The FCC will vote this month on providing spectrum for satellite broadband and accessibility in videoconferencing, according to a note from Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel Wednesday. The Sept. 26 open meeting will also include items on expanding robocall protections and allowing increased power for digital FM stations, along with seven enforcement items, the note said. The agency typically doesn’t provide information about enforcement items on the agenda until those items have been voted on.

The FCC should reverse course on its proposed $150,000 penalty against Mission Broadcasting (see 2401120069) in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on agency enforcement and Chevron deference, Mission said in a supplemental filing posted Tuesday in docket 22-443. The proposed penalty is from a January notice of apparent liability over accusations from Comcast that Mission violated the FCC’s rules on good faith retransmission consent negotiation by allowing Nexstar -- which operates all of Mission’s stations – to negotiate on Mission’s behalf for WPIX New York. “Just as courts should no longer defer to agency interpretations of statutes, neither should they defer to agency interpretations of regulation” after SCOTUS’ Loper Bright v. Raimondo decision, Mission said. The FCC’s NAL is based on “irrational interpretations” of FCC rules and precedent and the agency hasn’t shown that Mission’s violations were willful and continuous, Mission said. “Common sense demands that the presentation of a contract proposal is a ‘discrete act,’ not a continuing violation, and the NAL’s contrary reading of the statutory term is inconsistent with FCC and judicial precedent,” Mission said. Under the high court’s SEC v. Jarkesy ruling, the FCC’s proposed forfeiture would violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, Mission said. Jarkesy “confirms that the FCC’s enforcement regime suffers from constitutional deficiencies,” Mission said. Attorneys have widely predicted that the Loper Bright and Jarkesy decisions will be raised in nearly every FCC enforcement proceeding going forward (see 2407250030). Mission and Nexstar are also facing a second, $1.8 million NAL connected with Mission’s operation of WPIX (see 2403220067).

The ultimate makeup of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that hears the review of the FCC’s net neutrality order may not make much difference, some legal experts told us, in the wake of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. They doubted that the panel (docket 24-7000) will delve deeply into case law, instead simply deciding that going forward it's Congress, not the FCC, that must address any case that raises "major questions." Oral argument is scheduled for Oct. 31.

FCC Technological Advisory Council member Dale Hatfield raised concerns Thursday about whether the U.S. is on track to deliver reliable 5G networks within a timeframe and at a cost that reflects “the urgency and criticality” the situation. “Put another way,” he asked, what’s the “economic impact” of creating networks that are available 99.999% of the time? Hatfield said he took a deep dive into peer-reviewed and other “trusted literature” seeking answers, but came away empty-handed.

Faced with increasingly reduced cable franchise fees, local franchise authorities (LFA) must focus on getting broadband providers to enter franchise agreements with them for use of local rights of way (ROW), speakers said Wednesday during NATOA's annual local government conference. But the broadband franchising path must go through statehouses and the FCC, with changes to LFAs' authority needed at the federal and state levels, they noted. In addition, speakers mentioned LFAs' consumer protection role as they addressed the audience of mostly local government officials.

ISPs challenging the FCC’s updated data breach notification rules made their case at the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court about why the rule should be overturned. The filing elaborates on their argument that the agency exceeded its Communications Act authorities when it adopted the rule in December. The Ohio Telecom Association (docket 24-3133), the Texas Association of Business (docket 24-3206) and CTIA, NCTA and USTelecom (docket 24-3252) brought the challenge. The 6th Circuit is considered among the most conservative federal circuits.

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- Federal lawmakers from both parties back reforming the Universal Service Fund (USF), but whether that happens likely will depend on the November elections, speakers said Monday at NATOA’s annual local government conference. Localities will increasingly face broadband-only providers wanting right of way (ROW) access, and those cable competitors raise questions of whether they too should pay franchise fees, said localities lawyer Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett.

Responding to motions for judgment filed by the government of Canada and Canadian lumber exporters led by a mandatory respondent, the U.S. pushed back Aug. 22 against claims that, among other things, it had wrongly included a legacy contract in the calculation of the respondent’s costs and found a “bookkeeping convenience” to be evidence of less-than-fair-value transactions between its affiliates (see 2404110063) (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).

Representatives of CTIA and the major carriers urged the FCC to address an issue the agency raised on pole attachments in 2019, providing clarity that wireless providers have access to utility light poles (see 1911200033). CTIA met with Wireline Bureau staff, along with representatives of AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon. "Commission actions over the past several years to clarify the rights and responsibilities under the Communications Act, including for the Section 224 pole attachment framework, have helped enhance transparency and efficiencies in the siting process,” a filing posted Friday in docket 17-84 said. CTIA urged the commission to “seek ways to streamline infrastructure deployment and clarify the rights and obligations of pole owners and attachers, in order to reduce or eliminate deployment barriers that remain.”

With Europe's AI Act now law, all companies that provide or use AI systems and do business in the EU must begin considering compliance. The measure is rankling the U.S. business sector and government. One major compliance sticking point is a data-quality requirement aimed at rooting out systemic bias, said a European IT attorney.