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.

Federal judges grilled both sides in an FCC video relay service case over rate tiers in a 2017 order, which VRS provider Sorenson Communications is challenging. Judges asked scores of questions and pressed attorneys during oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Monday that lasted almost 90 minutes after being scheduled to run 30 in Sorenson v. FCC, No. 17-1198.

USTelecom asked the FCC to relieve incumbent telcos of "outdated" wholesale duties in the 1996 Telecommunications Act that "distort competition and investment decisions." The association asked the commission to forbear from applying "unbundling obligations, which require some ILECs ... to sell access to parts of their networks to certain competitors at extremely low rates set by regulators," blogged CEO Jonathan Spalter Friday: "Once the FCC forbears from these rules, consumers and the economy overall will benefit. A market analysis shows that consumer savings could reach $1 billion over the next ten years, and removing these regulatory handicaps could lead to more than $1.8 billion in new investment over the same timeframe, creating more than 6,000 jobs." Since the 1996 mandates were adopted, "there has been a staggering decline in ILEC switched access voice subscriptions, from 186 million in 2000 to a projected 35 million this year," said the petition. "In residential markets, only 11 percent of U.S. households are projected to have an ILEC switched voice line by the end of this year. Indeed, 60 percent of Americans will have abandoned wireline voice service entirely in favor of wireless alternatives. Of the remaining 40 percent, a majority will obtain service from a non-ILEC -- often a cable company or other provider of [VoIP]. There is also intense competition in the business data services marketplace. ... A regime that imposes special burdens on providers that hold a small and shrinking share of the market distorts competition, harms consumers, and simply makes no sense." USTelecom member Windstream is strongly opposed to the petition, said Kristi Moody, general counsel. “This is an attempt by large incumbent providers to improperly use their market position in an anti-competitive way, especially in light of their proposal for a mere 18-month period for competitive carriers to transition away from these crucial facilities," Moody said. “To be clear, if this petition is granted, less competition will result, and schools, hospitals, libraries, nonprofit organizations and small and medium-sized businesses will see their rates go up.” Incompas CEO Chip Pickering said in a statement: “Big telecom’s 'competition cut off' will freeze broadband deployment and burn consumers and small businesses with higher bills. Cutting off access and kicking the little guy where it hurts is a brazen move, and we urge the FCC to reject the measure outright. The facts are clear, where smaller competitors have access and are deploying new networks, big telecom incumbents are forced to upgrade their service and lower prices. USTA’s petition delays the future and will incentivize large incumbent telecom providers to raise rates on older, slower lines for much longer." The FCC didn't comment.

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said T-Mobile and Sprint have a difficult case to make on why their planned combination should be allowed. The companies must show "real evidence" their transaction wouldn't raise consumer prices or reduce competition, she said, answering questions Thursday from NBC News Senior Tech Editor Jason Abbruzzese at the Collision Conference in New Orleans (Facebook webcast). "Going from four to three [national wireless competitors] is a hard case," she said. Rosenworcel criticized recent FCC media ownership changes that "seemed custom-built for one company," Sinclair, which is seeking to buy Tribune: "We shouldn't be playing favorites." She said the FCC was on the "wrong side" of the law, history and the American people in rolling back Title II net neutrality regulation under the Communications Act. But the action "awoke a sleeping giant, because the American public wasn't going to stand for" the agency "mucking around" with internet freedom. "I don't think the story's over," she said, citing two new state net neutrality laws, five state executive orders, 23 state attorneys general challenging the FCC's order in court and 50 votes in the U.S. Senate to undo the order through a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution. While supporting net neutrality, Rosenworcel said policymakers need to find a "balance" that encourages broadband investment because "it's expensive to deploy networks. That's a real impediment for a lot of companies and a lot of communities." She said she's hopeful blockchain technology could contribute to "dynamically distributing spectrum," rather than simply assigning it to two different categories: exclusive, licensed uses and open, unlicensed uses.

