The FCC asked the 8th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court to schedule oral argument on an industry coalition's challenge of the commission's digital discrimination rules (see 2407080012). In a brief (docket 24-1179), the FCC said issues in the Minnesota Telecom Alliance's (MTA) challenge are "complex" and oral argument "may assist the court." However, in its reply brief, MTA and a coalition of industry groups urged the court should decide that the discrimination rules are unlawful and set aside the FCC's digital discrimination order.

Europeans are eagerly analyzing what may happen on telecom and privacy issues in a new U.S. administration. Although Democrats' and Republicans' plans in these policy areas remain opaque, particularly in connection with EU-U.S. discussions, Europeans we interviewed said they're hoping the next president doesn't rock the boat too much.

The Treasury Department should make sure its investment screening regulations don’t unfairly discriminate against foreigners and should do more to curb a rise in “xenophobic” U.S. state and federal land laws, nonprofits told the agency and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. They criticized several bills that could place new investment restrictions on people from “countries of concern,” including China and Iran, and said they’re concerned CFIUS may not have the resources to manage its expanding jurisdiction.

FCC commissioners unanimously approved an NPRM on further changes to rules for the citizens broadband radio service band that Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel circulated two months ago. The Biden administration has focused on sharing models based on CBRS as part of its assessment of the future of spectrum. The agency posted the NPRM on Friday. Comment deadlines will come in a Federal Register notice.

California appropriators last week halted multiple telecom-related bills meant to help vulnerable communities. Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D) blamed the broadband industry after the Senate Appropriations Committee held back her bill that would have banned digital discrimination as the FCC defines it (AB-2239). However, that committee and its Assembly counterpart advanced several other telecom and privacy bills to final floor votes.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that applying Section 301 tariffs to the contents of packages that previously benefited from de minimis, as proposed in the House (see 2407080049), would increase revenue from tariffs by about $23.5 billion in the 2024-2034 period, but would only require reprogramming of ACE and more money for data storage and ACE maintenance, not new CBP officers. The CBO estimated that improving ACE would cost $3 million, and that CBP would need $2 million annually to maintain the system.

Charter Communications agreed to charge $15 monthly for a low-income broadband plan in New York state under a settlement the Public Service Commission approved Thursday, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said Thursday. The New York PSC in its 2016 order approving the company’s acquisition of Time Warner Cable required Charter to sell a $14.99 monthly plan with at least 30 Mbps download speeds (see 1601270028). The New York Department of Public Service alleged that Charter violated the order when it increased the price to $24.99 for 50 Mbps without PSC approval. Under the settlement, Charter will provide 50 Mbps speeds for $15 monthly for four years to New Yorkers who participate in the National Free School Lunch Program or receive supplemental security income benefits. For years two through four, Charter may raise the price only to account for inflation. The settlement is important because the federal affordable connectivity program has expired and litigation has delayed New York state’s Affordable Broadband Act (see 2408130021), PSC Chair Rory Christian said in Hochul’s news release. “The only low-income broadband requirements that currently exist in New York are the low-income program conditions in the PSC’s orders approving certain mergers. By approving this settlement, the PSC will make affordable broadband available to eligible New Yorkers in Charter's service territory while the litigation is resolved and/or federal funding for ACP is reinstated or federal broadband policy is clarified.” Hochul applauded the news. “This settlement directly benefits thousands of low-income New York families.” A Charter spokesperson said the company's "prices and speeds are competitive and affordable" in urban, suburban and rural areas, with no modem fees, annual contracts or data caps.

As industry looks beyond the Biden administration (see 2408130062), the FCC could have some busy months ahead of it. A pair of commissioner meetings is scheduled before the November elections, with at least two more before the inauguration of the next president. While past commissions have focused on less controversial items ahead of a presidential contest, which likely won’t be the case this year, industry officials say. Vice President Kamala Harris has emerged as the slight front-runner for the presidency since President Joe Biden left the race based on most recent polls, although the election is expected to be tight.

The objective of Consumers' Research was getting a case about the Universal Service Fund contribution methodology before the U.S. Supreme Court. That case resulted in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' recent 9-7 en banc decision that found the contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax," legal experts said during a Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition webinar Wednesday. The 5th Circuit remanded the contribution factor for Q1 2022 to the FCC for further work.

It's "astonishing that the FCC is once again seeking to impose heavy-handed regulation on internet access," TechFreedom and the Washington Legal Foundation told the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday. The groups urged the court in an amicus brief Wednesday that it should reverse the commission's order restoring Title II classification of broadband (see 2408130001). Their brief said the "only question for this court" is whether the FCC has the statutory authority to act (docket 24-7000), arguing the order is a violation of the major questions doctrine.