Puerto Rico may risk additional USF funding for rebuilding communications infrastructure if the territory keeps diverting 911 fee revenue to unrelated purposes, FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said in a Tuesday letter to Gov. Ricardo Rosselló Nevares (New Progressive Party). The FCC is weighing sending more support to the hurricane-slammed territory (see 1804230065). “As a steward of such ratepayer collected funding, I would find it difficult to support such a move without strong assurances that Puerto Rico is prepared to put an end to fee diversion practices once and for all," O'Rielly said. "Without this guarantee, the Commission is putting precious USF support at risk for being wasted or diverted.” Puerto Rico, which prepared but failed to send information on time to the FCC about 2016 diversion due to “clerical error,” diverted $243,100 of the 911 revenue, Rosselló said in a March 7 letter to O’Rielly. Diversion was legal under Article 19 of Act No. 66-2014, which required all savings in areas including 911 fees must be transferred to the Workforce and Economic Development Promotion Fund under Puerto Rico Trade and Export Co., Rosselló said. To prevent future failures to file with the FCC, the Puerto Rico 911 Office will create a compliance guide for all state and federal request forms, he said. O’Rielly appreciates Puerto Rico eventually filing the information but said it’s “extremely disturbing” the territory diverted. “Of all places, I do not think I need to remind you how important 9-1-1 services can be during critical times,” O’Rielly wrote. “If a surplus of 9-1-1 fees is amassed and revenue is not needed for these purposes, fees should not be collected from the consumer, especially given the devastation and personal losses your residents have endured over the last year.” O’Rielly asked Rosselló for “any concrete plans” to end the fund movement: If it's required by law, “are you prepared to help take steps to amend this act to ensure that all savings should be returned to the ratepayer or invested in network upgrades rather than diverted to a separate fund?” O’Rielly asked if Rosselló alternatively has authority to bypass the law’s diverting requirements. Hurricanes Irma and Maria last year tested Puerto Rico 911 systems and showed need for upgrades (see 1801030008).

A South Dakota tribe alleged Chairman Ajit Pai has a conflict of interest, as it sued the FCC on behalf of itself and about 565 other federally recognized tribes in a challenge of a March 22 3-2 wireless infrastructure order. The FCC said small-cells deployment isn't a “federal undertaking” within the National Historic Preservation Act or a “major federal action” under the National Environmental Policy Act, and applicants “have no legal obligation to pay upfront fees” when seeking tribal review (see 1803220027). In a Monday complaint at U.S. District Court in Aberdeen, South Dakota, the Crow Creek Sioux tribe said FCC actions “negatively affected and damaged the Plaintiff Tribe's culturally significant sites.” It said the “arbitrary and capricious” order in docket 17-79 violated the Constitution's Fifth and 14th amendments, the Telecom Act, federal environmental and historic preservation laws, contract law and “rules prohibiting conflict of interest laws by a federal employee, specifically Chairman Pai.” Pai was associate general counsel of Verizon, which benefits from the order and had comments cited 53 times in the order, Crow Creek said. “The Federal Defendant's mission statement does not indicate the [FCC] will cater and serve the needs of the wireless industry, nor fleece the staff of the FCC with industry shills,” the tribe said. “Pai has a clear conflict of interest and is working for the wireless industry, instead of leading an impartial agency.” Commissioners’ “belief that their numerous meetings with the tribes throughout the United States relieve them of their trust responsibility to federally recognized Indian tribes is misplaced as absolutely none of the concerns” were included in the order, Crow Creek said. The FCC inappropriately changed policy when it decided tribes can’t review small-cell deployment nor charge upfront fees, Crow Creek said. The fees, ranging from $200 to $1,500, pay for “archeological surveys, site documentation, maps and NEPA review documents,” it said. Companies lack necessary cultural knowledge, and inflated cost estimates of the review process, the tribe said: "No true cost-benefit analysis has been completed by an independent party." The FCC lacks authority to redefine an undertaking that would trigger the Section 106 process, the tribe said. Crow Creek noted that many of the wireless sites where additional facilities will be deployed are "twilight towers" not reviewed and erected from 1992 to 2005 against federal law. The agency declined comment Tuesday.

