Consumer advocates said the California Public Utilities Commission should move ahead with service quality rule changes that the telecom industry says would be illegal. “The Commission has the authority and supporting precedent to impose meaningful enforcement mechanisms for its customer protection and service quality rules,” The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) said in reply comments the CPUC received Tuesday. However, telecom industry commenters said a CPUC staff proposal and consumer groups' proposed additions aren’t supported by facts, the law or policy reasons.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced a bill that wouldn't allow tariffs to be hiked under Section 232, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Section 301 or any other customs and trade laws or trade agreements unless Congress passes that "new tax into law."

The FCC’s June rules for foreign-sponsored content violate the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency didn’t provide notice of plans for expanding the 2021 rules to cover political ads and public service announcements, said NAB in a petition for review filed Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The 2024 order was a response to a D.C. Circuit ruling in favor of an NAB-backed challenge to portions of the FCC's 2021 foreign-sponsored content rules. The FCC “did not even attempt to provide a rationale for changing course,” to go after PSAs and issue ads, NAB said in the filing, which echoes arguments Commissioners Nathan Simington and Brendan Carr raised in dissents back in May. “Adopting rule changes nobody could have reasonably anticipated is a textbook example of unfair surprise,” Carr wrote at the time.

After senators sent letters to all five FCC commissioners Friday calling for the agency to avoid “weaponization” of its licensing authority against broadcasters, Commissioner Nathan Simington responded, saying the FCC should renew the license of Fox station WTXF-TV Philadelphia over the opposition of public interest group the Media and Democracy Project (MAD). Letters from Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., referenced recent comments from Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump against ABC (see 2409120056).

In a dissent attached to a combined $3.6 million forfeiture against Sinclair Broadcast and others over kidvid violations, FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington has vowed he will dissent from monetary forfeitures until the agency “formally determines the bounds of its enforcement authority.” Simington's move comes in the wake of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision SEC v. Jarkesy. The order was approved 3-2, with Commissioner Brendan Carr also dissenting. The forfeiture order was adopted Aug.14, but not released until Thursday. The FCC didn't immediately comment on the delay. “I call on the Commission to open a Notice of Inquiry to determine the new constitutional contours of Commission enforcement authority,” Simington wrote. “The statutory structure governing the FCC’s forfeiture power is quite different from that of the SEC,” the FCC said in a footnote in the order, arguing that the agency’s enforcement actions don’t violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial as SCOTUS ruled the SEC’s do.

The banking industry’s increasing overcompliance with U.S. sanctions is leading to an uptick in unnecessary financing delays and transaction cancellations, nongovernmental organizations told the Treasury Department. They said the issues are causing hurdles for humanitarian groups trying to deliver aid abroad and raising discrimination concerns among foreigners living in the U.S.

The FCC will vote this month on providing spectrum for satellite broadband and accessibility in videoconferencing, according to a note from Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel Wednesday. The Sept. 26 open meeting will also include items on expanding robocall protections and allowing increased power for digital FM stations, along with seven enforcement items, the note said. The agency typically doesn’t provide information about enforcement items on the agenda until those items have been voted on.

The FCC should reverse course on its proposed $150,000 penalty against Mission Broadcasting (see 2401120069) in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on agency enforcement and Chevron deference, Mission said in a supplemental filing posted Tuesday in docket 22-443. The proposed penalty is from a January notice of apparent liability over accusations from Comcast that Mission violated the FCC’s rules on good faith retransmission consent negotiation by allowing Nexstar -- which operates all of Mission’s stations – to negotiate on Mission’s behalf for WPIX New York. “Just as courts should no longer defer to agency interpretations of statutes, neither should they defer to agency interpretations of regulation” after SCOTUS’ Loper Bright v. Raimondo decision, Mission said. The FCC’s NAL is based on “irrational interpretations” of FCC rules and precedent and the agency hasn’t shown that Mission’s violations were willful and continuous, Mission said. “Common sense demands that the presentation of a contract proposal is a ‘discrete act,’ not a continuing violation, and the NAL’s contrary reading of the statutory term is inconsistent with FCC and judicial precedent,” Mission said. Under the high court’s SEC v. Jarkesy ruling, the FCC’s proposed forfeiture would violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, Mission said. Jarkesy “confirms that the FCC’s enforcement regime suffers from constitutional deficiencies,” Mission said. Attorneys have widely predicted that the Loper Bright and Jarkesy decisions will be raised in nearly every FCC enforcement proceeding going forward (see 2407250030). Mission and Nexstar are also facing a second, $1.8 million NAL connected with Mission’s operation of WPIX (see 2403220067).

The ultimate makeup of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that hears the review of the FCC’s net neutrality order may not make much difference, some legal experts told us, in the wake of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. They doubted that the panel (docket 24-7000) will delve deeply into case law, instead simply deciding that going forward it's Congress, not the FCC, that must address any case that raises "major questions." Oral argument is scheduled for Oct. 31.

FCC Technological Advisory Council member Dale Hatfield raised concerns Thursday about whether the U.S. is on track to deliver reliable 5G networks within a timeframe and at a cost that reflects “the urgency and criticality” the situation. “Put another way,” he asked, what’s the “economic impact” of creating networks that are available 99.999% of the time? Hatfield said he took a deep dive into peer-reviewed and other “trusted literature” seeking answers, but came away empty-handed.