Challengers of the C-band clearing order (see 2007220003) and a panel of federal judges discussed whether the FCC did enough by ensuring 200 remaining megahertz are enough for incumbent satellite operators' future needs, in oral argument Wednesday. With the FCC auction in December, there's a hope and expectation that the expedited argument will mean the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will rule by then, though the court hasn't signaled any specific timing, a lawyer involved in the legal challenge told us.
The FCC approved an order making further changes to wireless infrastructure rules Tuesday, with dissents from Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks as expected (see 2010220048). The order addresses equipment compound expansions as part of collocations, clarifying that an infrastructure modification doesn’t cause a “substantial change” if it entails excavation or deployments up to 30 feet outside macro tower compound boundaries (see 2010060060). Commissioner Brendan Carr indicated there were some changes from the draft. The FCC moved quickly, with a Further NPRM OK’d in June (see 2006090060).
The FCC could “withhold frequency licenses and renewals” to stop 911 fee diversion in New York, the state’s 911 Coordinators Association suggested Friday in response to a commission notice of inquiry. “States need frequencies and bandwidth to operate their communications systems and this is a tool the FCC can effectively use to pressure states.” Other related federal grants “may be another lever,” but the government “may face legal challenges regarding the nexus to 911 fee diversion,” it said. In New York, which collected $200 million from 911 fees in 2019, “the paucity of federal grant funds compared to the state’s surcharge revenues make enforcement highly unlikely.” New York protested the FCC blocking it and other 911 diverters from 4.9 GHz spectrum (see 2010060057). Comments on 911 fee diversion are due Monday (see 2010050038).
Election watchers expect California to revamp its state privacy law through a Nov. 3 ballot vote. The replacement for the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) could have national ramifications, experts told us. If voters agree, the proposed California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), or Proposition 24, would take effect Jan. 1, 2023. “The one-two punch here for the biggest platforms would be CPRA passing and Democrats sweeping the elections,” said Cowen analyst Paul Gallant.
Wireless Infrastructure Association names Rikin Thakker, ex-Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council, as chief technology officer; Brent Weil, ex-Argentum, as vice president-workforce development; and Jason Nelson, ex-Smart Cities Council, as vice president-partnerships and development ... California Public Utilities Commission picks Douglas Sicker as T-Mobile/Sprint compliance monitor, through pact with University of Colorado-Denver, where he's senior associate dean and professor ... Patent and Trademark Office moves Mary Critharis to acting chief policy officer and director-international affairs, succeeding for now Shira Perlmutter, recently named to lead Copyright Office (see 2009210059).
Congress authorized the FCC to interpret “all provisions” of the Communications Act, including amendments, so the agency can issue a rulemaking clarifying the immunity shield’s scope, General Counsel Tom Johnson blogged Wednesday (see 2010210022). Authority originates from the “plain meaning of” Communications Act Section 201(b), “which confers on the FCC the power to issue rules necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act,” Johnson wrote. Congress inserted Section 230 into the CDA, making clear “rulemaking authority extended to the provisions of that section,” he wrote. Johnson cited Supreme Court decisions by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board in 1999 and 2013's City of Arlington v. FCC.
An expected 3-2 approval of the net neutrality remand order on Oct. 27's FCC agenda (see 2010060056) will likely be met by a reconsideration petition and/or legal challenge, interested parties told us. Which route petitioners go will depend somewhat on whether the FCC stays in Republican control in 2021 or changes hands, said lawyers and industry and public interest representatives. The agency declined comment Thursday.
The FCC intends to move forward with a rulemaking to clarify the meaning of Communications Decency Act Section 230, Chairman Ajit Pai said Thursday (see 2010150067). He said the FCC’s general counsel told him the agency has the “legal authority to interpret Section 230.” The announcement drew backlash from Democratic commissioners and praise from NTIA and Commissioner Brendan Carr. Republicans on Capitol Hill welcomed a potential rulemaking.
The California Public Utilities Commission should write a broadband plan, said the agency’s independent Public Advocates Office (PAO) in comments posted Tuesday in docket R.20-09-001. The agency opened the rulemaking last month to get more involved in broadband despite jurisdictional questions (see 2009180038). The CPUC should assess whether current state subsidy funds will be enough and consider contribution revisions, PAO said. Small LECs warned not to take an overly generous view of jurisdiction. Charter Communications urged the CPUC to focus on removing regulatory barriers, including those on permitting and pole access. If the CPUC is considering utility-style broadband regulation, it “risks exceeding its jurisdiction and interfering with federal law,” the company warned. Crown Castle said “the quickest and most cost-effective reform” would be to require local and state authorities to approve broadband permits within 90 days, with a deemed granted remedy if the shot clock runs out. California’s previous governor vetoed a bill to streamline small-cells deployment by preempting localities in the right of way.
Frontier Communications’ bankruptcy reorganization must not be “status quo for customers” but instead become “the moment when they started getting the service they deserved and are paying for,” California Public Utilities Commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves said Wednesday at a livestreamed virtual workshop. The telco’s CPUC application in docket A.20-05-010 “can only be approved if the commission can ensure -- not just aspire to or hope for, but ensures -- that a reorganized Frontier provides the best service to everyone in its service territories,” she said. California law requires the commission to determine if the deal will maintain or improve service quality, but Guzman Aceves is “disappointed that Frontier seems to be focusing on maintenance rather than improvement,” she said. “I’m deeply concerned that Frontier intends to prioritize fiber investments ... in those parts of its service territory that are already highly profitable” and not in more expensive areas. “If that happens, the digital divide will get wider.” Frontier is the only provider in large portions of rural, low-income areas and had service-quality problems, Guzman Aceves said. Since 2014, Frontier met the state’s metric to repair 90% of outages within 24 hours in only a few months, she said: “I am very concerned that Frontier is not providing high-quality, reliable and reasonably priced service to many of its customers, and that many of those customers have no other options.” Frontier Senior Vice President-Regulatory Affairs Allison Ellis agreed the 24-hour metric is a challenge but noted the company followed rules to invest twice the amount of applicable fines for failing to meet that standard and is on track to spend $6.8 million once the CPUC approves its proposed resolution to 2019 failures. Frontier General Counsel Kevin Saville reminded the commission that restructuring lets Frontier “remain viable and continue to operate communications services as an alternative option to California consumers,” as well as help the company better respond to “unanticipated economic events such as COVID-19.” Denial or delay will reduce competition and hurt the public interest, he said. The CPUC shouldn’t treat Frontier’s application like other transaction reviews, where regulators can weigh the existing entity against the proposed new company, said the carrier’s outside attorney Patrick Rosvall of Cooper White. “In this situation, Frontier has an opportunity to shed a level of debt that would be crippling going forward.” Frontier earlier got OK from U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, plus several states. Reorg remains under review by others and federally (see 2009210055).