Sinclair is filing a new amendment to its application to purchase Tribune and Tuesday announced plans to divest 23 stations in 18 markets to Standard Media, Howard Stirk Holdings, Meredith Corp. and Cunningham Broadcasting, along with “another party to be announced.” Sinclair would hold on to WPIX-TV New York but will divest additional stations in Denver, Sacramento, Cleveland, Dallas, Houston and Miami, said a memo sent to employees Tuesday by Tribune CEO Peter Kern. The amendments weren't yet available on the FCC database. “While we continue to believe that we had a strong and supportable rationale for not having to divest stations, we are happy to announce this significant step forward in our plan,” said Sinclair CEO Chris Ripley in its release. “The actions outlined in today’s filing are designed to bring our proposed merger into compliance with the FCC’s broadcast ownership rules and pave the way for regulatory approval,” Kern said. Although opponents have faulted Sinclair for failure to specify divestiture plans, Tuesday’s release lays out specific buyers for most of the divested stations. Standard Media will purchase nine, Howard Stirk the three that will be run by Sinclair through joint sales agreements, Meredith and WGN-TV will purchase one each, and Cunningham two. Standard is purchasing its nine stations for $441 million, said an emailed release, while Meredith said it was purchasing KPLR-TV St. Louis for $65 million. Sinclair identifies seven stations as being sold to sellers that haven’t been determined. Broadcast attorneys speculate Sinclair might seek to close its deal quickly after oral argument in FCC defense of the restoration of the UHF discount appeared to go against the agency (see 1804240072). It’s expected that if the FCC approves of Sinclair’s modifications, the amended application will be issued for comment, industry officials told us. Sinclair and the FCC declined to comment.

The FCC will host a daylong workshop on supplier diversity June 4, said a public notice from the Media Bureau and the Office of Communications Business Opportunities. It is part of the efforts by the Diversity and Digital Empowerment Committee to increase diversity in the communications industry and is intended to aid “small, minority-owned, women-owned and other diverse businesses,” the PN said. The event “will teach small business entrepreneurs how to navigate corporate supplier diversity programs; identify successful strategies used by diverse entrepreneurs who do business with corporate entities; and enable one-on-one networking between participating firms and workshop participants,” the PN said. The gathering will include presentations and “one-on-one consulting” from representatives of numerous areas of the industry, including voice, ISPs, broadcasters and tech companies, the PN said. Register by calling 202-418-0990 or emailing supplierdiversityworkshop@fcc.gov. For one-on-one networking sessions, company and vendor profiles are due May 18.

FCC net neutrality regulatory rollback didn't take effect Monday, said the commission and others, after some said it had. "None of the substantive provisions of the FCC’s internet freedom ruling and orders take effect until the transparency rule is cleared by the Office of Management and Budget and the FCC announces an effective date in the Federal Register," an agency spokesman told us. "All that takes effect today is a title change for Part 8 of the rules, from 'Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet' to 'Internet Freedom,' and the retention of statutory authority for two other sections." The FCC deregulation won't take effect for "weeks, at a bare minimum," said Mozilla fellow Gigi Sohn. Seeking support for a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, some lawmakers -- including Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Joe Donnelly, D-Indiana, in tweets (here and here) and Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., in an email -- said the FCC was officially repealing net neutrality regulations Monday. A Markey aide acknowledged the new changes "are essentially bureaucratic," with the net neutrality repeal awaiting further actions. Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld cited confusion from an FCC Feb. 22 FR notice that said the effective dates were April 23, except for certain amendatory instructions delayed until the agency publishes a new FR document announcing OMB approval of information collection duties, and that added: "The Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order will also be effective upon the date announced in that same document." Until these steps occur, the FCC is saying "nothing actually happens. Zip. Nadda. Zero," blogged Feld. Calling the delay "highly unusual," he said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai "is taking his own sweet time restoring that Internet freedom he claimed to be so obsessed about back in December." Sohn said, "It’s important for people to know the rules are still in effect, so Republicans can’t come back in a month and say the internet hasn’t died ... and everything will be fine without the rules." A Mozilla blog noted "procedural steps remain" and cited a February poll it and Ipsos did that it said showed "Americans across the political spectrum overwhelmingly want strong net neutrality protections." It quoted Sohn saying "78% of Americans, including 84% of adults under the age of 35, believe that equal access to the internet is a right.”

Intelsat, Intel and SES are pitching to the FCC details of how their proposed clearing of 100 MHz of C-band spectrum for terrestrial mobile use might work. The three said in a meeting with Wireless and International bureaus and Office of Engineering and Technology and Office of Strategic Planning representatives that 100 MHz, plus a transition band, could be cleared in 18 to 36 months after an FCC order, and that terrestrial demand for such midband spectrum could result in more being cleared in the future, said a docket 17-183 filing posted Monday. Such additional clearing would have to protect Intelsat and SES customers and businesses, they said, saying not all C-band satellites are fungible and the satellites used for video distribution are heavily used. They said after an order, the C-band consortium would start on market-based selections and negotiation of secondary market agreements, with that process taking up to eight months. Once the agreements are done, the prospective mobile licensees would file license applications, with grant conditioned on full release of agreement funds in escrow. The companies estimated time from filing to grant could take up to seven months. Grant of the mobile licenses would trigger payment of the clearing costs by the licensees to the consortium, with that consortium launching the clearing process, taking up to 20 months. After clearing, payments would be provided from the escrow to the consortium, with an FCC public notice removing the payment condition from the coordinated mobile licenses. The companies also challenged the Broadband Access Coalition push to allow terrestrial point-to-multipoint co-frequency sharing in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band (see 1706210044), saying it doesn't make sense to clear the spectrum for 5G mobile use while also bringing in other fixed operations by BAC members that will impair the spectrum for mobile operations. They said moving BAC's proposal to the 6 GHz band could cause less disruption to satellite services. Among those meeting were Wireless Bureau Chief Don Stockdale, IB Chief Tom Sullivan and OET Chief Julius Knapp. BAC counsel didn't comment. An NPRM on the C-band clearing proposal is expected by some this summer (see 1804200003).

