Howard Buskirk

NTIA on Tuesday released the first of the band-specific reports called for in the national spectrum strategy (see 2403120056) on the 37 GHz band. Due last month, the report was developed with DOD and recommends a federal and nonfederal co-primary sharing framework for the lower 37 GHz band.

The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals tentatively scheduled for the week of Feb. 3 oral argument on AT&T’s challenge of a $57 million fine the FCC levied in April (see 2404290044) for allegedly not safeguarding data on customers' real-time locations. AT&T called the penalty arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act (see 2405130030). Verizon challenged the FCC’s fine against it in the 2nd Circuit (see [Ref:2411060008) and T-Mobile in the D.C. Circuit (see 2411260048). “If you have a serious, irresolvable conflict, contact us IMMEDIATELY via e-mail,” said a Monday notice from the 5th Circuit : “Do not ask to reschedule argument unless you can find no other solution.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, filed an amicus brief in support of T-Mobile in the D.C. Circuit. T-Mobile was fined $91 million for its violations, plus $12 million for Sprint's, which it subsequently acquired. The FCC “abused its investigative and enforcement authority to violate the companies’ Seventh Amendment right to a jury,” the Chamber said: “It announced and applied novel legal interpretations of the Communications Act to calculate and impose staggering forfeitures for activities that were not at the time of conduct a violation of any agency rule or law.” The brief said the FCC’s role in overseeing data privacy and security “is limited to specific regulatory activities directed by Congress, such as the regulation of ‘customer propriety network information’ -- statutorily defined term.”

The FCC unanimously approved an order aligning rules for the 24 GHz band with decisions made at the World Radiocommunication Conference held five years ago (WRC-19). Released Monday, the order aligns part 30 of the commission’s rules for mobile operations in the band with Resolution 750 limits adopted at WRC-19 to protect the passive 23.6-24 GHz band from unwanted emissions on time frames adopted at the conference.

Tapped to lead the FCC during the second Trump administration (see 2411170001), FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr is expected to be as aggressive as possible on spectrum and wireless siting issues, industry experts said. During President-elect Donald Trump's first administration, then-Chairman Ajit Pai made Carr lead commissioner on wireless siting.

Supporters of opening the lower 12 GHz band for fixed wireless use remain hopeful about a favorable FCC decision. That's despite the opposition from SpaceX and the major role its CEO, Elon Musk, is now playing ahead of the start of the second Trump presidency. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, President-elect Donald Trump's choice to lead the agency, has said repeatedly he will follow the guidance of FCC engineers about the band's future (see 2207140053).

The extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court decides the USF challenge on theoretical rather than practical grounds could have major implications for whether the court issues a decision that overturns the program's funding mechanism. The court said last week it will hear a challenge to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 9-7 en banc decision, which found the USF contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax.” Consumers' Research challenged the contribution factor in the 5th Circuit and other courts.

The FCC's 3-2 April decision (see 2404290044) fining T-Mobile for allegedly not safeguarding data on customers' real-time locations should be overturned, the carrier said in a brief filed Monday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. “The FCC concluded that essentially the entire wireless industry had violated the law by continuing to operate location-based service (LBS) programs” based on actions by a “single, rogue actor” who “misused those programs,” T-Mobile said in docket 24-1224. T-Mobile was assessed the largest fine of the major carriers, more than $91 million, plus $12 million for Sprint's violations, which it subsequently acquired. Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington dissented, even though the FCC four years ago, under Republican Chair Ajit Pai, approved the initial notice of apparent liability. T-Mobile noted that it and Sprint ended their LBS programs months after reports of potential abuse surfaced. Moreover, it argued that the FCC lacks authority over LBS data under the Communications Act: “The FCC based its retroactive punishment on an utterly novel construction of the governing statute, holding, for the first time, that the mobile-device-location information used in those LBS programs was ‘customer proprietary network information" (CPNI). T-Mobile said the “FCC’s unilateral imposition of tens of millions of dollars in civil penalties violates the Companies’ jury-trial rights under the Seventh Amendment and Article III.” It cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, which questioned administrative penalties handed down absent a jury trial (see 2406270063). The fines also violate principles of fair notice, the brief said. “The FCC adopted its broad view of CPNI for the first time in these enforcement proceedings, after the conduct had already occurred.” The FCC’s “hindsight-based liability findings” are also “arbitrary and capricious,” the provider said. “Among other safeguards, the Companies limited the number of entities with direct access to device-location information, ensured that LBS providers were vetted before allowing them to participate in the LBS programs, and required express customer consent before sharing device-location information.” The government is scheduled to respond Dec. 26. Verizon challenged the FCC’s fine in the 2nd Circuit, AT&T in the 5th Circuit (see 2411060008).

The federal government defended the FCC’s decision denying petitions for declaratory ruling on the agency’s over-the-air reception device (OTARD) rules in response to Indian Peak Properties' challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 2405060035). The FCC declined to step in following a dispute between the company and Rancho Palos Verdes, California (see 2410290011). “The Commission correctly construed the Rule to require a regular human presence at an antenna’s location,” the government said. “This requirement is evident from the Rule’s text and the Commission’s historic treatment of the Rule, and is consistent with Congress’s original purpose of protecting viewers’ access to video programming.” The pleading discussed the dispute's long history. After a city inspection revealed at least 11 antennas on the property in question, “plus other equipment on the roof, the City ordered Indian Peak to remove all but five antennas, and the parties began several years of discussions,” the pleading said, noting that in 2020, after suing the city, Indian Peak sought FCC review. The pleading said the commission’s determination “that Indian Peak failed to adequately allege that its antenna use fell within the Rule’s scope was supported by substantial evidence: Indian Peak repeatedly told the Commission that no one lived at the Property, emphasized the importance of remote access, and offered vague and inconsistent descriptions of how the Property was used.” From its origins protecting viewers’ access to satellite video at their homes, the OTARD rule “has always contemplated that a protected antenna serve a human end user at the antenna’s location,” the government said. “Indeed, if the Rule did not contain a human-presence requirement, it would necessarily extend to antennas on unoccupied buildings -- a result which nothing in the Rule’s history supports.”

In an investors' note Monday, New Street’s Blair Levin discussed reasons why the U.S. Supreme Court may overturn the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 9-7 en banc decision, which found the USF contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax.” Consumers' Research, a conservative group, challenged the contribution factor in the 5th Circuit and other courts.

An order the FCC released late Thursday about 5.9 GHz rules largely omitted use of the band for Wi-Fi, despite pleas of unlicensed advocates (see 2407220015). The long-awaited order focuses instead almost exclusively on final rules for cellular-vehicle-to-everything technology in the band (see 2411210054).