Approving AT&T's buy of Time Warner by requiring divestiture of Turner or DirecTV, as proposed by DOJ (see 1804300020), "would destroy the very consumer value this merger is designed to unlock," AT&T/TW said in a docket 17-2511 trial brief (in Pacer) Thursday. Thursday was the deadline for the sides to file findings of fact and law. Justice filed a series of sealed documents. AT&T/TW said taking DirecTV out of the deal would eliminate the price decreases predicted for DirecTV subscribers. and divesting Turner would eliminate the content innovations and advertising benefits that will put downward pressure on Turner's prices. The companies said the record doesn't support imposing any remedies. Arguing DOJ hadn't met its burden of proof, the companies said "the government’s theories disintegrated upon first contact with real-world events, testimony, and data" in large part because it's difficult to prove any vertical merger is a harm to competition. They said given the increased competition from Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Netflix, combining with AT&T will give TW a route to what those entities have -- direct customer relationships and customer data. The companies said they "have not abandoned" a selective enforcement defense, and said trial evidence pointed to different government treatment of comparable vertical mergers. They said "it was impractical" without discovery to press the issue at trial. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon of Washington earlier rejected an AT&T request for White House-DOJ communications about AT&T/TW (see 1802200040).

The Satellite Industry Association said the FCC should protect satellite operations in spectrum above 95 GHz, in comments on the FCC’s spectrum horizons NPRM. Wireless and high-tech commenters see potential in the high-band spectrum (see 1805030037). “Given the substantial opportunities that would be available for [fixed service] in this initial 36 GHz of spectrum, no reason exists to adopt service rules or introduce FS in the 66.2 GHz of spectrum above 95 GHz that is shared between FS and either the fixed satellite service or the mobile satellite service,” SIA said in comments in docket 18-21. “FS operators clearly do not require access to these frequency resources and considerations for sharing this spectrum should be addressed at a later date.” The Millimeter Wave Coalition urged the FCC to address some technical issues that could impede use of the spectrum. The group wants safeguards to protect experimental licenses from being too easily canceled by the FCC: “While experimental licenses will no doubt remain ‘experimental’ without the expectations of regular FCC licenses, there should nevertheless be a procedural safeguard to protect experimental licensees who invest significant sums of money in developing technologies under an experimental license. The cancellation provisions … should only apply in cases of actual interference with some safeguards to allow appeal of interference determinations.” The coalition also said the FCC should extend RF safety limits above 100 GHz and provide “regulatory certainty” for industrial, scientific and medical equipment operating in the above-95 GHz band. The coalition cited as an example terahertz spectroscopy, which the FCC’s NPRM mentions as “a technology that is well-suited for the above-95 GHz frequencies given the shorter wavelengths and that has garnered interest for these frequencies.” The group warned “the lack of regulatory clarity in the United States has deterred companies from investing in this technology domestically.” Other commenters urged the FCC to open the bands for wireless. “The pressure on existing licensed mobile and unlicensed spectrum bands will continue to grow, and the bands identified in this docket can play an important role augmenting the spectrum used to support America’s wireless connectivity needs over the long term,” Qualcomm said. The Wi-Fi Alliance said the FCC mustn’t cut off unlicensed use of the spectrum. The FCC should make “few, if any” allocations now, the alliance said. “Any allocations it makes should allow the necessary flexibility to permit not only Wi-Fi and other existing unlicensed technologies, but also future not-yet envisioned unlicensed uses,” the alliance said. “Any rules adopted today should not inadvertently preclude future technologies.”