The Competitive Carriers Association and CTIA jointly proposed a compromise on the size of priority access licenses in the 3.5 GHz citizens broadband radio service band. They "reached an agreement that the Commission should license PALs using Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the top 306 Cellular Market Areas (CMAs) and use county-based geographic area licenses in the remaining 428 CMAs,” said a filing posted Monday in docket 17-258. “This compromise proposal paves the way for swift action while balancing the needs of the wide range of stakeholders that are expected to participate in the 3.5 GHz auction,” the groups said. “It promotes investment in the band and provides an opportunity for parties to acquire PAL spectrum in areas that best fit their business models and investment plans.” Wireless ISP Association President Claude Aiken objected, saying the CBRS proposal would “effectively put up a ‘large bidders only’ sign at the door and turn away innovators and small operators serving rural Americans.” The FCC should beef up competition for 3.5 GHz spectrum in the largest metropolitan statistical areas by reducing license areas in the top 10 percent of MSA markets to counties, Charter Communications said in a docket 17-258 filing Monday about the wireless proposal. It said it's investing in 3.5 GHz trials itself in markets in California, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan and North Carolina.

Comments are due June 7, replies July 9 on an FCC reassigned-number Further NPRM in docket 17-59 seeking to curb illegal robocalls, under a proposed rule set for Federal Register publication Monday (see calendar). The commission is seeking comment on its proposal to create one or more databases to help businesses avoid calling without consent the new users of reassigned numbers, said the FNPRM adopted March 22 by commissioners (see 1803220028). Although previous users of reassigned numbers may have consented to robocalls, new users may not have, exposing them to unwanted calls and businesses to potential liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Comcast and Charter Communications formed a 50/50 operating platform partnership back-end development and design system supporting their mobile services, they said Friday. They will collaborate on developing "an efficient and scalable software platform and related backend systems" for their mobile customer sales and support platforms, device logistics and warehousing, and billing. They said the operating platform will be the systems interface for current "and any future mobile virtual network operator ... partners." Charter Chief Mobile Officer Danny Bowman said the work will result in "faster and more cost-effective mobile product and service enhancements." The cable providers said the partnership will use parts of the operating platform Comcast developed for Xfinity Mobile that Charter subsequently modified for its forthcoming mobile service. They said Charter initially will fund the joint venture in reflection of development costs Comcast bore, though the two eventually will equally fund the partnership. The companies said they individually will keep their own relationships with device manufacturers, and all customer-facing activities like market, sales and pricing will be handled individually. The deal demonstrates Comcast and Charter "are serious about mobile," New Street Research analyst Jonathan Chaplin wrote investors. He said the platform could be an interface with future MVNOs that could point to the cable companies contemplating a deeper MVNO with a different wireless provider than Verizon.

The Supreme Court again put off deciding whether to review an FCC pole attachment case. Justices were to consider Ameren v. FCC at their Friday conference but the case was "rescheduled" for a second time in docket 17-819. The next conference is April 27 (calendar). Ameren and other electric power companies filed a cert petition seeking review of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a 2015 FCC order aimed at driving down telecom pole-attachment rates to cable rate levels (see 1707310065 and 1511240071). Petitioners said the order and 8th Circuit ruling "conflict with the FCC's own prior understanding" of Communications Act Section 224 and the 11th Circuit's "conclusion that the statute reflects Congress’ intent" for the telecom rate to be higher than cable rate. They said the 8th Circuit "erred in deferring to the FCC’s unreasonable interpretation of the statute," and alleged a "massive transfer of wealth (hundreds of millions of dollars annually) from electric ratepayers to the shareholders of communications giants like Comcast, Charter, AT&T and Verizon." The DOJ and FCC said the 8th Circuit "correctly rejected" petitioners' argument that the commission's decision didn't deserve Chevron deference, "and its decision does not conflict with" any other high court or appellate decision. The government said the dispute "is of diminishing ongoing significance because the Restoring Internet Freedom Order [net neutrality rollback], when it takes effect, will require cable providers to pay the cable rate for attachments used to provide commingled video and broadband Internet access services, which will significantly reduce the percentage of pole attachments that are subject to the telecom rate."