The FCC has been summoning for meetings industry entities associated with set-top boxes and the Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee, said industry officials and a series of ex parte filings. Groups pushing for a rulemaking to come out of the DSTAC's report are pushing to get an item on the agenda of an FCC meeting, while multichannel video programming distributors and others opposed to the FCC's acting on the report are trying to keep the rulemaking process from proceeding, an attorney following the DSTAC process told us.
Public Knowledge wants to build on victories for net neutrality and against cable concentration, officials said at a Thursday news-media briefing on the group's 2016 agenda. The biggest threat to the open Internet “is the persistent cable broadband stranglehold over how citizens, consumers get access to video streaming, apps, devices, traditional TV content they want,” said President Gene Kimmelman. “So, this is going to be a year that we go all-out to break that stranglehold. It ranges from the set-top box to programming contracts to the actual transmission itself.” Net neutrality was just one battle in a broader fight that continues “against cable dominance,” he said.
Large telcos said the FCC should close or delay a probe of their special access terms and conditions that the companies said were lawful. AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier Communications and Verizon made lengthy filings in docket 15-247 defending their special access pricing practices, which often contain discounts in exchange for volume or term commitments. The Bells/ILECs were responding to a Wireline Bureau tariff investigation of their special access contracts (see 1510160060), which rivals allege are anticompetitive and “lock up” much demand for traditional business data services (see 1510080051). Competitors continued to criticize incumbent telco practices Monday.
The Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., may not feature telecom as a centerpiece, but Sanders’ signature on detailed letters, a court brief and legislation creates a nuanced portrait of progressive stances across recent months. The emerging profile gives a more granular showcase of the presidential candidate’s telecom and media policy priorities -- on issues ranging from set-top boxes to inmate calling to net neutrality -- than is available for other contenders for the presidency, Republican or Democrat. Sanders trails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who in broad strokes has outlined similar priorities as Sanders. Both have expressed interest in intense federal investment in broadband infrastructure, strong net neutrality rules and strong antitrust enforcement.
Altice's proposed takeover of Cablevision might not face much more difficulties before the FCC than its recently approved purchase of Suddenlink, merger experts told us. FCC approval "is never a sure thing," but the Cablevision acquisition is less problematic for the commissioners than a number of other mergers have been, Andrew Schwartzman, who's representing Zoom Telephonics, an interested party in the proceedings, told us.
The FCC found just one rural telco market is ineligible for continued USF support based on a rule requiring subsidies to be eliminated where there's 100 percent overlap with an unsubsidized competitor. Pineville Telephone Co. faces unsubsidized competition in all of its “study area” in North Carolina and will have its USF support phased out over the next three years, the Wireline Bureau said in an order Monday in docket 10-90.
The regulatory fee battle raged as the American Cable Association and ITTA urged the FCC to shift some fees from wireline to wireless companies, while CTIA opposed that. CTIA also opposed NAB’s proposal to reapportion regulatory fees to the wireless sector because of the planned incentive auction, which will allow wireless providers to bid for broadcast TV spectrum. ACA and CTIA filed reply comments (here and here), while ITTA made an ex parte filing this week in docket 15-121 on a recent meeting with FCC officials. NAB met with officials last week to discuss its proposal (see 1512030061).
FCC supporters, critics and others continue to offer different takes on Friday’s net neutrality oral argument heard by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 1512040058). The supporters believe Judge David Tatel’s focus on the Supreme Court’s 2005 Brand X ruling and the discretion it gave the FCC bodes well for the agency’s broadband reclassification under Title II of the Communications Act and its net neutrality rules. Even one critic of the order suspects Title II reclassification of wireline ISPs could be upheld. But some on all sides said the agency’s reclassification of mobile broadband was at risk, with FCC critics saying other aspects were also vulnerable. A two-part audio recording of the argument is available here (USTelecom vs. FCC, No. 15-1063).
The FCC Enforcement Bureau’s recent data breach case against Cox Communications (see 1511050064) shows the FCC and FTC need to use “compatible” approaches on privacy and data security cases, FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen said during a Practising Law Institute event Friday. The FCC is still grappling with its final standards on ISP privacy rules, with Chairman Tom Wheeler indicating he plans to begin a rulemaking in early 2016 (see 1511170060). Ohlhausen has argued the FTC is better equipped to protect privacy (see 1509020040), while FTC Commissioner Julie Brill pushed the FCC to create strong privacy rules for ISPs (see 1509280062). Industry executives agreed with Ohlhausen during a separate PLI session Friday that joint FCC-FTC privacy jurisdiction creates uncertainty, while officials from both agencies noted similar joint jurisdiction situations have worked well in the past.
A three-judge panel pressed attorneys from all sides at oral argument Friday on petitioner challenges to the FCC’s net neutrality order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063). Judges heavily questioned USTelecom arguments that the FCC’s broadband reclassification under Title II of the Communications Act violated the law, with Judge David Tatel suggesting the 2005 Supreme Court Brand X ruling gave the agency broadband classification much deference. But the judges also pushed FCC attorneys hard to defend the commission’s reasons for reclassifying, extending Title II to mobile broadband and IP Interconnection but not edge traffic, and banning paid prioritization. The complicated oral argument was scheduled for two hours but ran three hours. A two-part audio recording is available here.