Lead supporters and opponents of Senate Appropriations Committee-backed pro-public 3.7-4.2 GHz C-band auction language (see 1909190079) in the chamber's version of the FY 2020 FCC-FTC budget bill (S-2524) say they're not budging and expect a long fight. The dispute, which began last month, continued Thursday as Senate Appropriations Financial Services Committee Chairman John Kennedy, R-La., and others grilled FCC Chairman Ajit Pai on whether he favors a private auction similar to what the C-Band Alliance proposes. Kennedy and some other lawmakers favor public auction (see 1908230049). Pai is expected to propose a private auction plan for a vote at commissioners' Dec. 12 meeting (see 1910100052).

FCC Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks voted against the T-Mobile/Sprint/Dish Network deal, circulated by Chairman Ajit Pai two months ago (see 1908140052). Officials confirmed Pai and Commissioners Mike O’Rielly and Brendan Carr previously voted yes, and Carr in an interview defended the process amid his Democratic colleagues' concerns. Deal opponents told reporters they will consider challenging the order in court but must see it first. State attorneys general are suing the carriers in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (see 1909030060).

Some see FCC consideration of a declaration of effective competition due to the AT&T TV Now's vMVPD service in the last few spots where there's local cable TV basic rate regulation as potentially resurrecting questions of agency regulation of over-the-top services that were central in the dormant OTT-as-MVPD proceeding. An official said it's not clear whether commissioner will be unanimous on the draft opinion and order on next week's meeting agenda since it raises questions about OTT as effective competition to MVPDs and how that might lead to regulation of OTT. Local governments lawyer Tim Lay of Spiegel & McDiarmid agreed being an MVPD creates obligations, and it's not clear if the draft order would mean AT&T TV Now is an MVPD service that must comply with MVPD rules.

Some see FCC consideration of a declaration of effective competition due to the AT&T TV Now's vMVPD service in the last few spots where there's local cable TV basic rate regulation as potentially resurrecting questions of agency regulation of over-the-top services that were central in the dormant OTT-as-MVPD proceeding. An official said it's not clear whether commissioner will be unanimous on the draft opinion and order on next week's meeting agenda since it raises questions about OTT as effective competition to MVPDs and how that might lead to regulation of OTT. Local governments lawyer Tim Lay of Spiegel & McDiarmid agreed being an MVPD creates obligations, and it's not clear if the draft order would mean AT&T TV Now is an MVPD service that must comply with MVPD rules.

FCC Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks voted against the T-Mobile/Sprint/Dish Network deal, circulated by Chairman Ajit Pai two months ago (see 1908140052). Officials confirmed Pai and Commissioners Mike O’Rielly and Brendan Carr previously voted yes, and Carr in an interview defended the process amid his Democratic colleagues' concerns. Deal opponents told reporters they will consider challenging the order in court but must see it first. State attorneys general are suing the carriers in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (see 1909030060).

CBP's proposed rule to impose new importer verification requirements on brokers would transfer the government's oversight of importers on to brokers, FedEx said in comments to CBP on the proposal (see 1908130031). "CBP, as a law enforcement agency, should be the party primarily charged with verifying importer identity for security purposes," the company said. CBP should instead implement Section 114 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, which called on CBP "to develop criteria that an importer must meet in order to obtain an" Importer of Record number, FedEx said.

Even minor changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act could have “outsized consequences” for the tech industry and consumers, Reddit CEO Steve Huffman plans to testify Wednesday. Consumer advocates and academics prepared testimony blaming the industry for not doing enough to combat illegal platform activity. House Commerce Committee lawmakers meet Wednesday to discuss the industry’s content liability shield (see 1910090059).

Even minor changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act could have “outsized consequences” for the tech industry and consumers, Reddit CEO Steve Huffman plans to testify Wednesday. Consumer advocates and academics prepared testimony blaming the industry for not doing enough to combat illegal platform activity. House Commerce Committee lawmakers meet Wednesday to discuss the industry’s content liability shield (see 1910090059).

FedEx urged a court to deny the Commerce Department’s motion to dismiss FedEx’s June lawsuit against the agency, saying Commerce’s points were invalid, court records show. FedEx’s original suit alleged Commerce’s export controls were “unconstitutional,” “impossible to comply with” and placed an “overbroad, disproportionate burden” on FedEx (see 1906250030). Commerce responded in September by asking the court to dismiss the suit because it said it was a political matter, was precluded from judicial review under the Export Control Reform Act, and that FedEx did not raise a “patent violation” and did not meet the conditions to file a due process claim (see 1909110073).

The House Commerce Committee's top Republican and TechNet raised alarm over an economic analysis of California Consumer Privacy Act costs. But the Berkeley Economic Advising and Research (BEAR) says costs “present a notable, but hardly insurmountable challenge." BEAR prepared the Aug. 15 report for the California attorney general (see 1909200030). Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden (R) Wednesday said the study highlighted the need for a federal privacy bill. TechNet Executive Director-California Courtney Jensen said Tuesday this shows CCPA "will not only cost billions for businesses to comply with, but small businesses and start-ups are likely to face higher compliance costs." The report estimated initial compliance costs at about $55 billion, about 1.8 percent of California gross state product in 2018, and estimated direct compliance costs $467 million-$16.5 billion over the next decade. CCPA “will have consistently positive net costs for the state economy, but the magnitude of these costs is negligible from a macroeconomic perspective.” That doesn’t count “considerable” benefits to protected consumers. Firms operating within California may have a competitive disadvantage to those operating only outside the state, but it’s small, the document said. “Previous legislation that was unique to California has in turn set national standards as firms find it easier to adopt California’s requirements to all products and services rather than provide differentiated services.” There’s “likely limited direct competition between firms that would be subject to the regulation and those that would not,” it said. The new law could “provide a future competitive advantage for affected firms that are required to come into CCPA compliance now by creating additional barriers to entry for future competitors considering entering into the California market,” it said. “If the CCPA is a precursor for future privacy regulations at the additional state or federal level, then firms already in compliance with the CCPA will have a competitive advantage.”