The Nebraska Public Service Commission could face a lawsuit if it revamps state USF contribution methodology before the FCC overhauls federal USF contribution formula, CTIA warned in comments Wednesday in PSC docket NUSF-100. The state commission is mulling a move to a connections-based mechanism from the current system based on intrastate revenue. Echoing a call from last month (see 1607190033), CTIA urged the state commission to wait for the FCC: "In addition to avoiding needless legal and practical problems, this approach also will allow the [PSC] to better guard against exacerbating the already high tax, fee, and surcharge burden on Nebraska wireless consumers." Carriers shouldn’t have to make major changes to their billing and accounting systems twice, once for Nebraska contribution overhaul and again after the FCC makes its own changes, CTIA said. “Such a costly and wasteful move could result in litigation.” AT&T is litigating with the Kansas Corporation Commission on these grounds, CTIA said. Federal law says state USF mechanisms mustn't be inconsistent with federal USF's, it said. Wireless contributors allocate intrastate revenue from connections that carry both interstate and intrastate traffic based on the inverse of the factor used for federal USF contributions, based either on a traffic study or the wireless safe harbor, it said. "If Nebraska uses a different approach to assessing interstate-intrastate connections, there is a significant risk that the Nebraska approach could impose NUSF contributions on revenue that is treated as interstate by the FCC.” CenturyLink disagreed. Its comments said "there are no unsurmountable intrastate versus interstate jurisdictional issues raised by moving to a connections-based mechanism for assessing an NUSF surcharge.” Workshops are needed to work out details, but "a connections-based methodology is fundamentally legally sound," the telco said. "An NUSF contribution which is connections-based does not burden the interstate uses any more than a surcharge which is revenues based, since both are determined without regard to jurisdictional separations" and "both recover the same total amount for the fund." Rural independent telcos said the PSC can’t afford to wait for the FCC. The FCC will revamp contribution "at some future point in time, but waiting for the FCC to act at a time when the current NUSF contribution methodology may not be sustainable is not a viable alternative,” rural independents commented. Nebraska is one of several states with decreased revenue to the state USF from contributions (see 1607010010).

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler phoned CEOs of content companies to try to win their support for the set-top rulemaking days before the Copyright Office issued a letter slamming the FCC plan, content company officials told us. CO opinion undermines Wheeler's efforts and backs up criticisms of the FCC plan from content companies and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel (see 1607120078), content company officials told us. Advocates of the FCC plan urged the commission to reject CO's position, but Commissioner Ajit Pai said in a statement Thursday that the critique should be “the final nail in the coffin” for the FCC proposal. Wheeler said Thursday in a news conference after commissioners' meeting that the FCC plan wouldn't violate copyright law, and many of the suggestions in the pay-TV backed apps proposal would be “adopted" in the final order.

Protests may be filed to claim Generalized System of Preferences benefits, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 4 decision (here) that appears to contradict current CBP policy. Though it dismissed an importer’s challenge on a technicality, the court found flaws with the basis of CBP’s 2014 directive that ports no longer accept protests used to claim GSP duty-free treatment post-liquidation (see 14081320). CIT “essentially ruled that the government was wrong in taking the position that GSP claims cannot be raised in a protest,” said John Peterson of Neville Peterson, who represented the importer, Zojirushi America.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler phoned CEOs of content companies to try to win their support for the set-top rulemaking days before the Copyright Office issued a letter slamming the FCC plan, content company officials told us. CO opinion undermines Wheeler's efforts and backs up criticisms of the FCC plan from content companies and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel (see 1607120078), content company officials told us. Advocates of the FCC plan urged the commission to reject CO's position, but Commissioner Ajit Pai said in a statement Thursday that the critique should be “the final nail in the coffin” for the FCC proposal. Wheeler said Thursday in a news conference after commissioners' meeting that the FCC plan wouldn't violate copyright law, and many of the suggestions in the pay-TV backed apps proposal would be “adopted" in the final order.

Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., urged Judiciary Committee Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to hold an oversight hearing into possible Russian government involvement in the hacking of Democratic National Committee servers. Coons is the Oversight ranking member. DNC-hired investigators said the hack, which resulted in WikiLeaks’ publication last month of almost 20,000 emails from seven top DNC officials’ accounts, had Russian government backing (see 1607270061). The FBI has been investigating the DNC hack and has avoided implicating Russia. An oversight hearing on the DNC hack should be used “to determine whether existing federal criminal statutes and federal court jurisdiction sufficiently address conduct related to foreign entities that could undermine our elections,” Coons and Whitehouse said in a letter to Cruz. Coons and Whitehouse also raised concerns about GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s comments on the DNC hack, which the senators said are an “unprecedented call for a foreign government to spy on a U.S. citizen and interfere with a U.S election.” Trump told reporters last week that he hopes Russia is “able to find the 33,000 emails that are missing -- I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” Trump later claimed he was being sarcastic. Trump’s comments “implicate U.S. criminal laws prohibiting engagement with foreign governments that threaten the country’s interests, including the Logan Act and the Espionage Act,” Coons and Whitehouse said. The comments also invite Russia to “engage in conduct that would violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and, if performed by the U.S. government, would contravene the Fourth Amendment.” A cybersecurity lobbyist told us it’s unlikely a hearing on the DNC hack would focus on Trump’s comments, particularly if Cruz chaired it because the longstanding feud between Cruz and Trump would make a focus on the comments appear to be “unseemly.” Cruz’s office didn’t comment.

Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., urged Judiciary Committee Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to hold an oversight hearing into possible Russian government involvement in the hacking of Democratic National Committee servers. Coons is the Oversight ranking member. DNC-hired investigators said the hack, which resulted in WikiLeaks’ publication last month of almost 20,000 emails from seven top DNC officials’ accounts, had Russian government backing (see 1607270061). The FBI has been investigating the DNC hack and has avoided implicating Russia. An oversight hearing on the DNC hack should be used “to determine whether existing federal criminal statutes and federal court jurisdiction sufficiently address conduct related to foreign entities that could undermine our elections,” Coons and Whitehouse said in a letter to Cruz. Coons and Whitehouse also raised concerns about GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s comments on the DNC hack, which the senators said are an “unprecedented call for a foreign government to spy on a U.S. citizen and interfere with a U.S election.” Trump told reporters last week that he hopes Russia is “able to find the 33,000 emails that are missing -- I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” Trump later claimed he was being sarcastic. Trump’s comments “implicate U.S. criminal laws prohibiting engagement with foreign governments that threaten the country’s interests, including the Logan Act and the Espionage Act,” Coons and Whitehouse said. The comments also invite Russia to “engage in conduct that would violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and, if performed by the U.S. government, would contravene the Fourth Amendment.” A cybersecurity lobbyist told us it’s unlikely a hearing on the DNC hack would focus on Trump’s comments, particularly if Cruz chaired it because the longstanding feud between Cruz and Trump would make a focus on the comments appear to be “unseemly.” Cruz’s office didn’t comment.

A federal court is unlikely to rehear a panel ruling that sided with the FCC on its net neutrality and broadband reclassification order, even critics of the order said Tuesday at a discussion held by TechFreedom, New America's Open Technology Institute (OTI) and the George Washington Institute of Public Policy. Some critics said they thought the chances the Supreme Court would review the case were better, though none of them called it likely, and a supporter of the commission order put the odds at just above 5 percent. Various petitioners have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to rehear the 2-1 decision by a panel upholding its order establishing net neutrality rules and reclassifying broadband internet access as a telecom service subject to common carrier regulation under Title II of the Communications Act (see 1607290052).

