Two House members accused the FCC Downloadable Security Technical Advisory Committee (DSTAC) of deviating from the statute in the satellite TV law that created it. Reps. Gene Green, D-Texas, and Bob Latta, R-Ohio, outlined concerns to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler in a letter Thursday. “Some group participants and directives issued by your staff, unfortunately, are ignoring the qualifying statutory language regarding downloadable security in order to resurrect a previously discredited proposal referred to as AllVid,” the lawmakers wrote. “These proposals and staff directives go well beyond security issues, and in fact, seek to force providers to dismantle their video services and content for others’ commercial exploitation, harming the video marketplace and interfering with contracts and copyright law in the process.” The lawmakers dismissed this development as “an enormous distraction” and beyond statute. If the FCC allows such deviation from statute, that “would raise questions about your willingness to follow Congressional mandates,” they said. Green and Latta are the lawmakers responsible for the stand-alone legislation that ended the set-top box integration ban, eventually passed into law as part of Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization and considered a key lobbying priority for the cable industry. The commission declined to comment, as did Cheryl Tritt, who chairs the FCC committee. “The limited scope of DSTAC and it’s [sic] purpose is clear, and the language that defines it has been agreed upon in both the House and the Senate unanimously," Latta said in a statement.

Some industry observers questioned comments by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Thursday that Congress, not the FCC, needs to step in to limit class-action lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The FCC Thursday addressed some 20 petitions seeking clarification of the TCPA. Banking, healthcare and other interests had sought clarification from the FCC to limit the exposure faced by legitimate businesses trying to keep within the strictures of the TCPA.

Some industry observers questioned comments by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Thursday that Congress, not the FCC, needs to step in to limit class-action lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The FCC Thursday addressed some 20 petitions seeking clarification of the TCPA. Banking, healthcare and other interests had sought clarification from the FCC to limit the exposure faced by legitimate businesses trying to keep within the strictures of the TCPA.

Some industry observers questioned comments by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Thursday that Congress, not the FCC, needs to step in to limit class-action lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The FCC Thursday addressed some 20 petitions seeking clarification of the TCPA. Banking, healthcare and other interests had sought clarification from the FCC to limit the exposure faced by legitimate businesses trying to keep within the strictures of the TCPA.

The World Trade Organization took another step forward in the long-running dispute over U.S. country-of-origin labeling laws for meat on June 17 by referring the U.S. and Canada to another round of arbitration. Canada also formally requested authorization for retaliation at the Dispute Settlement Body meeting, the WTO said (here). Canada intends to raise retaliatory duties as early as the end of the summer, said Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz recently (see 1506050016).

The regional Bells and USTelecom criticized a Granite Telecom petition asking the FCC to give competitive LECs access to Bell combinations of unbundled network elements (UNE) and wholesale services under Section 271 of the Communications Act. The ILEC parties said Granite was seeking to re-create a discarded wholesale platform when the commission should be focused on giving incumbents more relief from outdated wholesale duties. Competitors supported Granite's petition, with Comptel calling Section 271 a "critical regulatory backstop" for CLECs negotiating wholesale access to Bell networks, in comments this week in response to a public notice in docket 15-114 (see 1505180032).

The telecom and cable industry and electric utilities drew different lessons from comments to the FCC on pole attachment rates. Replies largely repeat arguments made in the initial comment round (see 1506050037). Cable and telco interests asked the FCC to take further steps to harmonize at lower levels the pole-attachment rates they must pay, while utilities, which own most of the poles, are happy with the current regime. The record “overwhelmingly demonstrates” that the agency should quickly grant the petition for reconsideration filed by Comptel, NCTA and tw telecom in 2011, NCTA said. “It appears that certain electric utilities are taking advantage of the reclassification of broadband as an excuse to significantly raise pole attachment rates for cable operators and telecommunications carriers,” the cable association said. “Granting the NCTA/COMPTEL Petition is necessary to prevent this result, which is why the petition is supported by a wide range of broadband providers, including cable operators, telecommunications carriers and wireless providers.” Six major power companies, filing together, drew the opposite conclusion. The record shows that pole attachment rates are an insignificant part of operating expenses for most ISPs, said Ameren, American Electric Power, Duke Energy, Oncor, Southern Co. and Tampa Electric. “Broadband providers -- cable companies in particular -- continue to repeat the message that lower pole attachment rates mean greater broadband deployment,” the utilities said. “But there is no evidence to support this message. Continuously repeating it does not make it true.” Four years after the initial pole attachment order, the record “is devoid of any evidence that lower pole attachment rates spur growth, competition, or benefits to consumers in the market for broadband services, and in fact, electric utilities have demonstrated that the opposite is true,” said a coalition of electric utilities, representing additional power companies. It's to be seen whether the order reclassifying broadband as a Communications Act Title II service will have any effect on pole attachment rates, the coalition said: Granting the relief sought would be “contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious.” Comments were posted in docket 07-245.

The telecom and cable industry and electric utilities drew different lessons from comments to the FCC on pole attachment rates. Replies largely repeat arguments made in the initial comment round (see 1506050037). Cable and telco interests asked the FCC to take further steps to harmonize at lower levels the pole-attachment rates they must pay, while utilities, which own most of the poles, are happy with the current regime. The record “overwhelmingly demonstrates” that the agency should quickly grant the petition for reconsideration filed by Comptel, NCTA and tw telecom in 2011, NCTA said. “It appears that certain electric utilities are taking advantage of the reclassification of broadband as an excuse to significantly raise pole attachment rates for cable operators and telecommunications carriers,” the cable association said. “Granting the NCTA/COMPTEL Petition is necessary to prevent this result, which is why the petition is supported by a wide range of broadband providers, including cable operators, telecommunications carriers and wireless providers.” Six major power companies, filing together, drew the opposite conclusion. The record shows that pole attachment rates are an insignificant part of operating expenses for most ISPs, said Ameren, American Electric Power, Duke Energy, Oncor, Southern Co. and Tampa Electric. “Broadband providers -- cable companies in particular -- continue to repeat the message that lower pole attachment rates mean greater broadband deployment,” the utilities said. “But there is no evidence to support this message. Continuously repeating it does not make it true.” Four years after the initial pole attachment order, the record “is devoid of any evidence that lower pole attachment rates spur growth, competition, or benefits to consumers in the market for broadband services, and in fact, electric utilities have demonstrated that the opposite is true,” said a coalition of electric utilities, representing additional power companies. It's to be seen whether the order reclassifying broadband as a Communications Act Title II service will have any effect on pole attachment rates, the coalition said: Granting the relief sought would be “contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious.” Comments were posted in docket 07-245.

House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., believes the early “missteps” of FirstNet are now “behind us,” he plans to say in his opening statement during Tuesday’s FirstNet oversight hearing. He will tout what he considers progress from his last FirstNet hearing more than a year ago but worry about the findings of a recent GAO report. “But that is not to say that there aren’t additional challenges,” Walden will say.

Vonage offered the FCC 11th-hour legal backing for giving VoIP providers direct access to phone numbers without classifying interconnected VoIP as a Title II telecom service under the Communications Act, despite NARUC and NTCA arguments to the contrary. Meanwhile, Level 3 pushed back against, and Verizon basically endorsed, AT&T arguments that the FCC shouldn't adopt Level 3's proposals to ensure that competitive LECs can collect local switching charges when partnering with VoIP providers that gain direct access to phone numbers.