While President Donald Trump has torn out some key guardrails protecting against bias and discrimination in AI, the administration might consider discussions about returning them, panelists representing underserved community interests said Tuesday. Independent of government action, the tech community seems open to maintaining those protections, some said during an event to discuss Trump's first 100 days in office.
Telecom and utility companies must engage in early communication and collaboration to ensure efficient and safe broadband deployment, industry leaders said Monday at NARUC's Winter Policy Summit. NARUC Telecom Committee members also voted unanimously to adopt two resolutions on utility demand response communication and on vandalism or theft of communications infrastructure.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous but narrow opinion Friday that reimbursement requests submitted to the E-rate program, administered by the Universal Service Administrative Co., can be considered “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA). The decision in Wisconsin Bell v. U.S. reaffirmed the ruling of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Elena Kagan, one of three justices appointed by a Democratic president, wrote the opinion.
The FCC should “assume a less interventionist regulatory posture by narrowing the exercise of its public interest authority,” said Free State Foundation President Randolph May in a blog post Thursday. He said a narrower definition of “public interest” should apply in merger reviews and administration of the USF. The FCC “should reform the merger review process by announcing a policy that, absent extraordinary circumstances, it will largely defer to the DOJ’s and FTC’s expertise regarding any competitive concerns.” He called for the agency to “refrain from imposing ‘voluntary' conditions on merger proponents that are unrelated to compliance with existing statutory or regulatory requirements.” Narrower definitions are also needed when the FCC periodically reviews regulations to determine if they are still in the public interest, May said. The FCC “should assert that it possesses the discretion to narrow the scope of its public interest determination in the regulatory review proceedings to effectuate their obvious deregulatory intent." When deciding whether to forebear from enforcing unnecessary rules, the FCC should consider itself to have satisfied the public interest if the rule in question isn’t needed to ensure provider practices are just or protect consumers, May said. “Then, the forbearance provision could be used, as Congress intended, to eliminate many of the legacy regulations which remain on the Commission's books.”
WTA members are concerned about the uncertainty stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court review of FCC v. Consumers' Research, a case that could invalidate how the USF program is funded (see 2501090045), as well as the future of the enhanced alternative connect America cost model program, representatives from the group said in a meeting with aides to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. WTA members also “raised the need for addressing both USF contribution and distribution reform,” said a filing posted Wednesday in docket 10-90. “The current contribution factor is above 36% and is unsustainable, and therefore the Commission should look to assess [broadband internet access service] providers and work with Congress to have edge providers and others who should be contributing to USF do so in order to bring the contribution factor down and be spread equitably among all users.” The WTA members also reported on meetings with aides to Commissioners Nathan Simington and Anna Gomez.
The National Federation of Independent Business’ Small Business Legal Center joined Consumers’ Research in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reject how the FCC handles USF. FCC v. Consumers' Research, which SCOTUS will hear March 26, challenges the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating how the USF program is funded (see 2501090045).
Consumers’ Research is getting support from other right-of-center groups as it pushes a legal theory at the U.S. Supreme Court that poses a challenge to the USF's future. SCOTUS will hear FCC v. Consumers' Research on March 26, challenging the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating how the USF program is funded (see 2501090045).
Consumers’ Research, the conservative group that is a self-described opponent of “woke” culture, told the U.S. Supreme Court that the way the FCC assesses payments for the USF is “a historic anomaly at odds with 600 years of Anglo-American practice.” SCOTUS will hear FCC v. Consumers' Research March 26, challenging the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating part of the USF program (see 2501090045), in part because the FCC delegated authority for overseeing the program to the Universal Service Administrative Co.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's criticism of how the 5G Fund was structured under former Chairwoman Rosenworcel is “legitimate,” New Street’s Blair Levin said in an email (see 2502100056). “Congress asked Rosenworcel to lay out an analysis of the future of USF post-BEAD in order to have the data Congress and the public would need to evaluate what needs to be done now and what should await the implementation of BEAD,” Levin said. “Rosenworcel's efforts did not accomplish that (or anything else) which is unfortunate.” While some parts of the fund could be done now, “others, no doubt, would benefit from knowing how the states' plans affect future deployment efforts,” he said.
Three conservative groups on Tuesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to use its upcoming decision in FCC v. Consumers' Research to provide clarity on when agencies can delegate authority to private companies. SCOTUS will consider the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-7 en banc decision invalidating part of the USF program (see 2501090045), in part because the FCC delegated authority for overseeing the program to the Universal Service Administrative Co. (see 2412100060).