USTelecom asked the FCC to relieve incumbent telcos of "outdated" wholesale duties in the 1996 Telecommunications Act that "distort competition and investment decisions." The association asked the commission to forbear from applying "unbundling obligations, which require some ILECs ... to sell access to parts of their networks to certain competitors at extremely low rates set by regulators," blogged CEO Jonathan Spalter Friday: "Once the FCC forbears from these rules, consumers and the economy overall will benefit. A market analysis shows that consumer savings could reach $1 billion over the next ten years, and removing these regulatory handicaps could lead to more than $1.8 billion in new investment over the same timeframe, creating more than 6,000 jobs." Since the 1996 mandates were adopted, "there has been a staggering decline in ILEC switched access voice subscriptions, from 186 million in 2000 to a projected 35 million this year," said the petition. "In residential markets, only 11 percent of U.S. households are projected to have an ILEC switched voice line by the end of this year. Indeed, 60 percent of Americans will have abandoned wireline voice service entirely in favor of wireless alternatives. Of the remaining 40 percent, a majority will obtain service from a non-ILEC -- often a cable company or other provider of [VoIP]. There is also intense competition in the business data services marketplace. ... A regime that imposes special burdens on providers that hold a small and shrinking share of the market distorts competition, harms consumers, and simply makes no sense." USTelecom member Windstream is strongly opposed to the petition, said Kristi Moody, general counsel. “This is an attempt by large incumbent providers to improperly use their market position in an anti-competitive way, especially in light of their proposal for a mere 18-month period for competitive carriers to transition away from these crucial facilities," Moody said. “To be clear, if this petition is granted, less competition will result, and schools, hospitals, libraries, nonprofit organizations and small and medium-sized businesses will see their rates go up.” Incompas CEO Chip Pickering said in a statement: “Big telecom’s 'competition cut off' will freeze broadband deployment and burn consumers and small businesses with higher bills. Cutting off access and kicking the little guy where it hurts is a brazen move, and we urge the FCC to reject the measure outright. The facts are clear, where smaller competitors have access and are deploying new networks, big telecom incumbents are forced to upgrade their service and lower prices. USTA’s petition delays the future and will incentivize large incumbent telecom providers to raise rates on older, slower lines for much longer." The FCC didn't comment.

The Supreme Court again gave the government more time to respond to petitions appealing a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that upheld the FCC's 2015 net neutrality order. The high court approved the solicitor general's latest request to extend the response deadline, from Friday to June 4, said a note posted this week in its docket on Daniel Berninger v. FCC, et al., No. 17-498. Some parties believe the government is waiting for the FCC's recent net neutrality repeal order to take effect so it can seek to dismiss the 2015 order case (see 1803050039). The repeal order won't take effect until after the Office of Management and Budget clears FCC broadband transparency rule ISP disclosure requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The North American Numbering Council delivered a call-authentication report to the FCC aimed at combating call spoofing and illegal robocalling. The report "details a framework for call authentication that can more quickly be established than various alternatives, while obtaining the broadest participation of industry," wrote NANC Chairman Travis Kavulla in a cover letter Thursday. The NANC approved a draft April 27 recommending industry set up a governance authority and select a policy administrator over the next year to oversee the framework for providers to use "Shaken/Stir" protocols and procedures for authenticating calls, but it didn't propose a hard deadline for provider adoption due to concerns about network capabilities (see 1804270027). Shaken/Stir stands for Signature-based Handling of Asserted Information Using toKENs (Shaken) and Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (Stir). The report provides "a set of milestones for adoption and deployment of a SHAKEN/STIR call authentication system, including metrics by which the industry's progress can be measured," wrote Kavulla. "It also identifies certain actions the Commission may wish to take to ensure that these milestones and timelines are met." Columbia University Professor Henning Schulzrinne, a member of NANC's call-authentication working group, wrote a brief minority report saying "all relevant and affected stakeholders" should be represented on the governance authority. He proposed "to have two non-carrier board members: one board member nominated by NARUC and one by the consumer group members of the FCC Consumer Advisory Committee or drawn from one of the consumer entities that have been most active in this area (e.g., Consumers Union)."

