The FCC didn't sufficiently explain the reasoning behind many of its proposed FY2 019 regulatory fee changes (see 1906100049), said NAB and several satellite industry commenters in replies posted in docket 19-105 Tuesday. “The NPRM, in its current form, does not provide companies subject to regulatory fees a meaningful basis on which to comment in this proceeding,” said the Satellite Industry Association. Satellite companies don't have the information they need to understand the fee calculation methodology, said Intelsat License and SES Americom. Satellite companies shouldn't be charged differently than other media industries, said America’s Communications Association and NCTA. “Once again, AT&T and DISH rely on flawed reasoning and discredited arguments to attempt to justify a regulatory fee schedule that would perpetuate the preferential treatment DBS operators receive over other MVPDs,” the cable groups said. “The NPRM does not explain significant changes in regulatory fees for both satellite and VHF television stations,” said NAB. The association said the NPRM contains insufficiently justified hikes for radio stations, based on flawed data. Hubbard Broadcasting said the satellite TV station increase is “contrary” to the FCC's historical treatment of satellite TV stations and will impose “an unwarranted burden” on broadcasters. Intelsat supported a proposal from NAB to apply regulatory fees to a wider swath of entities, including those that don't have licenses. CenturyLink disagreed with the SEA-US Licensees and the North American Submarine Cable Association which said the FCC shouldn't increase fees on the submarine cable industry. "Align submarine cable fees with the benefits provided to submarine cable operators from the Commission’s activities,” asked NASCA.
Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., repeated his concerns Monday about whether the Commerce Department is actively hindering development of the federal government's 5G strategy. He also filed a resolution that would make it the sense of the Senate that U.S. leadership on 5G is a “national priority” and that federal agencies should work with the FCC to advance U.S. leadership of the technology at the 2019 World Radiocommunication Conference. Johnson was among the Senate Commerce Committee members who raised the issue during an FCC oversight hearing earlier this month. Senate Commerce ranking member Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., during that hearing highlighted NOAA's concerns about the potential effects of commercial use of spectrum on the 24 GHz band sold in the recent FCC auction on weather forecasting technology on adjacent bands (see 1906120076). FCC Chairman Ajit Pai disputed NOAA's claims and said they were part of a pattern of Commerce efforts to hinder efforts to free up spectrum for 5G. “It has come to my attention that one of your senior advisers may be placing personal animosity ahead of our country’s 5G goals,” Johnson wrote Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. “This threatens the clearly stated goals and priorities of the President and Congress and also undermines the NTIA’s mission to ‘expand the use of spectrum by all users.'” Spectrum “deliberations are best conducted by engineers working collaboratively together to solve challenges, not bureaucrats trying to defend their turf,” Johnson said. NOAA's “last minute objections” are particularly problematic given U.S. preparations for the WRC, “and this dispute weakens our country's leverage and ability to further secure America's leadership at this conference.” Johnson sought by July 10 information on studies and other communications by NOAA, NTIA and other Commerce agencies related to out of band emissions in the 24 GHz band. He wants a staff briefing by July 12, a written explanation of what transpired ahead of NOAA's late disclosure of its concerns. Johnson also wants Ross to make a written commitment “to support the U.S. winning the race to 5G” via expanded spectrum availability and that he's directed all Commerce officials to “support the U.S. position on 24 GHz and all other issues” being addressed in WRC negotiations. House Science Committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, and ranking member Frank Lucas, R-Okla., wrote Ross and NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine Wednesday night requesting by June 26 all NASA and NOAA studies and analyses on the potential impacts of 5G transmissions on the 24 GHz band and the impact on the 23.8 GHz band.