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said T-Mobile and Sprint have a difficult case to make on why their planned combination should be allowed. The companies must show "real evidence" their transaction wouldn't raise consumer prices or reduce competition, she said, answering questions Thursday from NBC News Senior Tech Editor Jason Abbruzzese at the Collision Conference in New Orleans (Facebook webcast). "Going from four to three [national wireless competitors] is a hard case," she said. Rosenworcel criticized recent FCC media ownership changes that "seemed custom-built for one company," Sinclair, which is seeking to buy Tribune: "We shouldn't be playing favorites." She said the FCC was on the "wrong side" of the law, history and the American people in rolling back Title II net neutrality regulation under the Communications Act. But the action "awoke a sleeping giant, because the American public wasn't going to stand for" the agency "mucking around" with internet freedom. "I don't think the story's over," she said, citing two new state net neutrality laws, five state executive orders, 23 state attorneys general challenging the FCC's order in court and 50 votes in the U.S. Senate to undo the order through a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution. While supporting net neutrality, Rosenworcel said policymakers need to find a "balance" that encourages broadband investment because "it's expensive to deploy networks. That's a real impediment for a lot of companies and a lot of communities." She said she's hopeful blockchain technology could contribute to "dynamically distributing spectrum," rather than simply assigning it to two different categories: exclusive, licensed uses and open, unlicensed uses.

More than 1,100 economists signed a letter to Congress and the president asking the government not to make the same mistake it did in 1930, when Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The letter, published May 3, said trade is significantly more important than it was in 1930, but that the fundamental economic principles that argue against tariffs have not changed in the nearly 90 years since then. The letter quotes a 1930 letter, signed by 1,028 economists, that asked Congress to reject Smoot-Hawley. Tariffs "would raise the cost of living and injure the great majority of our citizens," the original letter said. Exporters would also suffer from retaliatory tariffs. The signatories include economists from the left, right and center, and 15 Nobel Prize winners.

More than 1,100 economists signed a letter to Congress and the president asking the government not to make the same mistake it did in 1930, when Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The letter, published May 3, said trade is significantly more important than it was in 1930, but that the fundamental economic principles that argue against tariffs have not changed in the nearly 90 years since then. The letter quotes a 1930 letter, signed by 1,028 economists, that asked Congress to reject Smoot-Hawley. Tariffs "would raise the cost of living and injure the great majority of our citizens," the original letter said. Exporters would also suffer from retaliatory tariffs. The signatories include economists from the left, right and center, and 15 Nobel Prize winners.

AT&T praised the FCC for proposing a streamlined Enforcement Bureau complaint process and supported "suggestions to harmonize the procedural rules that apply to Section 208 formal complaints, Section 224 pole attachment complaints, and disability access complaints" under the Communications Act. The commission should also "adopt a rule setting forth processes for the filing and consideration of pre-answer Motions to Dismiss for all kinds of formal complaints," said the company's filing posted Monday in docket 17-245 on an NPRM (see 1709180057). "Although the Commission already has authority to entertain and grant such motions, adopting a rule specifying procedures for doing so would provide Commission staff and formal complaint parties with useful guidance and certainty. ... [M]any formal complaints raise threshold legal questions that, if decided at early stages of the proceedings, would significantly narrow or eliminate entirely the litigation, minimizing or avoiding the need for potentially costly, lengthy, and onerous discovery, non-dispositive motions practice, and fact-finding." Commenters had mixed views last October on the notice (see 1710270027).

RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif. -- The Census Bureau expects to issue proposed rules for routed export transactions by the fall, said Omari Wooden, assistant division chief, International Trade Management Division at Census. Census is in the process of going through many issues raised by industry in comments to the agency (see 1712070039), Wooden said at the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America's annual conference on May 1. "We are the government, so instead of months, we give you seasons, so probably sometime in the fall we're hopeful to come out with something," he said.

RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif. -- The Census Bureau expects to issue proposed rules for routed export transactions by the fall, said Omari Wooden, assistant division chief, International Trade Management Division at Census. Census is in the process of going through many issues raised by industry in comments to the agency, Wooden said at the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America's annual conference on May 1. "We are the government, so instead of months, we give you seasons, so probably sometime in the fall we're hopeful to come out with something," he said.