Lawmakers may introduce legislation this week to roll back an administration-favored provision that would allow robocalls to cellphones for the collection of debt owed to the government, included in the two-year Bipartisan Budget Act deal approved by the Senate and House last week in contested votes. The White House announced President Obama's intention to sign the deal into law. The deal, which raises spending caps and the debt ceiling, contains many provisions setting up future FCC spectrum auctioning and expanding the Spectrum Relocation Fund (see 1510270063).

Charter Communications still hopes to close on its acquisitions of Bright House Networks and Time Warner Cable this year, but "realistically" the deal will wrap up in Q1, CEO Tom Rutledge said Thursday as it and TWC separately announced Q3 results. Charter is making available any information the FCC and Justice Department need as they review the transaction, he said, saying the company hasn't had any discussions with the FCC about potential conditions. Charter also has received approvals needed from most states and raised "nearly all" the financing needed for the acquisition, Rutledge said.

Charter Communications still hopes to close on its acquisitions of Bright House Networks and Time Warner Cable this year, but "realistically" the deal will wrap up in Q1, CEO Tom Rutledge said Thursday as it and TWC separately announced Q3 results. Charter is making available any information the FCC and Justice Department need as they review the transaction, he said, saying the company hasn't had any discussions with the FCC about potential conditions. Charter also has received approvals needed from most states and raised "nearly all" the financing needed for the acquisition, Rutledge said.

Some senators slammed the provision of Bipartisan Budget Act agreement that would allow robocalls to cellphones for the collection of debt owed to the government, such as in student loan debt collection. “We should be getting rid of robocalls, not empowering the federal government to make them,” Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., scoffed Wednesday during a Commerce Committee hearing, blasting “this nutty path.”

Judge David Tatel is expected to play a key role as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit hears the appeal of the FCC’s net neutrality order, experts said in interviews. How the court will rule and whether the case is ultimately headed to the Supreme Court is more difficult to predict, they said Wednesday.

Judge David Tatel is expected to play a key role as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit hears the appeal of the FCC’s net neutrality order, experts said in interviews. How the court will rule and whether the case is ultimately headed to the Supreme Court is more difficult to predict, they said Wednesday.

The Obama administration may have provided the muscle ensuring inclusion of a spectrum title in the two-year Bipartisan Budget Act deal, released to the public minutes before midnight Monday (see Communications Daily Bulletin Oct. 27). Lawmakers told us the administration exerted its will in the negotiations, which yielded provisions setting up future FCC spectrum auctions with new agency authority and administration-desired flexibility for the Office of Management and Budget Spectrum Relocation Fund.

The Obama administration may have provided the muscle ensuring inclusion of a spectrum title in the two-year Bipartisan Budget Act deal, released to the public minutes before midnight Monday (see Communications Daily Bulletin Oct. 27). Lawmakers told us the administration exerted its will in the negotiations, which yielded provisions setting up future FCC spectrum auctions with new agency authority and administration-desired flexibility for the Office of Management and Budget Spectrum Relocation Fund.

Full Service Network (FSN) proposed its own format for net neutrality oral argument Dec. 4 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (USTelecom v. FCC 15-1063). In their proposal Friday, FSN and allies said they were unable to reach agreement with other industry petitioners (USTelecom and allies) and government respondents (the Department of Justice and FCC), which had submitted a joint proposal for the format (see 1510230066). “The other petitioners and Respondents have an obvious common interest in minimizing the prominence and discussion of the substantive legal arguments in [our] brief,” FSN said. The joint proposal “minimizes FSN’s time,” giving it only 10 minutes, “and excludes it from discussion of a key issue,” said FSN, referring to the legality of the FCC’s reclassification of broadband access under Title II of the Communications Act (previously it was under Title I). FSN said its attorney, Earl Comstock of Eckert Seamans, should be given 20 minutes: 10 minutes, as part of the main reclassification arguments, to make its case that the statute dictated Title II for broadband and 10 minutes to argue the FCC should not have given broadband ISPs forbearance deregulation from much of Title II. “Both FSN and USTelecom argue that the plain language of the Act determines the classification, but with different end results,” FSN said (USTelecom argues the statute precluded Title II reclassification). The DOJ and FCC argue the statute is ambiguous and allows the commission to reasonably reclassify broadband under Title II. The joint proposal’s approach “would be inefficient and result in the Court having to hear the [reclassification] issue twice,” FSN said, while “hearing all three parties’ positions at the same time will facilitate the Court’s understanding.” FSN's 120-minute proposal would allocate 35 minutes to USTelecom, 20 minutes to FSN and five minutes combined to Alamo Broadband and Daniel Berninger (to raise their free-speech challenge), with the DOJ/FCC receiving 60 minutes to respond. That time breakdown “roughly” tracks the court-ordered breakdown of word limits in briefs, FSN said. Joining FSN in the litigation are Sage Telecommunications, Telscape Communications and Truconnect Mobile. One of the three judges hearing the case will decide on the format, according to the D.C. Circuit’s procedural handbook, with the composition of the panel usually revealed 30 days before oral argument (in this case, that would be Nov. 4).

Full Service Network (FSN) proposed its own format for net neutrality oral argument Dec. 4 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (USTelecom v. FCC 15-1063). In their proposal Friday, FSN and allies said they were unable to reach agreement with other industry petitioners (USTelecom and allies) and government respondents (the Department of Justice and FCC), which had submitted a joint proposal for the format (see 1510230066). “The other petitioners and Respondents have an obvious common interest in minimizing the prominence and discussion of the substantive legal arguments in [our] brief,” FSN said. The joint proposal “minimizes FSN’s time,” giving it only 10 minutes, “and excludes it from discussion of a key issue,” said FSN, referring to the legality of the FCC’s reclassification of broadband access under Title II of the Communications Act (previously it was under Title I). FSN said its attorney, Earl Comstock of Eckert Seamans, should be given 20 minutes: 10 minutes, as part of the main reclassification arguments, to make its case that the statute dictated Title II for broadband and 10 minutes to argue the FCC should not have given broadband ISPs forbearance deregulation from much of Title II. “Both FSN and USTelecom argue that the plain language of the Act determines the classification, but with different end results,” FSN said (USTelecom argues the statute precluded Title II reclassification). The DOJ and FCC argue the statute is ambiguous and allows the commission to reasonably reclassify broadband under Title II. The joint proposal’s approach “would be inefficient and result in the Court having to hear the [reclassification] issue twice,” FSN said, while “hearing all three parties’ positions at the same time will facilitate the Court’s understanding.” FSN's 120-minute proposal would allocate 35 minutes to USTelecom, 20 minutes to FSN and five minutes combined to Alamo Broadband and Daniel Berninger (to raise their free-speech challenge), with the DOJ/FCC receiving 60 minutes to respond. That time breakdown “roughly” tracks the court-ordered breakdown of word limits in briefs, FSN said. Joining FSN in the litigation are Sage Telecommunications, Telscape Communications and Truconnect Mobile. One of the three judges hearing the case will decide on the format, according to the D.C. Circuit’s procedural handbook, with the composition of the panel usually revealed 30 days before oral argument (in this case, that would be Nov. 4).