Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., slammed the ruling of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2501020047) vacating the FCC’s April net neutrality order. In a statement released Thursday, the lawmakers said, “Without net neutrality, consumers, small businesses, and innovators alike will face increased costs, reduced choice, and less competition. It is a lose-lose-lose.” They added, “This ruling upends the fundamental principle that internet service providers should not act as gatekeepers, favoring certain users, content, or services over others." Markey and Wyden said the decision also shows why the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong when it overturned the Chevron doctrine. The opinion “makes basic errors about communications technologies, neatly illustrating why expert regulators, not judges, are best positioned to make complex public policy decisions.” Andrew Schwartzman, senior counsel at the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, in an email wrote that the opinion “misreads” the 1996 Telecom Act “in finding that broadband internet service is not subject to the regulatory requirements of Title II of the Communications Act.” Among other concerns, “that deprives the FCC of the power to protect national security, insure that competitive broadband suppliers can have access to necessary distribution outlets and endangers wireless access programs for low-income consumers.” The “good news” was in the judges didn’t do, Schwartzman said. The three-judge panel “gave a narrow reading to the impact of the recent Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision overruling the Chevron doctrine,” he said. The court also didn’t “rely on the carriers’ ‘major question doctrine’ arguments, so that the FCC will retain the power to regulate various aspects of broadband service without future Congressional action.” But Seth Cooper, Free State Foundation director-communications policy studies, said the court offered a “straightforward reading” of the Communications Act. The opinion was “refreshing because it shows how traditional tools of statutory interpretation can be used to resolve even seemingly technical questions like the regulatory classification of broadband,” Cooper emailed: “It’s the type of decision that eluded us so long as lower courts were subject to the ‘Chevron doctrine’ and effectively required to rationalize even far-fetched agency interpretations or re-interpretations of supposed ambiguous statutory provisions.”
Howard Buskirk
Howard Buskirk, Executive Senior Editor, joined Warren Communications News in 2004, after covering Capitol Hill for Telecommunications Reports. He has covered Washington since 1993 and was formerly executive editor at Energy Business Watch, editor at Gas Daily and managing editor at Natural Gas Week. Previous to that, he was a staff reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Greenville News. Follow Buskirk on Twitter: @hbuskirk
NTIA’s Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee may have fallen by the wayside, with many questions about its future unanswered heading into the second Donald Trump presidency. Several CSMAC members told us they reapplied for membership but have heard little in response.
The FCC released this week its biannual Communications Marketplace Report, which commissioners approved 3-2 with Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington dissenting. Carr, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the agency, objected, as he has in the past, to the focus on market segments rather than on the converged market (see 2101040051).
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling overturning the FCC’s latest net neutrality order Thursday was based on the court’s reading of the Communications Act and failed to dive into major questions items, as laid out in recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (see 2409030030). It also means the next FCC, under President-elect Donald Trump, likely won’t spend its early days on a reversal of the order, which was approved 3-2 in April (see 2404250004).
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday overturned the FCC’s latest net neutrality order, reclassifying broadband as a Title II service under the Communications Act. A three-judge panel handed down the decision two months after hearing oral argument (see 2410310041).
Challenges remain for industry in its efforts remove and replace Huawei and ZTE equipment within carrier networks, even though Congress finally allocated $3.08 billion, closing the funding shortfall in the FCC’s Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (see 2412240036), Summit Ridge Group President Armand Musey said in an interview. Musey's firm advises several carriers in the program.
