The FCC Media Bureau extended the deadline for comments on proposed changes to set-top box rules by seven days, to April 22, said an order and public notice in Friday's Daily Digest. Replies are now due May 23. The American Cable Association had requested a 30-day extension. The seven-day extension will “ensure that parties have enough time to file comments” and takes into account NCTA’s mid-May INTX trade show, the bureau said. “We are committed to resolving the issues raised in the Navigation Choice NPRM in a timely manner and do not believe that a 30-day extension is necessary to give interested parties sufficient opportunity to submit their view.” The bureau said it set aside a specific period for ex parte meetings on the matter with its staff, from June 6 to June 10, “given the interest in the proceeding.”

Correction: The group that recently lobbied the FCC on next-generation 911 has changed its name to America's Public Television Stations (see 1603150054).

NTIA plans a March 29 multistakeholder meeting -- the first since summer -- to continue work on a government-driven process to develop a facial recognition code of conduct to protect consumers' privacy, a Federal Register notice said Thursday. Participants last met in July, after several consumer privacy groups and advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Democracy and Technology, abandoned the process, irked by industry's refusal to make opt-in the default condition for facial recognition (see 1507270044). The process began in 2014 with 10 meetings held that year, but only two last year. At the last meeting, participants were discussing two draft guides, one developed by the International Biometrics Industry Association and the other by NetChoice (see 1507270044). No agenda was posted for the next meeting, which will be 1-5 p.m. in the boardroom of the American Institute of Architects.

CTIA and the Competitive Carriers Association were joined by the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Incompas in a joint letter to the FCC raising concerns about the wireless implications of the agency’s proposed Lifeline rules (see 1603170044). Parts of the proposed order “appear to ignore technological and market characteristics of providing mobile wireless voice and broadband service to low-income consumers,” the groups told the FCC. “If adopted, these proposals will disrupt successful aspects of the Lifeline program, hinder the ability of mobile wireless providers to offer services, and harm millions of low-income consumers who depend on Lifeline support.” By requiring that only mobile Lifeline plans offer unlimited voice minutes by December, “the Commission will substantially increase the prices that eligible low-income consumers must pay to connect with educational, health, occupational and public safety services, including 9-1-1, through mobile wireless voice services,” the groups said. No wireless carrier offers unlimited voice minutes for the $9.25 per month in support from the Lifeline program, they said. The FCC “will effectively reverse a long-standing policy against requiring co-payments and put Lifeline service out of reach from low- income consumers that lack the disposable income or banking capabilities to make a monthly payment,” the groups said. The FCC has tried to avoid flash cuts and disruption in reforming other parts of USF, the groups said. In contrast, “the Commission’s Lifeline reform approach will impose significant changes on low-income consumers by December of this year, with more significant changes each year for three years,” the groups said. An FCC spokesman earlier defended the agency’s approach. He said proposed minimum standards “are not phasing out voice from the Lifeline program, but rather are phasing in broadband as an essential element of any Lifeline service.”

The Internet Innovation Alliance drafted a memo for the next president, released Thursday, slamming Communications Act Title II reclassification of broadband and urging a rewrite of the Telecom Act. FCC 2015 net neutrality rules, relying on Title II, “inappropriately and unwisely apply decades-old, monopoly-style regulation to vibrant, competitive broadband and wireless Internet,” said the group, which includes Title II opponent AT&T. “They deter investment, not foster it. They limit innovation, not promote it. Their impact has been small at first, but it will become more evident over time.” The memo urged the next president to favor private sector broadband investment, promote competition and manage spectrum well. “As a finite resource, it is vital that spectrum resources be made available for mobile broadband services,” it said. “We should continue efforts to make spectrum available for mobile broadband by either reallocating spectrum currently used for other purposes or making underutilized government-controlled spectrum available for commercial wireless services. Policymakers should also continue to ensure we find the right mix in making spectrum available for licensed and unlicensed services.” It also endorsed universal service goals and urged protection of both privacy and security of users. “While the 1996 Act has been a great success, it’s time to update the Act to reflect current conditions and the competitive markets that now exist with a new regulatory model that ensures government does not slow down the pace of innovation,” the group said of a telecom rewrite. “Support for a new Act would be a major accomplishment of your Administration and would show the public that bipartisan cooperation in Congress is still possible -- no small achievement in this time of sharp partisan division.”

T-Mobile's repacking study “appears to work backwards” from the FCC's 39-month repacking deadline and $1.75 billion reimbursement fund, said Digital Tech Consulting, authors of a November study of the repacking promoted by NAB, in a letter filed in docket 12-268. The T-Mobile study “reflects a number of flawed assumptions and conclusions” DTC said. T-Mobile's study is inaccurate about the flexibility of broadband antennas, the capacity of antenna manufacturers to meet a demand surge, and the availability of tower crews, DTC said. “T-Mobile meaningfully underestimates the scope of antenna removal and installation work the transition will require,” DTC said. “We stand by our study and look forward to working with the broadcasters to enable a smooth post-auction process for all,” emailed Steve Sharkey, a T-Mobile senior director.

