Mobile Future Chairman Jonathan Spalter questioned why the FCC’s latest version of its Section 706 report doesn’t include wireless (CD Aug 22 p1). “American consumers increasingly are connecting on-the-go to the Internet and our country’s wireless companies are investing tens of billions of dollars to deploy ever more high speed mobile broadband to meet this growing demand,” Spalter said. “It’s therefore hard to understand in light of the number of markets where high speed wireless services are being deployed why the Commission chose not to more fully acknowledge mobile services as part of its annual broadband review.” “The FCC’s latest ‘706 Report’ on the progress of broadband deployment in the United States reaches the erroneous conclusion that we're not making reasonable progress toward bringing broadband networking to all Americans,” said Richard Bennett, senior research fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “The report’s conclusions are not supported by the evidence, do not conform to the statutory direction of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and overlook the non-adoption problem that actually dwarfs the deployment problem by an enormous degree.” The Internet Innovation Alliance also raised concerns. “The FCC’s 706 report discounts the significant efforts being made by the private sector - despite uncertainty for investment stemming from a persistently weak economy and repeated attempts by the Commission to exercise greater direction and control over this inherently unpredictable yet consistently innovative sector -- to continue building out broadband infrastructure, particularly next-generation wireless networks, to connect all Americans,” the group said. “Last year, wireless service providers invested nearly $26 billion in the creation and maintenance of the mobile infrastructure that puts better health care, education and job opportunities in reach for consumers. Of course there is more work to do."

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell will continue to push for USF contribution reform, though he still has an “open mind” about steps to take next, he said in an interview. McDowell has long championed taking on the contribution side of USF (CD Jan 9 p1). The FCC approved an order in October addressing the distribution side of USF and an order on the USF’s Lifeline program in January. In May, the FCC released a 182-page further notice of proposed rulemaking on contribution reform.

Mobile Future Chairman Jonathan Spalter questioned why the FCC’s latest version of its Section 706 report doesn’t include wireless. “American consumers increasingly are connecting on-the-go to the Internet and our country’s wireless companies are investing tens of billions of dollars to deploy ever more high speed mobile broadband to meet this growing demand,” Spalter said. “It’s therefore hard to understand in light of the number of markets where high speed wireless services are being deployed why the Commission chose not to more fully acknowledge mobile services as part of its annual broadband review.” “The FCC’s latest ‘706 Report’ on the progress of broadband deployment in the United States reaches the erroneous conclusion that we're not making reasonable progress toward bringing broadband networking to all Americans,” said Richard Bennett, senior research fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “The report’s conclusions are not supported by the evidence, do not conform to the statutory direction of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and overlook the non-adoption problem that actually dwarfs the deployment problem by an enormous degree.” The Internet Innovation Alliance also raised concerns. “The FCC’s 706 report discounts the significant efforts being made by the private sector - despite uncertainty for investment stemming from a persistently weak economy and repeated attempts by the Commission to exercise greater direction and control over this inherently unpredictable yet consistently innovative sector -- to continue building out broadband infrastructure, particularly next-generation wireless networks, to connect all Americans,” the group said. “Last year, wireless service providers invested nearly $26 billion in the creation and maintenance of the mobile infrastructure that puts better health care, education and job opportunities in reach for consumers. Of course there is more work to do."

A 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against so-called pirate radio operators’ challenge to a $10,000 FCC fine (CD Aug 21 p14) doesn’t clear up potential jurisdictional issues between federal appeals and district courts, a communications lawyer uninvolved in the case wrote. The New Orleans-based court ruled last week that Jerry and Deborah Stevens lacked legal standing to raise issues involving the agency’s jurisdiction in a U.S. District Court and instead should have raised the issue in the 5th Circuit, noted Fletcher Heald’s Mitchell Lazarus. At play is Section 504 of the Communications Act requiring the FCC to collect fines by bringing a case against an entity that won’t pay by suing in a district court, and that challenges to any agency’s order must be filed in a U.S. Court of Appeals, he wrote on the law firm’s blog Monday (http://xrl.us/bnmofa). “The Fifth Circuit’s try for a clean split between questions of fact and questions of law may look like a convenient way of dividing the baby” by considering the Stevens’ challenge an appeals court issue of legal arguments going beyond only the fine that would be for a district court, the attorney said. “But reality is not always that tidy. Often the recipient of a Forfeiture Order will want to raise defenses that intermix factual and legal arguments. Can he do this in district court, after waiting for the FCC to bring suit? The Fifth Circuit does not say."

