The Computer and Communications Industry Association told the Copyright Office Thursday it supports the office’s NPRM that would significantly reduce the fee for online service providers to designate agents to receive notifications of claimed infringement under Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512, but raised concerns about the NPRM’s agent renewal requirements. The CO sought comment last month on the plan, which would lower the fee to $6 per designation in anticipation of a switch from using paper forms to designate those agents to an online filing system. The designation fee framework currently includes an initial $105 fee and an additional $35 fee for each of up to 10 alternate designated agents (see 1605250055). Comments were due after our deadline Friday. Lowering the agent designation fee “in most circumstances would be a beneficial idea,” but the NPRM “also suggests an unwise recurring formality for intermediaries relying on the Section 512 safe harbor,” CCIA commented. A footnote in the NPRM says the CO “contemplates requiring electronic re-registration of all currently designed agents once the Office’s proposed digital database is released,” CCIA said. “It also suggests that online services would be required to subsequently renew such designations every three years.” The industry group said it believes such a rule “would be inconsistent with Section 512, would have negative implications for continued investment in the Internet industry, and would be ultimately unnecessary.”

Reconsideration petitions on the FCC much-debated Lifeline order rained into the commission Friday. The agency received petitions from CTIA, NASUCA, NTCA, USTelecom and others in docket 11-42. “There are aspects of the Order where the Commission ignored requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), unnecessarily increased administrative burdens, as well as areas where the Commission should have been clearer,” USTelecom said. The FCC didn’t provide enough notice for changes to the carrier recertification process or port freeze requirements in the order, it said. The wireline association said the FCC should reconsider the effective date of the streamlined federal eligibility criteria and obligation to offer Lifeline broadband internet access service (BIAS) requirements. USTelecom said the date should be delayed until Dec. 31, 2017, or 12 months after Office of Management and Budget approval of the order, whichever is later: “A December 1st obligation to offer Lifeline broadband does not allow adequate time to modify systems to identify those locations where Lifeline broadband must be made available.” Among other requested changes, USTelecom urged reconsideration of the FCC decision that voice should continue to be supported in census blocks with a single Lifeline provider. And it should reconsider the exception to its minimum standard requirements for fixed providers that haven’t deployed broadband networks in specific geographic areas, it said. Also, the commission should reverse its decision that high-cost carriers with state eligible telecom carrier designations are subject to BIAS Lifeline obligations, it said. In a joint petition, NTCA and WTA also urged the FCC to reconsider the exception to the fixed broadband minimum speed standard, saying “it represents a failure to properly leverage the High cost universal service program and will inadvertently punish certain low-income rural consumers.” The FCC should reconsider phasing out support for voice-only service, and exempt rural Lifeline providers using satellite backhaul from the 150 GB minimum usage allowance standard, they said. CTIA asked the FCC to reconsider its decision to set long-term minimum capacity standards for mobile broadband at 70 percent of the average mobile data usage per household. “The record raises serious questions about whether the 70 percent average of mobile data usage per-household standard adequately accounts for the affordability of Lifeline broadband service for the lowest-income consumers who otherwise would stand to benefit the most from the Commission’s recent modifications to the Lifeline program,” CTIA said. NASUCA urged reconsideration of the decision to remove Lifeline support for stand-alone voice services and said the agency failed to adopt regulations so that customers who can’t afford bundled services can maintain basic voice service, failed to require payment arrangements for backup power for Lifeline customers, and failed to require USF contribution from broadband services. NARUC has challenged the Lifeline order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 1606030053).