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said T-Mobile and Sprint have a difficult case to make on why their planned combination should be allowed. The companies must show "real evidence" their transaction wouldn't raise consumer prices or reduce competition, she said, answering questions Thursday from NBC News Senior Tech Editor Jason Abbruzzese at the Collision Conference in New Orleans (Facebook webcast). "Going from four to three [national wireless competitors] is a hard case," she said. Rosenworcel criticized recent FCC media ownership changes that "seemed custom-built for one company," Sinclair, which is seeking to buy Tribune: "We shouldn't be playing favorites." She said the FCC was on the "wrong side" of the law, history and the American people in rolling back Title II net neutrality regulation under the Communications Act. But the action "awoke a sleeping giant, because the American public wasn't going to stand for" the agency "mucking around" with internet freedom. "I don't think the story's over," she said, citing two new state net neutrality laws, five state executive orders, 23 state attorneys general challenging the FCC's order in court and 50 votes in the U.S. Senate to undo the order through a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution. While supporting net neutrality, Rosenworcel said policymakers need to find a "balance" that encourages broadband investment because "it's expensive to deploy networks. That's a real impediment for a lot of companies and a lot of communities." She said she's hopeful blockchain technology could contribute to "dynamically distributing spectrum," rather than simply assigning it to two different categories: exclusive, licensed uses and open, unlicensed uses.

Several groups involved in the #TimesUp and #MeToo movements asked Verizon to meet about how to end sexual harassment in Verizon-contracted warehouses, after complaints at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by female workers employed at the XPO Logistics warehouse in Memphis. “From the previous incidents and allegations, and now new sexual harassment allegations under XPO Logistics it seems that this is not an isolated issue,” wrote NAACP Tennessee State Conference, National Women’s Law Center, International Brotherhood of Teamsters and others in a Wednesday letter to Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam and the Verizon board. “We call for a joint meeting to discuss the actions that Verizon will take to stop the rampant sexual harassment in this warehouse.” Verizon is investigating complaints, a spokesman said: "We have just been made aware of these serious allegations against XPO Logistics. While these allegations do not involve Verizon employees, Verizon has zero tolerance for discrimination and sexual harassment, and we expect our suppliers to abide by these standards."

Comments are due June 1, replies July 2 on an FCC national security NPRM in docket 18-89, said a proposed rule in Wednesday's Federal Register. The NPRM adopted April 17 proposes to bar the use of money in any USF program to buy equipment or services from companies that “pose a national security threat” to U.S. communications networks or the communications supply chain (see 1804170038). It also explores broader related issues (see 1804180053).

Electric utilities urged the FCC to craft "light touch" wireless pole-attachment regulation, and to do so separately from wireline pole-attachment issues. "Wireless antenna attachments are fundamentally different than wireline pole attachments, from both an economic and physical perspective, and should be treated differently," said American Electric Power Service and Georgia Power in a filing posted Tuesday on meetings with aides to Commissioners Brendan Carr and Michael O'Rielly (they also discussed the issue in a meeting with Wireline Bureau staffers). The power companies said the FCC "should take a completely different approach with wireless pole attachments" and not simply "convert" wireline rules to wireless antennas. "It should take an approach that moves away from rock-bottom rates and access micromanagement and adopt regulatory policies that encourage cooperation and incentivize innovative deployment solutions," they said, urging "light touch" treatment that encourages negotiated solutions. In a meeting with Office of General Counsel staffers, the utilities said an April 2017 NPRM's proposed revisions to Rule 1.1424 would be unlawful: "the presumption in the proposed revisions ... (i.e. that ILECS are 'similarly situated' with [cable operators] and CLECs with respect to attachments on electric utility poles) would be at odds with the facts. Not only did Congress, in the 1996 [Telecommunications] Act, specifically treat ILECs differently than [cable operators]/CLECs, but the Commission also reached the same conclusion on a full record in 2011." In a meeting with aides to Chairman Ajit Pai, they also made arguments from a previous submission responding to USTelecom filings (see 1804250036).

Wealth likely will be transferred to private companies from the public as a result of the FCC’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee's work, Brookings Institution senior fellow Blair Levin said Monday in a speech to a Coalition for Local Internet Choice conference in Austin. “The BDAC and the FCC will likely adopt a framework in which industry gets all the benefits with no obligations and municipalities get all the costs and no guaranteed benefits,” said Levin, who authored the FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan. The commission under Chairman Ajit Pai “is the first FCC to interpret its statutory mandate to say it doesn’t have much legal authority or policy rights to regulate broadcasters, telephone companies, cable companies, or wireless companies,” Levin said. “Instead, its principal regulatory mandate is to regulate another set of enterprises: local governments.” The FCC didn’t comment.