U.S. companies are “market leaders” in development and sale of smart thermostats, and would be the hardest hit if the Trump administration imposes 25 percent tariffs on Chinese imports, the Advanced Energy Management Alliance said in comments posted May 10. The alliance, whose members include green energy services providers, but also Nest, Tesla and Walmart, wants the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to remove automatic thermostats in HTS subheading 9032.10.00 from its list of products targeted for the tariffs, it said. Chinese companies “do not have a meaningful presence in the U.S. market” for smart thermostats, it said. “Therefore, if USTR were to impose duties on smart thermostats, the impact of the duties would fall primarily on U.S. companies. In addition to the harm this would cause to the U.S. companies and their American workers, the additional duties would increase prices for the millions of U.S. families who rely on smart thermostats to control their energy costs and [would] discourage their use.”

The FCC approved 4-0 an NPRM on ways to spark interest in the 2.5 GHz band. The item was changed while on the eighth floor to ask additional questions about how to make better use of the band, for example, holding an incentive auction like the one held for broadcast TV, officials said Thursday. Few carriers are expected to pursue the band, which is largely controlled by Sprint, despite the push (see 1805040036). The band, once dedicated to use by schools through the instructional television fixed service starting in 1963, was made available for other uses through the educational broadband service (EBS) launched by the FCC 2004.

The FCC order rolling back net neutrality regulation takes effect June 11, the commission said Thursday, the day before official notice is to hit the Federal Register. Chairman Ajit Pai and allies hailed the coming change and critics decried it. Some expect broadband providers to be cautious in exercising their new regulatory freedoms in the market; others suggested FCC opponents could seek a stay and the commission would ask the Supreme Court to dismiss litigation over the previous FCC's Title II net neutrality decision under the Communications Act. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who is pushing a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution aimed at reversing the FCC's rescission order (Senate Joint Resolution-52), said the date announcement helps the cause.

The FCC order rolling back net neutrality regulation takes effect June 11, the commission said Thursday, the day before official notice is to hit the Federal Register. Chairman Ajit Pai and allies hailed the coming change and critics decried it. Some expect broadband providers to be cautious in exercising their new regulatory freedoms in the market; others suggested FCC opponents could seek a stay and the commission would ask the Supreme Court to dismiss litigation over the previous FCC's Title II net neutrality decision under the Communications Act. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who is pushing a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution aimed at reversing the FCC's rescission order (Senate Joint Resolution-52), said the date announcement helps the cause.

Lack of an FCC role in AT&T's proposed buy of Time Warner is a key reason the proposed Turner arbitration terms (see 1711280063) aren't sufficient as a fix of noncompetitive harms the deal raises, DOJ said in docket 17-cv-02511-RJL post-trial brief (in Pacer) filed Tuesday. The U.S. and the court never before lacked FCC assistance in crafting and supervising behavioral conditions, Justice said, calling Turners' arbitration offer "half baked." It said being part of New AT&T would be the "end of Time Warner's agnosticism" on distributors since New AT&T wouldn't want TW content distributed in ways that put more competitive pressure on AT&T-owned DirecTV. Justice said the companies are trying to "rewrite" merger law by carving out "a safe harbor for 'minor' price increases" when Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act focuses on harms to competition and not on the individual consumer, while annual harms of hundreds of millions of dollars "plainly evidences a 'substantial' distortion of the competitive process." It said FCC program access rules won't prevent anticompetitive harms from the deal, since the agency's Comcast/NBCUniversal order adopted remedies because it didn't consider program access rules sufficient to prevent price increases. The department said the court should opt for either a permanent injunction or targeted divestiture, with the options for the latter ranging from a targeted divestiture of Turner to a targeted divestiture of DirecTV. It said behavioral remedies are less effective at protecting competition than structural ones since they can't foresee all possible routes of improper influence over the acquired company. DOJ finds no examples of any Section 7 case in which the court ordered only behavioral relief over the U.S.' objections that survived appellate review. The companies filed their post-trial brief last week in U.S. v. AT&T and TW (see 1805040002).

Lack of an FCC role in AT&T's proposed buy of Time Warner is a key reason the proposed Turner arbitration terms (see 1711280063) aren't sufficient as a fix of noncompetitive harms the deal raises, DOJ said in docket 17-cv-02511-RJL post-trial brief (in Pacer) filed Tuesday. The U.S. and the court never before lacked FCC assistance in crafting and supervising behavioral conditions, Justice said, calling Turners' arbitration offer "half baked." It said being part of New AT&T would be the "end of Time Warner's agnosticism" on distributors since New AT&T wouldn't want TW content distributed in ways that put more competitive pressure on AT&T-owned DirecTV. Justice said the companies are trying to "rewrite" merger law by carving out "a safe harbor for 'minor' price increases" when Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act focuses on harms to competition and not on the individual consumer, while annual harms of hundreds of millions of dollars "plainly evidences a 'substantial' distortion of the competitive process." It said FCC program access rules won't prevent anticompetitive harms from the deal, since the agency's Comcast/NBCUniversal order adopted remedies because it didn't consider program access rules sufficient to prevent price increases. The department said the court should opt for either a permanent injunction or targeted divestiture, with the options for the latter ranging from a targeted divestiture of Turner to a targeted divestiture of DirecTV. It said behavioral remedies are less effective at protecting competition than structural ones since they can't foresee all possible routes of improper influence over the acquired company. DOJ finds no examples of any Section 7 case in which the court ordered only behavioral relief over the U.S.' objections that survived appellate review. The companies filed their post-trial brief last week in U.S. v. AT&T and TW (see 1805040002).

