The FCC’s expected vote Thursday to reclassify broadband as a Communications Act Title II service has the potential to unintentionally expand its regulatory authority on communications sector cybersecurity, ex-agency officials said in interviews. They conceded it’s unlikely the commission has any plans to exercise that authority in the near future given the strong likelihood of legal challenges to new net neutrality rules. Industry lawyers have said the FCC can claim authority on cybersecurity at least via Title I, and could stake a claim via Title II and Section 706 (see 1406240037). FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has been championing improving cybersecurity risk management within the communications sector since last year via voluntary private sector-led work in the Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council’s (CSRIC) Working Group 4 and the Technological Advisory Council (see 1406130056).

While the FCC is expected to approve proposed net neutrality rules Thursday, discussions were continuing there on some significant details in the order reclassifying broadband. A change apparently sought by Commissioner Mignon Clyburn to remove a specific legal relationship between edge providers and ISPs appears to be out, said a commission official Wednesday. Neither Clyburn nor the agency would comment.

A "likely" FCC argument that broadband should be reclassified because it is a terminating monopoly is “fatally flawed," said USTelecom, expected to be one of those suing if the commission approves its draft net neutrality order next week (see 1502130049). The association's Wednesday letter to the commission, which was given to us by the group, hadn't been posted in docket 14-28.

A CTIA official said the group will likely challenge the FCC net neutrality order, joining a number of other industry officials who also suggested they’re prepared to go to court. “Since it appears the FCC will proceed down the Title II path and fail to adopt mobile-specific rules, the wireless industry will have no choice but to look at the courts and Congress for a remedy,” said Scott Bergmann, CTIA vice president-regulatory affairs, in a Friday statement to us.

Sens. John Thune, R-S.D., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., published an op-ed in USA Today Wednesday backing their recently reintroduced Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act (see 1502100031). The bill is the Senate version of House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte’s, R-Va., Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (HR-235) and would ban taxes on Internet access permanently (see 1501090042). “Internet taxes would ... have a harmful effect on commerce, particularly on startups and small businesses, who have to watch their expenses very carefully,” wrote Thune and Wyden. “New Internet access taxes would discourage innovation.” CTIA, NCTA and USTelecom sent a joint letter to House lawmakers Wednesday in support of HR-235.

Consumers have access “to a range of services designed to aid them in managing annoyances and harms” from unwanted phone calls, USTelecom said at the end of the FCC reply period on a petition by the National Association of Attorneys General seeking guidance on robocalls. NAAG had asked the agency for a formal opinion on whether legal or regulatory prohibitions prevent phone carriers from implementing call-blocking technology. Technologies that use “black lists” may not be able to distinguish between legal and illegal calls, USTelecom said in its reply posted Monday in docket 07-135. Consumer outreach and education can play an important role in preventing unwanted calls, the association said. It said the industry is doing “important work” to deal with robocalls, caller ID spoofing and secure phone number authentication, and the commission “should support these various efforts including by identifying areas where additional research and developments may need to be emphasized.”

The Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act was reintroduced Tuesday by Sens. John Thune, R-S.D., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a joint news release said. The bill is the Senate version of House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte’s, R-Va., Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (HR-235) and would ban taxes on Internet access permanently (see 1501090042). Without the bill, “access to information would no longer be tax-free,” Wyden said in the release. ITFFA would “encourage more American innovators and entrepreneurs to use broadband to develop the next big thing,” Thune said. The Senate bill has 39 co-sponsors; HR-235 has 29 House co-sponsors. CTIA and USTelecom applauded the Senate bill in statements Tuesday.

Capitol Hill’s tools of FCC oversight and overhaul are piling up. Just as committee leaders announced investigations into White House influence over net neutrality (see 1502090049) and another lawmaker his intentions to reauthorize the agency formally (see 1502030039), Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., introduced his more ambitious FCC process overhaul bill, which industry lobbyists have told us is likelier to move this Congress. A Senate Republican staffer also said there is interest in bringing the commissioners before the Commerce Committee in the weeks ahead.

Public interest groups argued for stronger consumer protections when legacy services are discontinued during the IP transition. But AT&T and industry groups said approving more regulations wouldn't recognize that customers are choosing to move from copper, and more rules would hinder fiber deployment. The comments were among dozens filed at the deadline and posted Friday on the FCC NPRM (see 1411210037) on toughening rules for retirement and imposing stronger battery backup requirements.

Those opposing USTelecom’s petition for the FCC to reconsider a declaratory ruling strengthening requirements for retiring a service are wrong in saying the change doesn't create substantive requirements for providers, the association said. Under the ruling, providers have to file for Communications Act Section 214 approval from the agency if a community believes services are being changed, not only if a listed service on a tariff is being affected (see 1501260049). That has created “impossibly vague new substantive requirements” that are “a significant burden on providers,” USTelecom said. It said in a filing posted Monday in docket 13-5 that providers “may now have to file for section 214 authority in every instance where they seek to upgrade legacy facilities, or face unpredictable and unknown consequences.”