Reconsideration petitions on the FCC much-debated Lifeline order rained into the commission Friday. The agency received petitions from CTIA, NASUCA, NTCA, USTelecom and others in docket 11-42. “There are aspects of the Order where the Commission ignored requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), unnecessarily increased administrative burdens, as well as areas where the Commission should have been clearer,” USTelecom said. The FCC didn’t provide enough notice for changes to the carrier recertification process or port freeze requirements in the order, it said. The wireline association said the FCC should reconsider the effective date of the streamlined federal eligibility criteria and obligation to offer Lifeline broadband internet access service (BIAS) requirements. USTelecom said the date should be delayed until Dec. 31, 2017, or 12 months after Office of Management and Budget approval of the order, whichever is later: “A December 1st obligation to offer Lifeline broadband does not allow adequate time to modify systems to identify those locations where Lifeline broadband must be made available.” Among other requested changes, USTelecom urged reconsideration of the FCC decision that voice should continue to be supported in census blocks with a single Lifeline provider. And it should reconsider the exception to its minimum standard requirements for fixed providers that haven’t deployed broadband networks in specific geographic areas, it said. Also, the commission should reverse its decision that high-cost carriers with state eligible telecom carrier designations are subject to BIAS Lifeline obligations, it said. In a joint petition, NTCA and WTA also urged the FCC to reconsider the exception to the fixed broadband minimum speed standard, saying “it represents a failure to properly leverage the High cost universal service program and will inadvertently punish certain low-income rural consumers.” The FCC should reconsider phasing out support for voice-only service, and exempt rural Lifeline providers using satellite backhaul from the 150 GB minimum usage allowance standard, they said. CTIA asked the FCC to reconsider its decision to set long-term minimum capacity standards for mobile broadband at 70 percent of the average mobile data usage per household. “The record raises serious questions about whether the 70 percent average of mobile data usage per-household standard adequately accounts for the affordability of Lifeline broadband service for the lowest-income consumers who otherwise would stand to benefit the most from the Commission’s recent modifications to the Lifeline program,” CTIA said. NASUCA urged reconsideration of the decision to remove Lifeline support for stand-alone voice services and said the agency failed to adopt regulations so that customers who can’t afford bundled services can maintain basic voice service, failed to require payment arrangements for backup power for Lifeline customers, and failed to require USF contribution from broadband services. NARUC has challenged the Lifeline order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 1606030053).

Telcordia accused the LNP Alliance and New America's Open Technology Institute (OTI) Wireless Future Program of continuing to make incorrect and misleading claims about the small-provider impact of the FCC-planned transition from Neustar to Telcordia as local number portability administrator and an associated master services agreement (MSA).

With FCC authority to clamp down on zero rating clearer, it should move forward, net neutrality advocates will tell the agency. Groups including Fight for the Future, the Center for Media Justice and Free Press plan to present complaints allegedly from 100,000 Americans to the FCC Friday before the commissioners' meeting.

With FCC authority to clamp down on zero rating clearer, it should move forward, net neutrality advocates will tell the agency. Groups including Fight for the Future, the Center for Media Justice and Free Press plan to present complaints allegedly from 100,000 Americans to the FCC Friday before the commissioners' meeting.

Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., still plans to press for tweaks to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, an aide told us. Daines developed a “commonsense approach” to such an overhaul, said Business in the Public Interest Chairman Adonis Hoffman in a blog post for The Hill Wednesday. Hoffman referred to Daines’ proposal to amend the TCPA "to provide incentives to establish voluntary TCPA compliance programs” and said under “Daines's approach, if a business implements a meaningful compliance program with its third-party service providers, then that business can raise evidence of its program as an affirmative, compliance defense during litigation.” A Daines aide confirmed this was an amendment Daines filed but that wasn't attached to the FCC Reauthorization Act earlier this year. Daines is working on this issue to find a solution that protects consumers but avoids excessive litigation, the aide said. The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on the topic earlier this year.

Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., still plans to press for tweaks to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, an aide told us. Daines developed a “commonsense approach” to such an overhaul, said Business in the Public Interest Chairman Adonis Hoffman in a blog post for The Hill Wednesday. Hoffman referred to Daines’ proposal to amend the TCPA "to provide incentives to establish voluntary TCPA compliance programs” and said under “Daines's approach, if a business implements a meaningful compliance program with its third-party service providers, then that business can raise evidence of its program as an affirmative, compliance defense during litigation.” A Daines aide confirmed this was an amendment Daines filed but that wasn't attached to the FCC Reauthorization Act earlier this year. Daines is working on this issue to find a solution that protects consumers but avoids excessive litigation, the aide said. The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on the topic earlier this year.

House Judiciary Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee Chairman Trent Franks, R-Ariz., all but declared his support during a hearing Wednesday for the Securing Participation, Engagement and Knowledge Freedom by Reducing Egregious Efforts Act, saying the Speak Free Act “enjoys broad bipartisan support.” HR-2304 would create a national statute to curb strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). The hearing largely lauded HR-2304's virtues, as expected (see 1606210061). But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Yeshiva University Benjamin Cardozo School of Law professor Alexander Reinert raised concerns about the bill's scope.

House Judiciary Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee Chairman Trent Franks, R-Ariz., all but declared his support during a hearing Wednesday for the Securing Participation, Engagement and Knowledge Freedom by Reducing Egregious Efforts Act, saying the Speak Free Act “enjoys broad bipartisan support.” HR-2304 would create a national statute to curb strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). The hearing largely lauded HR-2304's virtues, as expected (see 1606210061). But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Yeshiva University Benjamin Cardozo School of Law professor Alexander Reinert raised concerns about the bill's scope.