Party-line legislation that would curtail the time period for FTC consent orders, impose an annual reporting requirement about investigations and mandate that the commission perform economic analyses for its recommendations will be considered during a House Commerce Committee markup Wednesday. The FTC bill is mainly supported by Republicans and has been blasted by consumer protection groups, but the panel will also review several bipartisan bills aimed at stopping ticket brokers from using bots to snag large numbers of event tickets, preventing companies from gagging consumers' online free speech and ensuring amateur radio operators' rights to use of their equipment.
FCC questions about the pay-TV set-top proposal (see 1607110042), a spate of recent ex parte meetings on the subject and blog posts Tuesday from Incompas CEO Chip Pickering and from Verizon acknowledging the compromise plan are seen as indications the agency is increasingly moving in that direction, industry officials and attorneys on both sides told us Tuesday. Pickering's post offered a kind of counter-proposal to the multichannel video programming distributor plan. He said in an interview Tuesday it's a positive sign the two sides have reached the point where they are going back and forth on details of a proposed plan.
Building flexibility into the rules is key as the FCC considers the transition from the text telephone (TTY) technology to real-time text (RTT), CTA said in comments in docket 16-145 on an April 28 NPRM (see 1604280055). The agency “should avoid adopting overbroad regulations that could limit the development of assistive technologies like RTT or inadvertently extend requirements to products that are not intended for voice communications,” CTA said. “The Commission should modify its proposal so that manufacturers have the flexibility to bring the most innovative and effective communications solutions to users who are deaf or have hearing or speech impairments.” NCTA said the FCC should move forward on RTT rules for wireless networks, but defer addressing wireline. “Wireline voice networks and devices have a rapidly declining user base, they generally are not designed to support text-based communications and, except for TTY services, are not used to provide text-based communications,” NCTA said. “Operational challenges of implementing RTT on VoIP systems are potentially significant.” The FCC proposal “poses significant jurisdictional questions” for the California Public Utilities Commission, said CPUC staff in a memo to be considered at the state commission’s Thursday meeting. The staff urged the CPUC to comment on the FCC NPRM. “Because the existing TTY program is analog-based, it falls squarely within the CPUC’s jurisdiction over services that are not IP based or that are purely intrastate,” the CPUC staff said. But the CPUC lacks authority over IP services, except when required or expressly delegated by federal law, it said. “If the FCC determines that RTT is a purely interstate service, the CPUC would be barred from regulating it because the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate telecommunications services.” If barred from regulating RTT, the CPUC’s Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program (DDTP) relay service “likely would have to be terminated at some point in the future,” it said. Also, RTT should be interoperable with analog-based TTY, the CPUC staff said. “Because the DDTP’s relay service is analog-based, and its equipment is imperfectly compatible with IP-based service, existing users of the DDTP’s TTY equipment will be significantly degraded in the event of an abrupt shift to real-time text technology.” The staff objected to a sunset date for TTYs because it said the number of existing TTY customers participating in the DDTP is declining. Instead, the compatibility requirement should remain as long the analog phone system is in place, it said. Comments are due July 11 -- before the CPUC meeting -- but the CPUC can file replies by July 25.
A federal court said it will hear Charter Communications’ complaint challenging state authority over interconnected VoIP services. In a Tuesday ruling (in Pacer), the U.S. District Court in Minnesota denied a motion by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to dismiss the challenge. Charter’s complaint alleged the PUC overstepped its authority by imposing state regulations for traditional phone services on VoIP services. The case began in March 2013, when Charter transferred 100,000 Minnesota customers to an affiliate that provided VoIP phone service that wasn't certified by the PUC. The agency said interconnected VoIP is a telecom service subject to state regulation, but Charter and intervenor the VON Coalition said it’s an information service and subject only to FCC regulation (see 1605200015). Judge Susan Nelson said the case involves “questions of fact” that are inappropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss. The PUC’s “attempt to have these issues resolved as a matter of law by comparison to judicial decisions and FCC orders addressing other services ignores the FCC’s case-by-case approach regarding particular services,” she said. Nelson said FCC decisions cited by the PUC -- including the net neutrality order and its USF order requiring interconnected VoIP to contribute to universal service -- didn’t settle the question of whether interconnected VoIP is a telecom or information service, nor did the Supreme Court’s 2005 Brand X ruling. The judge said her ruling Tuesday “simply determines that -- in this highly fact-dependent and complex field -- Defendants have not shown as a matter of law that, taking the allegations of the Complaint as true, Charter Phone is necessarily an ‘offering’ of telecommunications. Any such determination must await further proceedings.” The PUC will “vigorously defend its positions” as the case moves forward, a commission spokesman said. VON Coalition Executive Director Glenn Richards called the order “the necessary first step in what we hope will ultimately lead to a decision that the Minnesota PUC has no jurisdiction over interconnected VoIP." VON advocates for VoIP providers including AT&T, Vonage, Google and Microsoft/Skype. State officials have said that the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decision affirming the FCC net neutrality order may help the PUC fend off the Charter lawsuit (see 1606170049). Charter declined to comment Thursday.