A federal court is unlikely to rehear a panel ruling that sided with the FCC on its net neutrality and broadband reclassification order, even critics of the order said Tuesday at a discussion held by TechFreedom, New America's Open Technology Institute (OTI) and the George Washington Institute of Public Policy. Some critics said they thought the chances the Supreme Court would review the case were better, though none of them called it likely, and a supporter of the commission order put the odds at just above 5 percent. Various petitioners have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to rehear the 2-1 decision by a panel upholding its order establishing net neutrality rules and reclassifying broadband internet access as a telecom service subject to common carrier regulation under Title II of the Communications Act (see 1607290052).

Comcast violated Washington state’s Consumer Protection Act nearly 2 million times, alleged a lawsuit by Attorney General Bob Ferguson. Ferguson filed the suit Monday in King County Superior Court. Comcast allegedly misrepresented the scope of its service protection plan, charged customers improper service call fees, practiced improper credit screening and deceived customers with its company guarantee, the AG said in a Monday news release. Comcast allegedly misled 500,000 Washington consumers into paying $73 million in subscription fees over five years for a “near-worthless” protection plan, the AG said. The plan doesn’t cover repairs to any wiring inside a wall, which comprises “the vast majority of wiring inside homes,” it said. The suit seeks $73 million in restitution, plus about $1 million for improper service call charges and up to $2,000 per violation of the Consumer Protection Act. The AG also sought a court order requiring Comcast to remove improper credit checks from the credit reports of more than 6,000 customers and an injunction requiring the cable company to clearly disclose limitations of its protection plan in advertisements and through representatives, to stop improper charges and to implement a compliance procedure for improper credit checks. The AG's office informed Comcast of the issues more than a year ago, but the company didn’t start making changes until it was on “the verge of this litigation,” it said. “This case is a classic example of a big corporation deceiving its customers for financial gain,” Ferguson said. “I won’t allow Comcast to continue to put profits above customers -- and the law.” We “will vigorously defend ourselves,” a Comcast spokeswoman said. The protection plan at issue covers more than 99 percent of repair calls, she said. “We worked with the Attorney General’s office to address every issue they raised, and we made several improvements based on their input. Given that we were committed to continue working collaboratively with the Attorney General’s office, we’re surprised and disappointed that they have instead chosen litigation.”

George Mason University Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff and 27 other U.S. academics jointly urged the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees Monday to “exercise caution” in considering the patent litigation-focused Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination (Venue) Act. (S-2733), filed in March (see 1603180057). The legislation would revamp rules for placement of patent infringement lawsuits in federal courts, requiring at least one of the parties involved in the suit be connected directly to the jurisdiction in which the lawsuit is filed. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., has said he isn’t opposed to narrowly focused patent bills like S-2733 but prefers to focus on his more comprehensive Innovation Act (HR-9), which also addresses patent litigation venue issues (see 1603250056). A “cautious stance” on bills like S-2733 is needed until the effects of the establishment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and other changes to the patent system enacted via the 2011 America Invents Act “are better understood,” the academics said in their letter to Goodlatte and other House and Senate Judiciary leaders. Although calls for revamping venue rules sound plausible because of the high concentration of patent infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the push for bills like S-2733 primarily is coming from tech firms and online retailers “that would rather litigate in a small number of more defendant-friendly jurisdictions,” the academics said. They said other arguments in favor of S-2733 “do not stand up to scrutiny,” including claims the bill would spread lawsuits to other courts around the country. Some S-2733 supporters “have found that restricting venue in a manner similar to the VENUE Act would likely result in concentrating more than 50% of patent lawsuits in just two districts: the District of Delaware (where most publicly traded corporations are incorporated) and the Northern District of California (where many patent defendants are headquartered),” the academics said. S-2733 would “raise costs for many patent owners by requiring them to litigate the same patent against multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, increasing patent litigation overall,” the academics said: The bill also “encourages the manipulation of well-settled venue rules across all areas of law by the self-serving efforts of large corporate defendants that seek to insulate themselves from the consequences of violating the law. By enacting the Venue Act, Congress would send a strong signal to corporate defendants that they can tilt the substantive playing field by simply shifting cases to defendant-friendly jurisdictions.”