A coalition of civil rights, human rights and technology policy organizations sent the FCC a letter Wednesday asking the agency to keep civil rights principles in mind as it acts on privacy rules for ISPs. The rules should be consistent with a 2014 document, “Civil Rights Principles for the Era of Big Data,” the groups said. “As part of that rulemaking, we encourage the Commission to review the ways in which the use of collected data could have a disproportionate adverse impact on historically disadvantaged communities, develop rules consistent with the Civil Rights Principles for the Era of Big Data, and ensure that baseline privacy protections extend equally to all wireless and wireline broadband consumers, regardless of their income level,” the groups said. “Privacy protections should be made equally available to all consumers, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, using fixed or mobile connections. In light of how data collection and use practices could reinforce societal disparities, the Commission should set strong baseline privacy rules that ISPs must respect for all of their customers.” The more than 20 signers of the letter include the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, Free Press, Media Alliance, New America's Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge and United Church of Christ. Several of the groups also released statements. "It is crucially important that consumers not be forced to choose between going online and protecting their privacy -- we can do both, and the Commission’s proposal will help us get there," said Laura Moy, representing OTI.

The All Writs Act that DOJ and the FBI are using to try to force Apple to comply with a court order to help the government gain access to an iPhone used by a San Bernardino, California, mass shooter "does not authorize such relief, and the Constitution forbids it," Apple said in a 33-page motion filed Tuesday (see 1603040023) in U.S. District Court in Riverside, California. Apple was responding to a government's motion filed Thursday that the act is being used correctly (see 1603110010). "The government attempts to rewrite history by portraying the Act as an all-powerful magic wand rather than the limited procedural tool it is," Apple said. "The case hinges on a contentious policy issue about how society should weigh what law enforcement officials want against the widespread repercussions and serious risks their demands would create." Apple is asking the court to reject the government's argument and vacate the order.

The FCC released the inmate calling services public notice, which says because a federal court didn’t stay the definition of inmate calling from the 2015 ICS order -- which included include both interstate and intrastate calling -- the 2013 rates will apply to both. The same effective dates also apply to the rates “for ICS calls involving TTY devices, the rule governing the treatment of taxes and fees, the rule prohibiting per-call or per-connection charges, the rule prohibiting flat-rate calling, and the rules governing minimum and maximum calling account balances,” the Wednesday notice said. The U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit blocked new ICS rate caps last week and one other set of fee restrictions, pending further review, but let stand the rest of the commission’s 2015 ICS order (see 1603070055). The Wright petitioners hailed the PN in an emailed comment. “The Wright Petitioners are relieved that the FCC saw through the ICS providers’ last-ditch effort to avoid lowering rates for intrastate prison calls,” they said. “The FCC was correct in refusing to bail out the ICS providers for their failure to recognize that the interim rate caps would apply to intrastate prison rates.” Most ICS calls are intrastate in nature and as a result “the FCC’s refusal to ‘clarify’ the very clear intent of the FCC’s rule changes will provide immediate relief to millions of inmates and their families from unjust, unreasonable and unfair intrastate prison rates,” the Wright petitioners said. Martha Wright, who died in 2014, raised the initial complaint to the FCC on ICS rates that led to reform.

Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick, is highly respected by communications attorneys we talked to Wednesday after the White House announced his nomination. Garland has been a judge since 1997 on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which decides many FCC cases, and he is now chief judge. "People get jaded about hearing judicial nominees described as 'brilliant' and 'unbiased' and having a 'perfect judicial temperament.' But it's all true here. No one can oppose this choice on the merits,'" said Harris Wiltshire attorney Chris Wright, a former FCC general counsel, who has argued several cases before Garland and read many of his opinions. "He's a great judge," said another telecom attorney. "He's straight down the line, a good judge, a very solid appointment," said a media attorney. "He's certainly qualified, but it sounds like he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting confirmed. It would take a miracle." Republican senators have vowed not to act on Garland's nomination. Despite Garland's long tenure, some attorneys said it's hard to pigeonhole his communications views. Andrew Schwartzman, Georgetown University Institute for Public Representation senior counselor, said Garland doesn't have a clear-cut "communications track record," because most of his FCC decisions weren't in big cases. "I'd have to go back and look," he said. Another veteran attorney, who called Garland a moderate Democrat and "smart guy," had a similar impression: "I don't believe he's been a key player in many major FCC decisions." One significant case Garland did help decide was a Verizon challenge to FCC wireless data-roaming rules, where he joined two other judges in upholding the agency's order in December 2012 (Cellco Partnership v. FCC). Judge David Tatel wrote that opinion.