The FCC clarified that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act doesn't apply to calls made by or on behalf of the federal government as part of official business, except for calls made by contractors that don’t comply with the government’s instructions. The declaratory ruling addresses petitions seeking clarification by Broadnet, the National Employment Network Association and RTI International. Three commissioners raised objections. Ajit Pai issued a partial dissent, Jessica Rosenworcel a concurrence and Mike O’Rielly questioned aspects of the ruling.
Tennis Channel was "misplaced" in its focus on federal code for judicial review of FCC orders, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said Tuesday, rejecting the channel's petition for review of the FCC's 2015 decision (see 1501280059) not to reopen Tennis Channel's carriage complaint against Comcast. Communications Act Section 402(h) merely requires the agency to carry out court decisions and doesn't require courts to remand proceedings for further review and fact-finding if they find any agency's reasons deficient, the D.C. Circuit said in its 12-page opinion (in Pacer). It said the FCC conducted proceedings consistent with the court's grant of Comcast's petition for review, and thus satisfied its obligations.
Wisconsin and other states asked a court to vacate part of the FCC Lifeline order that extends USF low-income subsidies to broadband service, sets an annual budget of $2.25 billion and streamlines the program's administration (see 1603310056). "The States seek review of the Order’s creation of a new, federal Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETC) designation process and its asserted preemption of the State commissions’ primary authority to designate ETCs with respect to broadband services," said a state petition (in Pacer) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Thursday (State of Wisconsin, et al., v. FCC, No. 16-1219). "The States seek review on the grounds that this part of the Order exceeds the Commission’s jurisdiction or authority, violates the Communications Act of 1934 and the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law. The States request that this Court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside this part of the Order." Joining Wisconsin were Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota and Utah, plus the state regulatory commissions of Connecticut, Mississippi and Vermont. NARUC recently also challenged the FCC's new federal broadband ETC mechanism (see 1606030053). The FCC didn't comment Friday.
An International Trade Commission order bans import of some Arista network devices, including routers and switches, that allegedly infringe patents held by Cisco, the ITC said in Wednesday's Federal Register. The commission set no bond while the U.S. Trade Representative conducts its 60-day review on whether to issue a veto of the Tariff Act Section 337 import ban. The ITC issued a limited exclusion order against Arista and ended its investigation into the company. Arista disagrees with the ITC "that we infringe these patents or that they are valid" but respects the order and will "fully comply," CEO Jayshree Ullal wrote customers last week, in a communication provided to us Thursday by an outside company spokesman. "We intend to fully adhere to all ITC legal requirements and all products that are manufactured" in the U.S. will have "design-around versions" of the company's extensible operating system, Ullal wrote. "All international customers are unaffected by ITC orders. Our primary focus is the continued supply and service of non-infringing products."
A House Homeland Security Committee Republican staff report released Wednesday advances the creation of a National Commission on Security and Technology Challenges (NCSTC) proposed by committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., as a “third way” of addressing the encryption debate. It doesn't favor the staunchest advocates of either strong encryption practices or government back doors to consumers' digital data. McCaul and Warner proposed creating the commission in February via the Digital Security Commission Act (HR-4651/S-2604), which would give the commission the job of issuing an interim report within six months of the bill's enactment (see 1602290074 and 1603090086). The commission would “bring together experts from each of the key areas -- cryptology, global commerce and economics, federal, State and local law enforcement, the technology sector, the Intelligence Community, and the privacy and civil liberties community,” said House Homeland Security Republicans in the report. “The Commission would be charged with analyzing digital security challenges, including encryption, and developing recommendations for Congress to chart a course forward.” The proposal for the NCSTC “recognizes that equities on all sides of the encryption debate should be taken into consideration,” House Homeland Security Republicans said. The report referenced two other bills aimed at the encryption debate -- the Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications (Encrypt) Act (HR-4528) and the draft Compliance with Court Orders Act. HR-4528, bowed by Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., would pre-empt states and localities from banning encryption on smartphones sold within their borders (see 1602100051). The Compliance with Court Orders Act would require providers of electronic communications, storage or processing services, and software or hardware manufacturers to comply with court orders to decrypt encrypted data of its users (see 1604130061).
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton scored initial praise Tuesday from such groups as Free Press, Public Knowledge and TechNet for her plans on telecom and tech policy. Clinton’s agenda promised a defense of net neutrality, backing for a commission to study encryption issues, and details about an ambitious broadband deployment plan that she unveiled in December as part of her infrastructure plans (see 1511300025).