CTIA told the FCC that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act doesn’t apply to robocalls and robotexts from wireless service providers to their subscribers. Indeed, CTIA added that the FCC has affirmed this "multiple times." However, consumer groups said nothing in the TCPA “justifies special treatment for wireless providers.” Comments were posted Friday in docket 02-278. Commissioners approved an order and Further NPRM in February seeking comment on the wireless provider exemption (see 2402160048).

Industry and consumer advocates urged the FCC on Friday to include changes in its draft order reestablishing net neutrality rules. Commissioners will consider the item during the agency's April 25 meeting (see 2404040064). Some said the draft order didn't adequately address forbearance for ISPs. The draft’s state preemption provisions received praise -- and concern -- from current and former regulators.

In April 3 oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the government said that the 1930 Tariff Act was recently amended to “explicitly not require” the Commerce Department to show that an exporter’s rate reflects its commercial reality (Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2241).

The FCC will take a series of steps to reestablish the commission's net neutrality framework and reclassify broadband internet access service (BIAS) as a Communications Act Title II telecom service in a declaratory ruling and order (see 2404030043). A draft of the items to be considered during the agency's April meeting, released Thursday, would establish "broad" and "tailored" forbearance for ISPs. The draft doesn’t make a final determination on how network slicing should be treated under the rules.

Opening briefs of the four petitioners and their intervenor supporters challenging the FCC’s Dec. 26 quadrennial review order for allegedly violating Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act (see 2403220041) would be due July 15 under a proposed briefing schedule that has the backing of all parties, NAB told the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a filing Tuesday. Sept. 13 is the proposed deadline for the FCC’s response brief and that of NCTA, which is intervening to defend the order against the petitioners’ Section 202(h) challenges, said the filing. Reply briefs would be due Oct. 15 and final briefs on Nov. 18, it said. The proposed schedule “would allow for the briefing to be complete and the cases ready for submission on the merits” before the end of calendar 2024, it said. The petitioners currently anticipate filing joint opening and reply briefs, it said. The intervenors supporting the Section 202(h) challenge anticipate filing two sets of opening and reply briefs, one from the four network affiliates associations, the other from six radio ownership groups, it said. “The number of briefs, the issues the parties intend to raise, and the number of words needed for full and efficient presentation of the issues could change if additional petitions for review or intervention motions are filed,” it said. April 15 is the deadline to file additional petitions for review of the quadrennial order; further intervention motions would be due 30 days later, said the filing. The parties request leave to file a supplemental joint proposed briefing schedule by April 22, seven days after the deadline to file a petition for review, it said. They further request leave to file a second supplemental joint proposal by May 22, if necessary, seven days after the deadline to intervene, “to ensure all parties are accounted for,” it said. The consolidated petitions pending in the 8th Circuit are from Zimmer Radio (docket 24-1380), Beasley Media Group (docket 24-1480), NAB (docket 24-1493) and Nexstar Media Group (docket 24-1516).

Opening briefs of the four petitioners and their intervenor supporters challenging the FCC’s Dec. 26 quadrennial review order for allegedly violating Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act (see 2403220041) would be due July 15 under a proposed briefing schedule that has the backing of all parties, NAB told the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a filing Tuesday. Sept. 13 is the proposed deadline for the FCC’s response brief and that of NCTA, which is intervening to defend the order against the petitioners’ Section 202(h) challenges, said the filing. Reply briefs would be due Oct. 15 and final briefs on Nov. 18, it said. The proposed schedule “would allow for the briefing to be complete and the cases ready for submission on the merits” before the end of calendar 2024, it said. The petitioners currently anticipate filing joint opening and reply briefs, it said. The intervenors supporting the Section 202(h) challenge anticipate filing two sets of opening and reply briefs, one from the four network affiliates associations, the other from six radio ownership groups, it said. “The number of briefs, the issues the parties intend to raise, and the number of words needed for full and efficient presentation of the issues could change if additional petitions for review or intervention motions are filed,” it said. April 15 is the deadline to file additional petitions for review of the quadrennial order; further intervention motions would be due 30 days later, said the filing. The parties request leave to file a supplemental joint proposed briefing schedule by April 22, seven days after the deadline to file a petition for review, it said. They further request leave to file a second supplemental joint proposal by May 22, if necessary, seven days after the deadline to intervene, “to ensure all parties are accounted for,” it said. The consolidated petitions pending in the 8th Circuit are from Zimmer Radio (docket 24-1380), Beasley Media Group (docket 24-1480), NAB (docket 24-1493) and Nexstar Media Group (docket 24-1516).

A school bus is neither a classroom nor a library and that “makes short work of this case under basic principles of administrative law,” the opening brief said Tuesday (docket 23-60641) in support of a 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals petition to defeat the FCC’s Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi on school buses (see 2312200040).

AT&T misled Discovery by “materially overstating WarnerMedia’s financial performance and misrepresenting and concealing the severity of WarnerMedia’s financial and business difficulties,” alleged a securities fraud suit Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-00420) in U.S. District Court for Delaware in Wilmington. The suit names AT&T, CEO John Stankey and Warner Bros. Discovery as defendants.

A school bus is neither a classroom nor a library and that “makes short work of this case under basic principles of administrative law,” the opening brief said Tuesday (docket 23-60641) in support of a 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals petition to defeat the FCC’s Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi on school buses (see 2312200040).

CTIA still disagrees with a Kentucky 911 law that was upheld in court Friday, the wireless industry association said Tuesday. The U.S. District Court for Eastern Kentucky ruled that federal law doesn’t preempt the state from requiring Lifeline providers to directly pay state 911 fees. Kentucky’s policy is constitutional and doesn’t frustrate Congress’ universal service objectives, the court said.