DOJ may not get involved in a lawsuit to block T-Mobile from buying Sprint in a case involving states, as four more states joined 10 other states' suit against the deal, a court that will hear the case beginning Oct. 7 apparently was told Friday. That's according to an attendee and other stakeholders including a spokesperson for co-plaintiff New York. During a status-type hearing in New York, "a lawyer for T-Mobile noted that it was 'very unlikely' that the DOJ" will sue by participating in this case, recalled New Street Research's Vivek Stalam. That could also mean that Justice won't challenge the states' case. U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero "seems open-minded," the analyst wrote investors. "Referring to the threshold questions of the case, Judge Marrero noted both traditional antitrust questions around market concentration, as well as the impact of 5G, and whether incremental competition in one market could offset anti-competitive effects in another." Four more Democratic AGs joined the suit, Stalam noted, as expected (see 1906140041). Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Nevada's addition was reflected in an amended complaint filed Friday, the New York AG's office announced. "State AGs are adamant about continuing with the litigation even if the merger were to receive DOJ and FCC approval prior to the trial date, surmising that any such approvals would require additional review and analysis to ensure compliance with the States’ antitrust concerns," wrote the Rural Wireless Association. RWA backs the suit. DOJ didn't respond to requests for comment and T-Mobile declined to comment. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said separately Friday that clearing T-Mobile/Sprint is “one of the most critical steps the agency can take” to promote mid-band 5G (see 1906210045).
GAO began a survey Thursday on the comment process. It emailed 10,000 randomly chosen people believed to have commented on federal rulemakings, 2013-17, “to better understand how public comments on proposed rulemakings are submitted to federal agencies, and especially the extent to which the comments submitted electronically are actually from those who are listed as having submitted them,” it said Thursday. Responses will help form the basis of a report to Congress next year.
A federal court sentenced ex-Quintillion CEO Elizabeth Pierce to five years in prison after the ex-chair of the FCC’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee pled guilty to wire fraud and identify theft in a scheme to induce investors to sink more than $270 million into her Alaska-based company's fiber network (see 1902120030). Pierce “placed her ambition above the law,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman for the Southern District of New York said Wednesday. Pierce's arrest in April 2018 (see 1804130055) led the Project on Government Oversight to seek an FCC investigation into her BDAC work (see 1804180038). The agency last year played down her role, and Chairman Ajit Pai told a lawmaker in the fall he and staff weren't aware of the DOJ probe before Pierce resigned as BDAC chair in September 2017 (see 1810040051). The FCC declined comment Thursday.
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said she agrees with a push by Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., and three other House Communications Subcommittee members for the commission to advance a rulemaking on the 5.9 GHz band. McNerney; Anna Eshoo, D-Calif.; Billy Long, R-Mo.; and John Shimkus, R-Ill., wrote FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Wednesday to “move forward” on a proceeding to “take a fresh look,” saying it's “crucial that we use this resource in an efficient way” given increasing demands for spectrum. “It is important that we re-examine how [the 5.9 GHz band] is being used and how to allocate it in a way that meets the demands of our times and best serves the American people” since the dedicated short-range communications technology it was originally designated for “has yet to be widely adopted,” the lawmakers said. Pai didn't circulate a 5.9 GHz rulemaking ahead of the July 10 commissioners' meeting, increasing perceptions that objections from the Department of Transportation have stalled its progress (see 1906180072). “We shouldn't strand spectrum policy in turn-of-the-century ideas about what these airwaves can do,” Rosenworcel tweeted Thursday. “Let's take a fresh look.”
The FCC moved up its August commissioners’ meeting, from Aug. 2 to Aug. 1, at 10:30 a.m., it said Wednesday.
CTA supported proposed updates to FCC rules for over-the-air reception devices, in reply comments posted Tuesday in docket 19-71. Cities and others continue to counsel restraint (see 1906050014). Other groups are raising RF health concerns. “The availability of broadband is an important factor in the growth of emerging technologies,” CTA said. “Emerging technologies use smaller form factors than previous generation’s macro towers, and these smaller form factors must be closer to end-users. Over the past two years, the Commission took important steps to streamline state and local review of infrastructure siting. … Expanding the OTARD rule to include all fixed wireless equipment is a reasonable next step for the Commission to consider.” Incompas also supported the change. “Fixed wireless is a solution that some of our members use to deliver critical voice and broadband services to their customers,” it commented: “INCOMPAS supports the Commission’s proposal to eliminate the restriction that currently excludes hub and relay antennas from the scope of the Commission’s OTARD provisions.” The U.S. Conference of Mayors and Los Angeles, Boston, Dallas and other local governments said the FCC doesn’t have the authority to act. “The Commission lacks the legal authority, delegated, implied, or ancillary, to take the actions it contemplates,” filing said. “Parties that are supportive of the proceeding fail to demonstrate that there is a predicate for action,” the cities said: “Numerous non-governmental parties offer insights that there is no national movement or scheme to deny OTARD deployments, and the Commission’s proposed actions could retard current plans for wireless developments.” San Francisco also opposed the rules. “The Commission cannot extend the OTARD rule simply because the Commission believes it will be speed-up broadband deployment,” it said: “Where, as here, the Commission is acting under a directive from Congress, the Commission must show that its actions are consistent with that directive, and are not prohibited by other federal laws.” The Wireless ISP Association, which asked for the change, said initial comments broke down into two camps. “Those in the real estate business that seek to maintain the status quo giving zoning and homeowners’ associations unmitigated control over the way their residents’ access video content, and those providers that desire a limited change to the OTARD rule so that consumers have more choices and providers are better able to extend service and offer competitive choice,” WISPA said.
