The arguments that the FCC and AT&T raise in Duke Energy’s petition for review of the FCC’s November order denying the company reconsideration in a pole attachment rate dispute with AT&T (see 2211290053) “reinforce” that the FCC shouldn’t “assert jurisdiction" over the rates AT&T pays Duke where it lacks jurisdiction over the rates Duke pays AT&T, said Duke’s reply brief Monday (docket 22-2220) at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Pasadena, Texas, design manual imposed burdensome requirements on Crown Castle’s small-node networks, and was “part of the battle” between telecommunications providers that are trying to expand 5G wireless services “and municipalities that are resisting that expansion,” said Friday’s decision (docket 22-20454) at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the district court’s ruling in Crown Castle’s favor (see 2308060001).
The Supreme Court of the U.S., in an Aug. 1 order, granted the government's bid for an additional month to reply to importer PrimeSource Building Products' petition for a writ of certiorari on President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 duties onto steel and aluminum "derivatives." The government's reply will now be due Sept. 25, instead of Aug. 24 as originally planned. The government said its heavy case load warranted the delay.
Plaintiff Esther Klang and defendant Google filed a stipulation of dismissal (docket 1:23-cv-01316) Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Brooklyn of a fraud case on advertised charging speed of a Pixel 6 smartphone. Klang asserted in her February lawsuit that Google didn’t disclose that its claim of a phone charging speed of 50% in 30 minutes requires buying its $25 30-watt USB-C charger, asserting violation of the New York General Business Law, multiple states’ consumer fraud acts, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. In June, the court granted Google’s motion to compel (see 2306080033) the case to arbitration and stay litigation. All claims Klang raised or could have raised in the action are dismissed with prejudice; each party will bear its own legal costs, said the filing.
Industry experts raised concerns Wednesday about the future of the FCC’s Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program. Panelists during a Broadband Breakfast webinar urged quicker action from Congress on additional funding (see 2307180079).
The U.S. asked for more time to file its reply to importer PrimeSource's writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court in its case challenging President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products. The government asked for another month, until Sept. 25, to complete its brief, explaining its response was delayed due to the "heavy press of earlier assigned cases to the attorneys handling this matter." The brief is due Aug. 24.
DOJ and the FCC on Monday defended the commission’s order last year further clamping down on gear from Chinese companies, preventing the sale of yet-to-be authorized equipment in the U.S. (see 2211230065). Dahua USA and Hikvision USA challenged the order, which implements the 2021 Secure Equipment Act, questioning whether the FCC exceeded its legal authority (docket 23-1032). The case is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Oral argument isn't scheduled.
Consumer advocates and industry disagreed on whether it's necessary to codify FCC rules to ensure callers may revoke prior express consent through any reasonable means under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, in comments posted Tuesday in docket 02-278. Some carriers warned it could inhibit certain important information being provided to consumers. Commissioners adopted the item in June (see 2306080043).
DOJ and the FCC on Monday defended the commission’s order last year further clamping down on gear from Chinese companies, preventing the sale of yet-to-be authorized equipment in the U.S. (see 2211230065). Dahua USA and Hikvision USA challenged the order, which implements the 2021 Secure Equipment Act, questioning whether the FCC exceeded its legal authority (docket 23-1032). The case is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Oral argument isn't scheduled.
A sunset review of an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey doesn't render a request for a changed circumstances review meaningless, Turkish exporter Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) said in a July 28 brief opposing motions to dismiss at the Court of International Trade (Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00350).