At least three more parties asked a federal court for permission to file amicus briefs in the litigation over the FCC net neutrality and broadband reclassification order. This week, the Center for Boundless Innovation (CBIT), International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) and Phoenix Center filed motions (here, here and here) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to file briefs supporting petitioners challenging the FCC order, which are Alamo Broadband, the American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink, CTIA, Daniel Berninger, Full Service Network, NCTA, USTelecom and the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association. All but FSN is challenging the FCC order as overly regulatory. CBIT said it would argue that broadband ISPs are part of the "press" that's protected by the First Amendment from common carrier regulation imposed by the FCC through its reclassification of broadband Internet access services under Title II of the Communications Act. The ICLE would argue the order exceeded FCC delegated authority, and even if it didn't it acted arbitrarily and capriciously "by failing to consider relevant economic literature, evidence, and the costs" of its rules. The Phoenix Center would address a "narrow legal issue deliberately sidestepped" by the FCC in lumping "edge providers" with retail customers of "Broadband Service Providers," which the center said "appears to be a strategic choice designed to obscure the regulatory implications of reclassification on the end-user termination service provided by BSPs to edge providers." If the FCC had properly followed D.C. Circuit precedent in the 2014 Verizon v. FCC case, it should have defined what a "just and reasonable" rate was for terminating end-user traffic, which would have potentially conflicted with the agency's net neutrality rule prohibiting paid prioritization and effectively mandating a zero price, the Phoenix Center said. Other parties recently moved to file amicus briefs (see 1507150012 and 1507140035).

A federal court took a short timeout from its briefing schedule so it can consider an FCC motion to suspend substantive judicial review of an AT&T challenge to a commission order on price-cap telco USF duties, pending regulatory action on related issues in other proceedings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Thursday granted an FCC request to file the motion to hold the case in abeyance and the court suspended its current briefing schedule. The court didn't rule on the FCC motion to hold the case in abeyance, which already has been submitted. In its motion, the FCC noted that AT&T and others in August had asked the FCC to relieve price-cap carriers of eligible telecom carrier (ETC) obligations to serve rural areas where they would no longer be subsidized if they elected to receive USF support under the agency’s Connect America Fund Phase II overhaul of the high-cost program. AT&T and others also had urged the FCC to permit, but no longer require, high-cost ETCs to participate in the Lifeline USF program subsidizing low-income telecom consumers. Separately, in October, USTelecom petitioned the FCC to forbear from applying related high-cost and Lifeline rules. The FCC in December partially granted USTelecom’s petition, relieving price-cap carriers of their ETC duty to offer voice service in census blocks determined to be “low-cost,” served by an unsubsidized competitor, or where a competing ETC is receiving USF support to deploy fixed broadband/voice networks. AT&T then challenged the FCC order in the D.C. Circuit, arguing it didn't provide enough relief and was arbitrary and capricious (AT&T v. FCC, No. 15-1038). But the commission motion said that the agency made clear in December it wasn’t addressing all the issues raised in USTelecom’s petition or by commenters in the high-cost and Lifeline proceedings -- all three of which remain open. The FCC thus asked the court to hold the case in abeyance until (a) the agency finalizes its USTelecom forbearance review -- which must occur by Jan. 4 -- or earlier if it acts on the high-cost and Lifeline issues AT&T is targeting; and (b) AT&T petitions for review of the resulting orders, assuming it does so. The FCC said its prospective actions in the open proceedings could moot or alter AT&T’s current challenge, and even if they don’t, it made more sense for the court to consider all the issues at one time, rather than piecemeal. AT&T Tuesday opposed the FCC motion. “There is no reason for delay,” the telco said. “At bottom the FCC promulgated a rule it knows it cannot defend,” AT&T said. “That the FCC might, in a future order, grant AT&T relief from [unlawful] obligations is no reason to hold the case in abeyance.”

Transparency and accountability are crucial to increase diversity in corporate boardrooms and executive suites, business, trade association and advocacy group representatives said Wednesday at a Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council's conference. Discussion by two afternoon panels centered around the need for large corporations in the media, tech and telecom industries to create a more diverse "C-suite."