DOJ settled with five more broadcasters over sharing “competitively sensitive” advertising rate information, said a release and amended complaint Monday night. The new settlements are with CBS, Cox, E.W. Scripps, Fox and Tegna, after a previous settlement with seven including Nexstar, Sinclair and Tribune. The new pact also involves the Cox-owned ad sales company CoxReps. The companies involved “agreed with other entities in many metropolitan areas across the United States to exchange revenue pacing information, and also engaged in the exchange of other forms of non-public sales information,” the release said. Pacing data compares a station’s revenue for a certain time period to the same time the previous year. By sharing that information, the broadcasters were “better able to anticipate whether their competitors were likely to raise, maintain, or lower spot advertising prices” which helped inform their pricing strategies, DOJ said. “The information exchanges harmed the competitive price-setting process in markets for the sale of spot advertisements.” Justice didn’t comment on the monthslong gap between the resolution of accusations against these five broadcasters and the previous seven, but the release refers to them as “new” defendants. The release also singles out Fox as helping DOJ reach an “expeditious resolution” of the matter. For seven years, the broadcasters must refrain from sharing competitively sensitive information, adopt “rigorous antitrust compliance and reporting measures,” and cooperate with DOJ’s “ongoing investigation,” the release said. CoxReps must also implement firewalls in markets where it represents more than one broadcast station. Cox has been cooperating with the DOJ in the investigation "over the last many months,” said a spokesperson. “We have agreed to a consent decree that is consistent with our current business standards at our TV stations and in the CoxReps business.” Scripps "disagrees with the DOJ’s allegations,” a spokesperson said. “We decided settling with them was our best option to remain focused on our business.” CBS, Fox and Tegna didn’t comment Tuesday. “The DOJ accuses more broadcasters, who endlessly tout how they serve their local communities, of engaging in practices which allowed the station owners to overcharge local businesses in their communities for ads,” said America's Communications Association Senior Vice President-Government Affairs Ross Lieberman in a pair of tweets. “If broadcasters really cared about localism, they wouldn’t rip off the the ad buyers in the markets they serve,” he said. The DOJ investigation into broadcaster ad data sharing arose out of its evaluation of the Sinclair/Tribune deal, DOJ officials said.
FCC infrastructure orders “rest on a highly strained reading” of the Telecom Act and violate the Constitution, said New York City and NATOA jointly at the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Intervenor briefs were due Monday (see 1906170049). "Compelling cities to lease their rights-of-way and municipally owned property on the FCC’s terms implicates the Takings Clause and the Tenth Amendment by denying just compensation, infringing on local police powers, intruding on traditionally local spheres of control, and conscripting local governments to administer a federal agency’s regulatory agenda,” the city and local government association wrote (in Pacer). "But this Court need not actually determine whether the Orders are irrational or unconstitutional, because the FCC lacks authority to take these steps that -- at a minimum -- dramatically shift the federal-state balance and intrude on the core of traditional local prerogatives.” Several state associations of municipal utilities said the September order endangers public safety. It “is a blatant effort by the FCC to strengthen the hand of carriers in negotiations with local governments over small wireless deployment, and to limit the ability of local governments to negotiate to protect the public interest around small wireless facilities,” filed (in Pacer) Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Arkansas municipal utility associations. That “will significantly and negatively impact local governments’ ability to protect and serve public property, safety and welfare,” they said. California, Virginia and Florida municipal utility groups wrote (in Pacer) that “Congress explicitly denied the Commission authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of access to public power utility poles.” The order was challenged on similar grounds by American Municipal Power (in Pacer) including electric systems in Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, and the Nebraska Municipal Power Pool (in Pacer), representing communities in Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming.