NTIA intends to open a planned request for comment as part of its work to move forward on a national spectrum strategy (see 2209190061) “sooner rather than later,” but there’s no specific timeline, Senior Spectrum Adviser Scott Harris said Wednesday during a Georgetown University Center for Business and Public Policy event. House Communications Subcommittee Chief GOP Counsel Kate O’Connor, meanwhile, urged the Senate Commerce Committee to advance the House-passed Spectrum Innovation Act (HR-7624) and faulted the House Commerce Committee's recent oversight of interagency spectrum policy infighting.
The Airforwarders Association and the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America say tax money is needed to underpin the air cargo industry, because of "substantial revenue shortfalls" at airports. "Because of the lagging financials, airports will be allocating the monies of the Infrastructure Act to passengers, security, and safety, leaving insufficient funds to sustain air cargo operations," the groups said Oct. 18.
The Airforwarders Association and the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America say tax money is needed to underpin the air cargo industry, because of "substantial revenue shortfalls" at airports. "Because of the lagging financials, airports will be allocating the monies of the Infrastructure Act to passengers, security, and safety, leaving insufficient funds to sustain air cargo operations," the groups said Oct. 18.
The FCC appears close to releasing a public notice on testing and public trials prior to certifying automated frequency coordination providers in the 6 GHz band, industry officials said. The PN is reportedly in Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel’s office, though it could be sent back to the Office of Engineering and Technology for further work. A decision on rules for very-low-power devices in the 6 GHz band appears further off.
At a federal court’s prompting, AT&T invoked the deemed-granted provision of the Illinois small-cells law in a wireless infrastructure dispute with Monroe County. The U.S. District Court in East St. Louis, Illinois, last month declined to give AT&T summary judgment on other state law and Telecom Act violations alleged against Monroe County (case 3:20-CV-1327-NJR). But the court asked AT&T to amend its complaint to raise a shot-clock issue the carrier had raised too late in the process.
The FCC’s second request for information is “highly irregular” and fodder for “an endless fishing expedition,” said Standard General, Tegna and investor Apollo Global Management in their joint response to the Media Bureau’s questions, posted partially redacted Friday in docket 22-162. With just days left on the deal’s 180-day shot clock, the transaction isn’t expected to progress soon at the commission and could be in danger of being blocked, broadcast industry officials told us. Standard, Tegna and Apollo “are astonished that this Transaction, with all of the benefits that it offers to the public interest, is at the receiving end of unrelenting and baseless attacks and delay tactics from the petitioners,” said the information submissions.
Receiving an unsolicited telemarketing call alone doesn't constitute a violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, posted the Shipkevich law firm Wednesday. The U.S. District Court in Orlando held in a class-action suit in mid-September “that merely receiving an unsolicited marketing call is not enough to give a consumer standing to bring a claim” alleging an FTSA violation, it said. In the case of Davis v. Coast Dental, the plaintiffs claimed the defendant used computer software that automatically selected and dialed the class members’ phone numbers. But in reaching its conclusion, “the court reasoned that the allegation was insufficient to state a claim because it was a conclusory allegation that merely parroted the FTSA,” said the law firm. “The court opined that the plaintiff could have alleged various facts related to the transmission of calls in raising their claim. The court ultimately concluded that merely alleging that one received an unsolicited call is insufficient to state a claim.”
Wi-Fi equipment makers disputed arguments by AT&T that the FCC shouldn’t provide further flexibility for unlicensed 6 GHz devices without a requirement for automated frequency coordination. “There is no time urgency to act on the proposals to raise the LPI [low power indoor] power limit or to authorize VLP [very low-power] operations because it is now apparent that the use cases supporting those proposals can be realized under AFC control,” AT&T said last month (see 2209120027). “AT&T’s assertion is simply incorrect,” said the equipment makers' filing posted Thursday in docket 18-295. “There are significant costs to develop, deploy, and operate an AFC-coordinated device,” the companies said: Costs include “geolocation capabilities, additional installation requirements, support for the AFC-to-device protocol interface, changes to radio resource management algorithms to incorporate AFC frequency and power inputs, updates to the user interface to reflect AFC operational aspects, and recurring costs associated with the AFC system. AFC coordination also introduces significant complexity for installation and ongoing operational management.” Cisco, Extreme Networks, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks signed the letter.
The FCC is expected to approve soon a recent draft order circulated by Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel that would further clamp down on gear from Chinese companies, preventing the sale of yet-to-be authorized equipment in the U.S. The order, circulated by Rosenworcel Oct. 5 (see 2210070083), would ban the FCC authorization of gear from companies including Huawei, ZTE, Hytera Communications, Hikvision and Dahua Technology, FCC officials said. Industry officials believe the coming restrictions could increase lawmakers' interest in approving additional funding for the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program as part of an end-of-year legislative package (see 2210130074).
A federal court upheld a local telecom law requiring a revenue-based fee in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The U.S. District Court in Albuquerque granted summary judgment to the city in a Sept. 28 order on a case involving a challenge by local internet provider CNSP (case 1:17cv355). The company challenged Santa Fe's laws regulating broadband infrastructure in the right of way (ROW). CNSP said that by requiring a revenue-based fee of 2% of all gross charges, Santa Fe's law requires too much compensation for using the ROW, violating the 1996 Telecom Act’s Section 253. Also, CNSP said Santa Fe's contract with another ISP, Cyber Mesa, violated Section 253 by giving that company an unfair competitive advantage. Santa Fe's ROW law, including the 2% fee, doesn’t “materially inhibit the provision of broadband internet service,” ruled Judge Kenneth Gonzales. The ISP said the FCC's 2018 small-cells order banned revenue-based fees, requiring them instead to be cost-based, but the judge noted that the agency’s order was about 5G wireless infrastructure, which wasn’t involved in the CNSP case. Also, the court is bound by 10th Circuit precedent, not FCC opinion, Gonzales said. “The Court, despite the norm for deference to agencies found in” the Chevron doctrine, isn’t “persuaded that an administrative ‘Declaratory Ruling’ expressing a preference on a split in caselaw [sic] controls the courts." The 10th Circuit hasn’t “adopted a view antagonistic to revenue-based fees for wireline infrastructure,” the judge said. CNSP didn’t show the fee actually prohibited its business, said Gonzales: The company added customers during the case and plans to expand. On the contested contract, Gonzales said significant disputed facts precluded summary judgment for CNSP. "Even if the Court resolved all disputed facts in CNSP's favor, Santa Fe raises sufficient dispositive legal issues related to essential elements of CNSP's claims that the Court concludes summary judgment in the City's favor is appropriate,” he said. “CNSP has raised insufficient facts to show that an improper and preemptable competitive advantage has been bestowed upon Cyber Mesa or that an absolute prohibition or exclusion currently restricts CNSP -- even if the Cyber Mesa contract is indeed still operative and all disputes are resolved in CNSP's favor."