Consumers' Research challenged the FCC's Q1 2023 USF contribution factor in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, saying "no separate document was issued when the proposed USF tax factor was deemed approved by the FCC on March 28." The petition, filed Monday in docket 23-1091, said approval of the contribution factor "exceed[s] the FCC’s statutory authority" and asked the court to deem the factor unlawful. It's the fourth challenge of a quarterly factor by the group. The 5th Circuit denied the group's challenge of the Q1 2022 factor in March (see 2303240049).

The telecom industry recoiled at the new direction for a California Public Utilities Commission rulemaking that previously focused on state USF charges. The CPUC has no business investigating provider-imposed charges, said phone, cable and wireless companies in comments Wednesday. Consumer advocates welcomed the review into discretionary charges they said aren’t always expected by customers.

The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals "erroneously upheld the USF revenue-raising mechanism" in its ruling against Consumers' Research petition on the FCC's Q1 2022 contribution factor, the group told the 11th Circuit (see 2303240049). The group challenged the Q4 2022 factor in the 11th Circuit. The court "never addressed" the group's argument about the nondelegation doctrine's intelligible principle "in the context of revenue-raising," Consumers' Research said in a letter posted Monday (docket 22-13315). The group also said the court "found no private nondelegation violation despite the FCC never bothering to issue a separate approval of [the Universal Service Administrative Co.'s] quarterly proposal and having only 'a small window' for review."

The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals "erroneously upheld the USF revenue-raising mechanism" in its ruling against Consumers' Research petition on the FCC's Q1 2022 contribution factor, the group told the 11th Circuit (see 2303240049). The group challenged the Q4 2022 factor in the 11th Circuit. The court "never addressed" the group's argument about the nondelegation doctrine's intelligible principle "in the context of revenue-raising," Consumers' Research said in a letter posted Monday (docket 22-13315). The group also said the court "found no private nondelegation violation despite the FCC never bothering to issue a separate approval of [the Universal Service Administrative Co.'s] quarterly proposal and having only 'a small window' for review."

A three-judge panel on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned the timing of Consumers' Research's challenge of the USF 2021 Q4 contribution factor and how the nondelegation doctrine applied to the FCC's determination of the quarterly factor Thursday. Judges heard oral argument Friday on the challenge (see 2303060069).

The USF contribution factor has “gone up really through the roof” and “led to a pretty vibrant debate right now about what the future of the universal service is going to be funded going forward,” said Keller and Heckman partner Casey Lide during a firm webinar Thursday. The telecom lawyer noted some groups sought direct congressional appropriations to fund USF, while others urged the FCC to include broadband internet access service revenue in the contribution base. Consumers’ Research’s challenge of the USF contribution factor in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based on the nondelegation doctrine could “force the hand on this kind of reform discussion,” he said (see 2301180054). If the court finds in favor of the petitioners, “it's undoubtedly going to go before the Supreme Court,” Lide said: "This Supreme Court could well uphold that [and] if that happens, then you're in a scenario where the universal service program is effectively gutted by judicial process.”

T-Mobile seeks to cloak its "private concern” with a change to California USF “in the language of equity and solicitude for low-income Californians,” the California Public Utilities Commission said Monday at the U.S. District Court of Northern California. T-Mobile and subsidiaries seek a preliminary injunction to stop the CPUC’s October decision to switch to connections-based contribution from taking effect April 1 (see 2302020058). Opposing that motion in case 3:23-cv-00483, the CPUC said T-Mobile lacks standing and fails to show California’s connection-based surcharge violates federal law.

T-Mobile will take California regulators to federal court over a decision to switch state USF contribution to a connections-based mechanism. In a complaint Wednesday against the California Public Utilities Commission (case 3:23-cv-00483), T-Mobile and subsidiaries urged the U.S. District Court of Northern California to preliminarily enjoin a $1.11 monthly per-line fee from taking effect April 1. A consumer advocate scoffed Thursday at T-Mobile’s claim that the order hurts low-income households.

Broadband industry officials Wednesday stressed the need for Congress to take an active role in broadband deployment and adoption efforts, before NTIA's broadband, equity, access, and deployment program and other recent federal investments. Some during a Broadband Breakfast webinar emphasized the role of fiber as states consider their plans and proper vetting of the FCC's new broadband maps.

A coalition of industry groups and consumer advocacy organizations filed separate briefs Thursday in support of the FCC in the Consumers’ Research case challenging the USF contribution factor in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (docket 22-13315). USTelecom, NTCA, and the Competitive Carriers Association requested that the court hear oral argument. The groups said Consumers' Research "exaggerate[s] every aspect of this case," including the Universal Service Administrative Co.'s "role in determining quarterly contribution factors." The Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, National Digital Inclusion Alliance, and MediaJustice also filed a brief in support of the FCC. "Petitioners cannot circumvent their timeliness problem through a manufactured challenge to this ministerial public notice," the groups said, claiming the challenge is instead an "untimely review of the constitutionality of the entire Universal Service Fund."