Advocates of additional federal funding for the FCC’s affordable connectivity program and Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program were closely monitoring congressional negotiations Friday in hopes appropriators would reach a deal addressing both priorities as part of a second tranche of FY 2024 spending bills lawmakers want approved before midnight March 22. Rip-and-replace supporters voiced strong optimism that the next “minibus” package would include $3.08 billion to fully fund that program. ACP backers were, at least privately, growing less hopeful of a deal including their priority.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
What is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)?
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the U.S. federal government’s regulatory agency for the majority of telecommunications activity within the country. The FCC oversees radio, television, telephone, satellite, and cable communications, and its primary statutory goal is to expand U.S. citizens’ access to telecommunications services.
The Commission is funded by industry regulatory fees, and is organized into 7 bureaus:
- Consumer & Governmental Affairs
- Enforcement
- Media
- Space
- Wireless Telecommunications
- Wireline Competition
- Public Safety and Homeland Security
As an agency, the FCC receives its high-level directives from Congressional legislation and is empowered by that legislation to establish legal rules the industry must follow.
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., told us she's considering a clean FCC reauthorization bill that could pay for some of congressional leaders’ telecom priorities but wouldn’t necessarily mandate that the commission begin sales of specific frequencies. Senate Commerce plans a March 21 hearing on that and other spectrum policy issues, Cantwell told us Thursday ahead of a formal panel announcement. Cantwell's proposal would be in line with her pursuit of a slimmed-down measure (see 2403110066) drawing some elements of the stalled House Commerce Committee-cleared Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act (HR-3565).
ACA Connects "will take a serious look" at challenging the FCC's "all-in" video pricing rules, which are set for a vote during the commissioners' March 14 open meeting (see 2402210057), ACA President Grant Spellmeyer said. Commissioner Geoffrey Starks in an address Wednesday at the ACA Connects policy summit (see 2403060005) mentioned the all-in pricing draft order, saying it would curb the “indecipherable asterisks and fine print” that make comparison shopping difficult. Starks said the order is consistent with the TV Viewer Protection Act, which requires that MVPDs disclose the all-in price at the point of sale and within 24 hours of sign-up and let customers cancel without penalty. The item is part of a larger agenda with broad support against junk fees and favors greater transparency for consumers, said Best Best's Cheryl Leanza. She noted the Ticket Act (HR-3950), requiring greater transparency in prices for event tickets, and the No Hidden Fees Act, (HR-6543), which prompts greater transparency in hotel and motel costs. Leanza represented local government clients in the proceeding. Cable and satellite TV promotional materials and bills would prominently display an all-in price that covers programming-related costs, including broadcast retransmission consent fees and regional sports programming charges, under the draft order. The requirement would be only for ads where price is mentioned, according to the draft. Operators would have nine months to comply after the approved order is released. In advertising for bundled services, providers should have the option to either provide the full price of the bundle, including video fees, or separately list the bundle's all-in video portion, NCTA told aides to the five FCC commissioners and FCC Media Bureau staffers, according to a docket 23-203 filing Thursday. NCTA urged that franchise fees and public, educational and government programming fees be excluded from the all-in pricing. It also urged that the commission to give providers a year to implement the all-in rules. Joining NCTA in the meetings were representatives of Comcast, Charter Communications and Cox. In meetings with aides to Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and Commissioners Anna Gomez and Geoffrey Starks, Verizon reiterated its argument for exempting legacy plans no longer marketed or offered to consumers from the all-in pricing rule (see 2308010028). Pointing to existing federal transparency requirements as well as market forces, state cable associations said in a docket filing this week that the proposed all-in rules "rest on unsound legal footing, are unnecessary, and would produce results contrary to the Commission’s goals." Behind the filing were the Florida Internet & Television Association, Missouri Internet & Television Association, Ohio Cable Telecommunications Association and Texas Cable Association.
Pole owners and attachers squabbled this week over who should pay for replacing poles. The New York Public Service Commission posted comments about the New York Department of Public Service (DPS) staff’s Dec. 18 white paper that recommends one-touch, make-ready for simple attachments and other ways to update pole-attachment rules to speed broadband deployment through infrastructure process updates. Raising safety concerns, electric companies urged the PSC to reject the DPS staff’s recommendation of halting the blanket prohibition of alternative pole-attachment methods.
Industry widely opposes the FCC's proposal to adopt additional reporting requirements for providers as part of the commission's efforts to combat digital discrimination. Commissioners sought comment on an NPRM proposing to adopt annual reporting and internal compliance program requirements following a November order adopting rules to curb discrimination (see 2401310052). Comments were posted Tuesday in docket 22-69. Consumer advocates and state officials urged the FCC to adopt the proposed requirements and establish an Office of Civil Rights within the commission.
Spreading high-speed internet will remain a key focus for the California Public Utilities Commission in the years ahead, CPUC President Alice Reynolds told Communications Daily during a wide-ranging Q&A. Reynolds addresses broadband funding, affordability issues, state USF and the FCC’s net neutrality rulemaking in written answers to our questions, lightly edited for length and clarity.
Three infrastructure owner and contractor groups petitioned the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit Tuesday for review of the FCC’s digital discrimination order, released Nov. 20 and published Jan. 22 in the Federal Register, on grounds that it gives the commission unprecedented authority to regulate the broadband internet economy. The Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA), the Power & Communications Contractors Association (PCCA) and NATE filed the petition. It was immediately transferred to the 8th Circuit where it was consolidated with 13 previous petitions under a Feb. 9 order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (see 2402120077). It was docketed as case number 24-1411. The Nov. 20 order “demonstrates the FCC’s failure to retain sight of the scope of its mission assigned by Congress,” the petition said. Entities like infrastructure owners and contractors “play an important role in advancing the goal of facilitating equal access to broadband service by making high-quality modern infrastructure available as quickly as possible for the use by telecommunications and broadband providers,” it said. The infrastructure provided is generally “neutral host,” allowing “any number of providers to place equipment on the sites, increasing broadband access and improving service,” it said. But the infrastructure owners and contractors represented by WIA, PCCA and NATE don’t sell broadband services directly to end users and therefore don’t have the ability “to control the place and manner of broadband access,” it said. The order ultimately also fails to “meaningfully address” WIA’s argument that the order’s definition of “covered entities” exceeds the FCC’s “statutory language and mandate” that Congress intended, it said.
The wireless industry disputed the need for additional requirements to block texts, including extending requirements to originating providers and requiring use of “reasonable analytics” to block texts likely to be illegal, in response to a December Further NPRM (see 2312130019). But other groups said the FCC should consider additional rules and can’t rely on the wireless industry's voluntary efforts. Comments were posted this week in docket 21-402.
NARUC’s Telecom Committee approved a proposed resolution Monday aimed at forestalling U.S. phone number exhaustion. Also during state utility regulators’ meeting in Washington, telecom industry officials urged state commissioners to join them in calling on Congress to renew funding for the affordable connectivity program (ACP). Another panel flagged pole attachment issues remaining after a December FCC order (see 2312130044).
Congressional Republican leaders are determined to advance a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval to undo the FCC’s digital discrimination order (H.J.Res. 107) despite widespread acknowledgment the measure faces long odds of making it through the majority-Democratic Senate and an all-but-certain veto from President Joe Biden. GOP leaders’ intent in pursuing H.J.Res. 107 appears to be to bolster legal challenges of the digital discrimination order, officials and lobbyists told us. House Communications Subcommittee member Rep. Buddy Carter of Georgia and more than 60 other Republicans filed the measure in late January (see 2401310003).