Lack of an FCC role in AT&T's proposed buy of Time Warner is a key reason the proposed Turner arbitration terms (see 1711280063) aren't sufficient as a fix of noncompetitive harms the deal raises, DOJ said in docket 17-cv-02511-RJL post-trial brief (in Pacer) filed Tuesday. The U.S. and the court never before lacked FCC assistance in crafting and supervising behavioral conditions, Justice said, calling Turners' arbitration offer "half baked." It said being part of New AT&T would be the "end of Time Warner's agnosticism" on distributors since New AT&T wouldn't want TW content distributed in ways that put more competitive pressure on AT&T-owned DirecTV. Justice said the companies are trying to "rewrite" merger law by carving out "a safe harbor for 'minor' price increases" when Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act focuses on harms to competition and not on the individual consumer, while annual harms of hundreds of millions of dollars "plainly evidences a 'substantial' distortion of the competitive process." It said FCC program access rules won't prevent anticompetitive harms from the deal, since the agency's Comcast/NBCUniversal order adopted remedies because it didn't consider program access rules sufficient to prevent price increases. The department said the court should opt for either a permanent injunction or targeted divestiture, with the options for the latter ranging from a targeted divestiture of Turner to a targeted divestiture of DirecTV. It said behavioral remedies are less effective at protecting competition than structural ones since they can't foresee all possible routes of improper influence over the acquired company. DOJ finds no examples of any Section 7 case in which the court ordered only behavioral relief over the U.S.' objections that survived appellate review. The companies filed their post-trial brief last week in U.S. v. AT&T and TW (see 1805040002).

A Congressional Review Act resolution aimed at reversing the FCC order to rescind 2015 net neutrality rules (Senate Joint Resolution-52) appears likely to happen next week, days after expected Wednesday filing of a petition to discharge the measure from Senate Commerce Committee jurisdiction (see 1804260030 and 1804300033), lawmakers and lobbyists told us. Republican lawmakers said they are wary of the possibility the resolution could pass in the Senate by a narrow margin if Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., isn't able to return this month because of brain cancer treatment. Senate Democrats downplayed such a scenario, emphasizing they are optimistic the CRA measure could still garner additional GOP supporters. Fifty senators publicly support the resolution, including all 49 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

A Congressional Review Act resolution aimed at reversing the FCC order to rescind 2015 net neutrality rules (Senate Joint Resolution-52) appears likely to happen next week, days after expected Wednesday filing of a petition to discharge the measure from Senate Commerce Committee jurisdiction (see 1804260030 and 1804300033), lawmakers and lobbyists told us. Republican lawmakers said they are wary of the possibility the resolution could pass in the Senate by a narrow margin if Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., isn't able to return this month because of brain cancer treatment. Senate Democrats downplayed such a scenario, emphasizing they are optimistic the CRA measure could still garner additional GOP supporters. Fifty senators publicly support the resolution, including all 49 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

House Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Mike Doyle, D-Pa., said Monday the U.S. Office of Special Counsel should investigate all three Republican FCC commissioners’ involvement in the American Conservative Union's February Conservative Political Action Conference. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioners Brendan Carr and Mike O’Rielly jointly appeared on a CPAC panel, with O’Rielly and Pai getting criticism from government ethics groups and Capitol Hill Democrats (see 1802230037, 1802270035 and 1803260040). The House Commerce Democrats’ request follows OSC finding last week that O’Rielly’s comments at CPAC advocating for the re-election of President Donald Trump violated the Hatch Act, which restricts government officials' partisan political activity (see 1805010083). On the advice of FCC lawyers (see 1803020033), Pai turned down a rifle associated with the National Rifle Association's Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award, which was announced at CPAC for his role in and the hostile fallout from rollback of 2015 net neutrality rules. All three GOP commissioners “have also refused to cooperate with Congressional oversight into their promotion of and participation in CPAC,” Doyle and Pallone wrote OSC Special Counsel Henry Kerner: “Our inquiry” asked the commissioners to “separately answer straightforward questions about their participation in CPAC and to provide supporting documentation. We specifically asked for separate responses to reflect the individual facts of each case.” FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson instead wrote Doyle and Pallone on the commissioners’ behalf to say they didn't violate the agency’s ethics rules (see 1804230023). Johnson’s response is “misleading and incomplete, ultimately raising more questions than it answers,” the Democratic lawmakers said: Johnson’s argument that the commissioners “were not required to abide by the Hatch Act by participating” in the CPAC conference “is simply not true.” It’s “misleading” to say the commissioners’ appearance was “not ethically questionable” given O’Rielly’s comments about a Trump re-election, which runs “counter to [Johnson’s] overly broad claim that nothing about the event raised ethical questions,” the lawmakers said. “The FCC’s career ethics officials determined that it was permissible” for the GOP commissioners to speak at CPAC, a spokeswoman emailed. “Indeed, Cabinet members also spoke at CPAC, and the Democrats’ letter contains no explanation for why the Commissioners’ participation should be treated any differently. Sadly, we are left to conclude that the Democrats are simply trying to stop FCC Commissioners from speaking to right-of-center organizations while they have no problem with Commissioners speaking to left-of-center groups,” she said.