The FCC Wireline Bureau on Monday issued an order that gives certain carriers additional six-month extensions on deadlines to remove Huawei and ZTE components from their networks to comply with the rip-and-replace program. Congress recently provided additional funding for the FCC’s Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program, providing $3.08 billion to close the funding gap (see 2412240036). The order highlights problems providers face beyond funding. Gogo Business Aviation, which in October updated the commission on its struggles to complete work (see 2410040028), received an extension from Jan. 21 to July 21. The bureau said it found Gogo’s complaints persuasive. “Rather than rely on commercial off-the-shelf parts and equipment, Gogo states that much of its replacement ground network will rely on newly developed software and hardware that require lab testing and FCC equipment authorization,” the order said: “However, Gogo’s ground-based equipment vendor is continuing to face delays from component manufacturers due to long lead times, which affects the delivery of replacement network equipment at scale.” Northern Michigan University (NMU) received an extension from Jan. 20 to July 20. “NMU states it has experienced significant delays in replacing customer premises equipment units because multiple deliveries of those units contained a high percentage of defective equipment and therefore had to be re-shipped months later.” The units also “require software updates from the manufacturer before NMU can begin mass testing and deployment.” Alaska’s Copper Valley Wireless received an extension from Jan. 21 to July 21 after complaining about the lack of tower construction crews in the state. Copper Valley “adds that delivery of equipment to Alaska requires the use of long and multiple modes of transport to reach remote sites, which further delays progress when construction seasons are so short,” the order said. The extension for Flat Wireless is from Jan. 14 to July 14. It told the FCC the funding shortfall “limited its deployment efforts, which has resulted in delays and additional costs that have necessarily extended its project timeline beyond the current term expiration date.” Hargray Communications was granted an extension from Jan. 13 to July 13 after complaining of problems obtaining nondefective gear and accessing private property to install it. LigTel Communications got an extension from Jan. 22 to July 22 after complaining of supply chain issues, and Pine Belt Cellular, an extension from Jan. 17 to July 17. Pine Belt cited “delays involving key hardware needed to replace the core of its network, as well as delays in obtaining the experienced skilled labor necessary to work on both the core and the radio access network.” Other carriers getting extensions, and the revised deadlines were: Nemont Telephone Co-op (Aug. 26), Santel Communications Co-op (July 25), Union Telephone (July 6-15 for parts of its network) and Windy City Cellular (July 27).
USTelecom, NCTA and the Wireless ISP Association separately opposed Fine Point Technologies' request (see 2411270048) that the FCC launch a rulemaking on standardized broadband speed testing protocols. Comments were posted Monday in RM-11991 in response to a Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau inquiry.
The FCC Wireless Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics sent letters to T-Mobile and UScellular on Friday asking a battery of questions about their proposed transaction. Responses are due not later than Jan. 17. The T-Mobile letter explores in depth the carrier's arguments made in a September public interest statement (see 2409160029) and an accompanying declaration from Ankur Kapoor, T-Mobile's chief network officer.
Incompas and its members “generally support” Verizon’s proposed acquisition of Frontier, but with conditions, the group said in a reply comment posted Thursday in docket 24-445. Verizon and Frontier this week urged approval without conditions (see 2412240028). Incompas members are concerned about ensuring that business data services (BDS) the applicants offered “are provided to competitors at just, reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory rates, terms, and conditions,” the filing said. Incompas also supports a request by the Coalition for IP Network Transition, which said the FCC should approve the deal only if the companies agree that they will “interconnect with all other carriers” on an IP basis (see 2412100021). Incompas is “unwilling to concede to the Applicants’ assertions that the transaction will not result in competitive harms, particularly with respect to the impact pricing decisions associated with business data services and more traditional time division multiplexing services, such as DS1s and DS3s, will have on competitive providers,” the filing said: “According to our members, Frontier currently charges significantly more for its high-capacity BDS connections, including DS1, DS3, and 10-mile circuits.” A competitive LEC, Teliax stressed the importance of an IP connection requirement. “Pre-merger, the Applicants have extended IP interconnection to some but not all interconnecting carriers,” Teliax said: “Should the FCC approve the proposed combination, the FCC should expect that the combined company will continue to use its newfound scale to delay the full transition to IP interconnection, thereby extending intercarrier compensation revenues tied to TDM networks.”