The 2012 version of the FCC’s annual Section 706 report released Tuesday said once again that broadband “is not yet being deployed ’to all Americans’ in a reasonable and timely fashion.” Commissioners Robert McDowell and Ajit Pai issued blistering dissents. McDowell said the FCC majority has “co-opted” the 706 process, using it to justify a “'cynical cycle’ of regulation,” including the approval of net neutrality rules in December 2010.

The Justice Department and FCC Thursday laid out terms for allowing Verizon Wireless to buy AWS licenses from SpectrumCo and Cox, along with the marketing and other business agreements announced at the same time as the spectrum sales. As expected, DOJ’s focus was almost exclusively on the commercial agreements. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski concurrently circulated a draft order approving the Verizon/cable transactions as well as Verizon’s proposed spectrum swaps with T-Mobile and Leap Wireless. He said the T-Mobile deal removes many of the concerns about the spectrum sale. Opponents of the transactions were quick to say the conditions don’t go far enough. Jobs will be lost, the Communications Workers of America warned.

Hitachi Home Electronics (America) wants the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and give teeth back to a 42-year-old federal statute that bars U.S. Customs and Border Protection from dragging its feet on import duty protests, it said in a July 30 petition. In 2003, Hitachi began importing plasma TVs into the U.S. produced at its factories in Mexico, the petition said. Hitachi paid 5 percent import duty on every set it shipped into the U.S., it said. It filed 10 protests with Customs claiming it should have been allowed to ship the sets duty-free under the North American Free Trade Agreement, it said. But Customs never acted on the protests, contrary to the Customs Courts Act of 1970, which places a “two-year limitation” on granting or denying such protests, it said. Hitachi filed and lost its suit in the Court of International Trade, and last October, the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit ruled that notwithstanding the two-year limitation in the statute, “Customs may take as long as it wants to allow or deny protests,” the petition said. Problem is, “importers file tens of thousands of such protests annually, disputing the assessment and collection of billions of dollars in duty assessments and payments,” it said. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, letting stand the appeals court ruling “will embolden Customs’ practice of ignoring the two-year limitation” in the statute and will “empower Customs to refuse to decide any protests, thus increasing uncertainty and costs to U.S. consumers and businesses,” it said. Only the Supreme Court “can remedy the harm caused by the Federal Circuit’s decision which affects all customs duty protests and, potentially, all imports into the United States,” it said. “This case, containing no factual disputes, offers this Court a clean opportunity to examine the federal question of paramount importance raised in this case.” Except for a few product categories like front projectors, Hitachi has largely abandoned the CE business in the U.S. and stopped shipping plasma TVs and other CE products here at least two years ago.

CTIA and carriers won a victory at the Federal Election Commission, which handed down an advisory order saying carriers are not responsible for enforcing election laws when they lease smart codes used to make contributions to a political campaign. Jan Baran, an election law expert at Wiley Rein who represented CTIA on the issue, called it a “good decision” that allows carriers to move forward on working with campaigns to process electronic contributions.

Hitachi Home Electronics (America) wants the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and strengthen a 42-year-old federal statute that bars CBP from dragging its feet on import duty protests, it said in a July 30 petition. Only the Supreme Court "can remedy the harm caused by the Federal Circuit's decision which affects all customs duty protests and, potentially, all imports into the United States," it said. "This case, containing no factual disputes, offers this Court a clean opportunity to examine the federal question of paramount importance raised in this case." Responses to Hitachi's Supreme Court request are due Aug. 31.

The June 29 “derecho” storm cut off 911 calls to four Mid-Atlantic public safety answering points and did more damage as a whole than Hurricane Irene, said a report by Verizon. It’s set for delivery at a closed-door meeting of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) Wednesday. With the FCC poised to look again at whether it should impose backup power rules, Verizon went out of its way to clarify that its backup power facilities worked with only two exceptions, even though the carrier lost power at 100 locations. The derecho-related problems are the subject of an ongoing FCC investigation. The council first voted to investigate July 11 and said “the elected leadership of our region expects far better than this” (http://xrl.us/bnkpi8).