More parties are seeking to file amicus briefs supporting petitioners challenging the FCC net neutrality order, motions filed Tuesday revealed in USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (available via Pacer). Petitioners challenging the order's net neutrality rules and broadband reclassification as a telecom service under Title II of the Communications Act are Alamo Broadband, the American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink, Daniel Berninger, CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom and the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association. The Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce to file an amicus brief that would argue the FCC regulation "will reduce broadband investment and stifle innovation." The Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy seeks to address the "underlying economic issues" and show the commission "incorrectly assessed both the costs and benefits of a Title II regulatory regime" and "explain and quantify how the FCC's actions will negatively impact investment in the Internet." University of Pennsylvania Law professor Christopher Yoo seeks to show the order "contradicts the technical principles that determined" the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling upholding the commission's previous Title I cable broadband classification in NCTA v. Brand X. Richard Bennett, who says he is a co-inventor of Wi-Fi and modern ethernet architecture, seeks to explain how the Title II broadband reclassification "effectively bans Quality of Service modes of communications unique and essential to the functioning of the Internet, and are vital for real-time communication, High-Definition voice, video conferencing, and the Internet of things." He also plans to show the agency ruling "displays a lack of expertise on the subject matter" and made other errors, including by ignoring that broadband Internet access service is "part of an integrated whole that includes a larger and more important information processing component." The Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council seeks to support AT&T, CenturyLink, CTIA, NCTA and USTelecom by arguing that the commission "failed to adequately consider evidence that Title II regulation will: 1) impose a regulatory paradigm that will adversely affect broadband access, deployment and adoption in historically disadvantaged communities where mass market broadband services are not ubiquitous; and 2) endanger the progress made under the FCC's previous regulatory paradigm toward narrowing the digital divide for vulnerable populations and creating workforce development in these communities." Three other parties made filings on Monday announcing their intent to submit amicus briefs supporting petitioners (see 1507140035).

Consumers need more access to public Wi-Fi, said Travis Litman, legal adviser for FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, during a broadband summit sponsored by the 706 Joint Conference. The FCC also needs to keep tabs on innovative broadband access programs across the country and modernize the Lifeline program, he said. “More than half of us online have used public Wi-Fi at some point and for many American households, it’s their only means of getting online,” Litman said. “So having more Wi-Fi in more places means more opportunities for students to get their homework done.” Rosenworcel was scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the multiple-panel event held Wednesday afternoon after the NARUC summer committee meetings came to a close, but was pulled away by other business at the last minute. The panels focused on high-speed technology and the availability of services, broadband service adoption and innovation.

Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Mobile Future and the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) plan to file amicus briefs in support of petitioners challenging the FCC net neutrality order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063). Furchtgott-Roth, a former FCC commissioner, and WLF intend to file a brief Aug. 6 in support of petitioners Alamo Broadband, the American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink, Daniel Berninger, CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom and the Wireless Internet Service Provider Association, their notice filed Monday said. It said all the parties, including the FCC and Justice Department, consented to the filing of the brief. Mobile Future intends to file an amicus brief in support of CTIA and AT&T, its motion filed Monday said. Mobile Future said it plans to address points "unique to mobile broadband providers" that may not be fully discussed by the main group of petitioners, which includes both mobile and fixed providers, some of which oppose mobile broadband arguments to be made by CTIA. Mobile Future said it was "impractical" for it to join with other parties in an amicus brief.

The Telecommunications Industry Association plans to support challenges to the FCC net neutrality order, the group said in an emailed news release Monday. TIA filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to file an amicus brief on Aug. 6 in support of various petitioners in the case, including USTelecom (USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063). TIA said it would argue that the FCC decisions to reclassify broadband Internet access service under Title II of the Communications Act and craft an Internet conduct rule were "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with the law."

The FCC released its declaratory ruling clarifying its interpretation of the Telephone Consumers Protection Act, approved over a dissent by Commissioner Ajit Pai and partial dissent by Commissioner Mike O’Rielly at the June 18 FCC meeting (see 1506180046). Pai in particular complained that the order will mean more class-action lawsuits under the TCPA. “While the Commission’s past interpretations have addressed nuanced aspects of the TCPA rules, changes in how consumers use their phones, how technology can access consumers, and the way consumers and businesses wish to make calls mean that we are presented with new issues regarding application and interpretation of the TCPA,” the ruling said. “Through their complaints and comments, consumers have expressed their frustration with unwanted voice calls and texts and have asked the Commission to preserve their privacy rights under the TCPA.”

USTelecom is calling on the Wireline Bureau to tightly control its E-rate USF support program as it implements FCC changes allowing schools and libraries to self-provision fiber/broadband networks in certain circumstances. The bureau should confirm that school and library self-provisioning “should be the option of last resort” and take other steps to ensure proper E-rate funding allocation, including through continued use of copper phone networks, USTelecom said in reply comments filed last week in docket 13-184 on a proposed list of services eligible for E-rate discounts.

The FCC plans to vote at its Aug. 6 meeting on two draft IP technology transition orders that Chairman Tom Wheeler is circulating with commissioners, agency staff said Friday. The drafts would create a regulatory framework as telecom carriers migrate from traditional circuit-switched, copper-based phone networks to packet-switched, IP-based broadband systems using fiber and other networks. The intent is to “help deliver the promise of dynamic new networks, provide clear rules of the road for network operators, and preserve our core values, including protecting consumers and promotion competition and public safety,” Wheeler said in an FCC blog.