joint comment to NIST Thursday. “We appreciate NIST’s recognition of the importance of privacy engineering and the use of technological approaches to minimize privacy risks and to implement a ‘privacy by design’ approach,” wrote the groups, which included CTIA, The Internet Association and USTelecom. But four issues with the draft caught the attention of the groups. “As written, the draft NISTIR extends beyond its intended scope of being limited to federal information systems and its potential applicability to the private sector is concerning,” the groups said. “The catalog of privacy problems set forth in the draft NISTIR includes subjective ‘problems’ that result in premature policy-making on privacy"; “the risk management methodology cannot produce repeatable and measurable results because it relies on subjective determinations"; and “the draft NISTIR omits an integral component of privacy risk assessments, namely a discussion of the benefits of taking a certain data action,” they said.

The FCC's net neutrality order should be vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, said a brief filed Thursday by the American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink, CTIA, Daniel Berninger, NCTA, USTelecom and the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association. The petitioners said the FCC's reclassification of broadband Internet access as a Title II service under the Communications Act contravened that law and was arbitrary and capricious. They said the FCC's reclassification of mobile broadband Internet access as a common carrier service was "doubly unlawful." The FCC order also was unlawfully vague and the agency violated administrative procedures, they said. Petitioners Alamo Broadband and Daniel Berninger submitted a separate brief arguing the FCC order violated the First Amendment and was unsustainable under Section 706 of the Telecom Act. They also said the FCC's rule prohibiting broadband access providers from engaging in "paid prioritization" was not allowed under Section 201(b) and not authorized under Section 303(b) of the Communications Act. Full Service Network also was to file a brief, but its text wasn't available at our deadline. FSN argues the FCC went too far in providing broadband providers regulatory forbearance relief.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute intends to argue against the FCC net neutrality order, becoming the latest party seeking to file an amicus brief supporting petitioners challenging the order in court. The brief would focus on the FCC's claim that Section 706 of the Telecom Act gives the agency "affirmative legal authority" for all rules in the order, said CEI's notice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is reviewing USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063. The free-market-oriented public interest group said it had sought to consolidate its brief with other potential amici, but none shared its particular Section 706 interest. Initial briefs by petitioners are due Thursday, while amicus briefs from supporters are due Aug. 6.

The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) sent a letter Wednesday to AT&T, CenturyLink, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon, urging them to offer call-blocking technology to consumers. Since the FCC clarified that offering this technology is within telcos' legal authority, the companies should “move swiftly to implement and inform consumers of these options,” the letter said. Forty-five state attorneys general said they have received numerous consumer complaints about robocalls and in the letter urged the phone companies to “act without delay” to offer call-blocking technologies to their customers.

At least three more parties asked a federal court for permission to file amicus briefs in the litigation over the FCC net neutrality and broadband reclassification order. This week, the Center for Boundless Innovation (CBIT), International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) and Phoenix Center filed motions (here, here and here) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to file briefs supporting petitioners challenging the FCC order, which are Alamo Broadband, the American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink, CTIA, Daniel Berninger, Full Service Network, NCTA, USTelecom and the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association. All but FSN is challenging the FCC order as overly regulatory. CBIT said it would argue that broadband ISPs are part of the "press" that's protected by the First Amendment from common carrier regulation imposed by the FCC through its reclassification of broadband Internet access services under Title II of the Communications Act. The ICLE would argue the order exceeded FCC delegated authority, and even if it didn't it acted arbitrarily and capriciously "by failing to consider relevant economic literature, evidence, and the costs" of its rules. The Phoenix Center would address a "narrow legal issue deliberately sidestepped" by the FCC in lumping "edge providers" with retail customers of "Broadband Service Providers," which the center said "appears to be a strategic choice designed to obscure the regulatory implications of reclassification on the end-user termination service provided by BSPs to edge providers." If the FCC had properly followed D.C. Circuit precedent in the 2014 Verizon v. FCC case, it should have defined what a "just and reasonable" rate was for terminating end-user traffic, which would have potentially conflicted with the agency's net neutrality rule prohibiting paid prioritization and effectively mandating a zero price, the Phoenix Center said. Other parties recently moved to file amicus briefs (see 1507150012 and 1507140035).

A federal court took a short timeout from its briefing schedule so it can consider an FCC motion to suspend substantive judicial review of an AT&T challenge to a commission order on price-cap telco USF duties, pending regulatory action on related issues in other proceedings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Thursday granted an FCC request to file the motion to hold the case in abeyance and the court suspended its current briefing schedule. The court didn't rule on the FCC motion to hold the case in abeyance, which already has been submitted. In its motion, the FCC noted that AT&T and others in August had asked the FCC to relieve price-cap carriers of eligible telecom carrier (ETC) obligations to serve rural areas where they would no longer be subsidized if they elected to receive USF support under the agency’s Connect America Fund Phase II overhaul of the high-cost program. AT&T and others also had urged the FCC to permit, but no longer require, high-cost ETCs to participate in the Lifeline USF program subsidizing low-income telecom consumers. Separately, in October, USTelecom petitioned the FCC to forbear from applying related high-cost and Lifeline rules. The FCC in December partially granted USTelecom’s petition, relieving price-cap carriers of their ETC duty to offer voice service in census blocks determined to be “low-cost,” served by an unsubsidized competitor, or where a competing ETC is receiving USF support to deploy fixed broadband/voice networks. AT&T then challenged the FCC order in the D.C. Circuit, arguing it didn't provide enough relief and was arbitrary and capricious (AT&T v. FCC, No. 15-1038). But the commission motion said that the agency made clear in December it wasn’t addressing all the issues raised in USTelecom’s petition or by commenters in the high-cost and Lifeline proceedings -- all three of which remain open. The FCC thus asked the court to hold the case in abeyance until (a) the agency finalizes its USTelecom forbearance review -- which must occur by Jan. 4 -- or earlier if it acts on the high-cost and Lifeline issues AT&T is targeting; and (b) AT&T petitions for review of the resulting orders, assuming it does so. The FCC said its prospective actions in the open proceedings could moot or alter AT&T’s current challenge, and even if they don’t, it made more sense for the court to consider all the issues at one time, rather than piecemeal. AT&T Tuesday opposed the FCC motion. “There is no reason for delay,” the telco said. “At bottom the FCC promulgated a rule it knows it cannot defend,” AT&T said. “That the FCC might, in a future order, grant AT&T relief from [unlawful] obligations is no reason to hold the case in abeyance.”