The FCC likely can find an easy solution after a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated one part (see 1808280020) of a decision easing regulation of the business data service rates of major incumbent telcos, experts said. The court denied CLEC and ILEC petitions in general but vacated the final rule on TDM transport services, remanding it to the regulator for further proceedings. The case is Citizens Telecommunications v. FCC, No. 17-2296. Oral argument was in May (see 1805150020).

The FCC likely can find an easy solution after a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated one part (see 1808280020) of a decision easing regulation of the business data service rates of major incumbent telcos, experts said. The court denied CLEC and ILEC petitions in general but vacated the final rule on TDM transport services, remanding it to the regulator for further proceedings. The case is Citizens Telecommunications v. FCC, No. 17-2296. Oral argument was in May (see 1805150020).

Congress needs a formal position from law enforcement on whether to let the private sector hack back, a controversial concept exempting companies from prosecution in cyber self-defense, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., told us. Though law enforcement mightn't have an appetite for this, Whitehouse said he heard from internet security companies and groups that depend on their services about the benefits of hack-back authority. “I’m sold on the notion that there should be some place that they can go to get a straight answer,” he said. “If the answer ends up being no, so be it. But I think it’s a mistake to answer serious questions by default without giving someone the chance to make their case.”

Congress needs a formal position from law enforcement on whether to let the private sector hack back, a controversial concept exempting companies from prosecution in cyber self-defense, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., told us. Though law enforcement mightn't have an appetite for this, Whitehouse said he heard from internet security companies and groups that depend on their services about the benefits of hack-back authority. “I’m sold on the notion that there should be some place that they can go to get a straight answer,” he said. “If the answer ends up being no, so be it. But I think it’s a mistake to answer serious questions by default without giving someone the chance to make their case.”

The FCC Office of the Inspector General found “no evidence or suggestion of impropriety, unscrupulous behavior, or favoritism” in FCC actions toward Sinclair, said a statement issued Monday by Chairman Ajit Pai that was later confirmed by the original document. An investigation of Pai’s relationship to Sinclair was requested last fall by Democratic lawmakers (see 1802150031) and critics of Sinclair’s buy of Tribune -- including Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. Opponents of the Sinclair/Tribune have said the Pai FCC’s moves on ownership deregulation appeared to give Sinclair special treatment, before he advanced the hearing designation order (HDO) that killed the deal.

Trade Act Section 301 tariffs “remain the wrong solution to real problems” in thwarting allegedly unfair Chinese trade practices, said the Internet Association in comments posted in docket USTR-2018-0026. The comments previewed testimony that Jordan Haas, the group’s director-trade and international policy, gave at hearings Wednesday, saying IA wants two line items removed from the proposed third tranche of 25 percent tariffs. Haas testified on the same panel as the Telecommunications Industry Association, which also opposes tariffs TIA says would “handicap” the U.S. in its 5G “contest” against China (see 1808130015).

The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO) submitted a statement of issues in in United Keetoowah Band v. FCC & USA, No. 18-1129, a case challenging the FCC’s March infrastructure order. “NATHPO intends to file opening and reply briefs focused on the detrimental impact of the FCC’s order on historic preservation of Tribal cultural resources,” the group said. Issues to be raised include whether the FCC “properly interpreted the National Historic Preservation Act with respect to its definition of an ‘undertaking,’” whether the FCC has authority “to eliminate Tribal review and associated fees through administrative order” and whether the agency engaged in the required “government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes,” NATHPO said.

When BMG's copyright infringement complaint against Cox Communications goes to trial -- again -- in an Alexandria, Virginia, federal courtroom next week (see 1808160006), the jury will see a notably different trial from the first, meaning it's tough to handicap whether BMG will again prevail, experts told us. The Cox internal email -- central in the first trial -- indicating the company's enforcement of its own policy of terminating subscribers for copyright violations was toothless “put [Cox] in a difficult position," said Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz. But the second trial will no longer focus on whether Cox satisfied the narrow statutory standard of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor protections but instead on almost a more philosophical question of whether it's responsible for the actions of its subscribers, he said. BMG sued Cox in 2015, alleging the ISP was contributorily liable for infringement of BMG’s copyrights by its subscribers pirating BMG's catalog via Torrents.

When BMG's copyright infringement complaint against Cox Communications goes to trial -- again -- in an Alexandria, Virginia, federal courtroom next week (see 1808160006), the jury will see a notably different trial from the first, meaning it's tough to handicap whether BMG will again prevail, experts told us. The Cox internal email -- central in the first trial -- indicating the company's enforcement of its own policy of terminating subscribers for copyright violations was toothless “put [Cox] in a difficult position," said Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz. But the second trial will no longer focus on whether Cox satisfied the narrow statutory standard of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor protections but instead on almost a more philosophical question of whether it's responsible for the actions of its subscribers, he said. BMG sued Cox in 2015, alleging the ISP was contributorily liable for infringement of BMG’s copyrights by its subscribers pirating BMG's catalog via Torrents.

When BMG's copyright infringement complaint against Cox Communications goes to trial -- again -- in an Alexandria, Virginia, federal courtroom next week (see 1808160006), the jury will see a notably different trial from the first, meaning it's tough to handicap whether BMG will again prevail, experts told us. The Cox internal email -- central in the first trial -- indicating the company's enforcement of its own policy of terminating subscribers for copyright violations was toothless “put [Cox] in a difficult position," said Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz. But the second trial will no longer focus on whether Cox satisfied the narrow statutory standard of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor protections but instead on almost a more philosophical question of whether it's responsible for the actions of its subscribers, he said. BMG sued Cox in 2015, alleging the ISP was contributorily liable for infringement of BMG’s copyrights by its subscribers pirating BMG's catalog via Torrents.