The net neutrality draft order on the FCC's April 25 open meeting agenda (see 2404030043) will face much the same legal arguments as the 2015 net neutrality order did, with many of the same parties involved, we're told by legal experts and net neutrality watchers.
The FCC’s unanimous order Tuesday allowing radio stations to use FM boosters to offer geotargeted ads and announcements comes over the objections of the nation’s largest radio broadcasters and NAB's years-long campaign against FCC authorization (see 2209230070. Although Tuesday’s order allows broadcasters to receive only temporary authorization for geotargeted content and seeks comment on procedures for a more permanent process, advocates for the ZoneCast technology pushed by GeoBroadcast Solutions (GBS) see the order as a win and the accompanying Further NPRM as mostly ministerial. “Today marks a monumental victory for small- and minority-owned FM radio stations,” said Roberts Radio CEO Steve Roberts, a longtime proponent of the technology. NAB “is pleased that the Commission is only authorizing the use of GeoBroadcast Solutions’ troubling technology on an experimental basis at this time,” the trade group said.
The 5G Fund order that FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel circulated March 20 raised long-standing concerns that the agency releases drafts for "meeting" items but not for those voted electronically, regardless of their relative importance. For those items, industry groups and companies must schedule meetings with commissioner staff and the bureaus and offices to ask about details.
MVPDs and their allies opposed the FCC's proposed crackdown on video service fees, though backers, ranging from states and localities to broadcasters, cheered. Comments were filed this week in docket 23-405. During its December meeting, a 3-2 commission vote approved the video service fees NPRM, which proposes banning early-termination fees (ETF) and requires prorated refunds when service is canceled (see 2312130019).
Telecom and media companies support the intentions behind FCC and FTC “junk fees” regulatory actions, but implementation raises questions and potential compliance headaches, industry representatives said. At an FCBA event Monday, Brownstein Hyatt financial services lawyer Leah Dempsey said many industries see the White House and regulatory agency focus on junk fees as "kind of a campaign issue." She said President Joe Biden will likely be "touting the war on junk fees" at his next State of the Union address. Dempsey also said there are concerns that agencies are coming to predetermined outcomes on fees.
The California Public Utilities Commission set a Dec. 13 meeting in a rulemaking to consider changes to video franchise requirements under the state’s Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA). The agency will consider the proceedings scope, schedule and need for evidentiary hearings during the 10 a.m. PST pre-conference hearing, said Administrative Law Judge Margery Melvin in a Wednesday ruling in docket R.23-04-006. A 2021 law revised DIVCA to require the commission to adopt video and broadband customer service requirements and adjudicate customer complaints, Melvin said. “The Commission may also consider potential ways to modernize and make the implementation of DIVCA more efficient and effective.” In comments in June, the cable industry said there’s no need to revamp how it is treated under DIVCA (see 2306050051).
Republican condemnation of the FCC’s actions since it shifted to a Democratic majority in late September -- and Democrats’ defense of the commission’s recent record -- dominated a Thursday House Communications Subcommittee hearing on agency oversight, as expected (see 2311290001). The hearing’s slightly rancorous tone signaled a return to more overtly partisan oversight, in contrast to relatively more bipartisan discussion when FCC commissioners testified in front of the subpanel in June, while the commission was still tied 2-2 (see 2306210076).
The House Communications Subcommittee plans a Nov. 30 FCC oversight hearing that will scrutinize President Joe Biden’s “Broadband Takeover,” the Commerce Committee said Tuesday. The announcement's tone likely presages a major focus on the FCC’s pursuit of a new net neutrality rulemaking that largely mirrors the commission’s rescinded 2015 rules and a reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service (see 2310190020), lobbyists told us. Meanwhile, two senior House Commerce members -- Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and Bill Johnson, R-Ohio -- announced they’re not seeking reelection in 2024.
Telecom companies raised concerns about adding state USF goals on service quality and other issues in comments posted Monday at the Nebraska Public Service Commission. And as the PSC considers sweeping Nebraska USF (NUSF) changes, Charter Communications warned that it might be unlawful to support broadband with a fund designed for telecom services. Small rural companies said the fund should support ongoing costs that make networks expensive in remote areas even after they are deployed.
LA QUINTA, Calif. -- The FCC seemed more open to collaboration with states in its final NPRM for its rulemaking to possibly reclassify broadband as a Title II service, a California Public Utilities Commission staffer said during a panel Tuesday at NARUC’s meeting here. NARUC Telecom Committee Chairman Tim Schram told us Monday that the state regulator association would probably have a resolution about the FCC net neutrality rulemaking at its February meeting in Washington (see 2311130063).