A 30-day comment period, not a 14-day one, is needed to get input on ramifications of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's ruling on conditions on Charter Communications (see 2008140040) and what it means for other conditions from the Time Warner Cable/Bright House Networks deal. That's per Incompas in a docket 16-197 post Wednesday, as it also said there needs to be comment on Charter waiting until the reply round on the proceeding asking for a sunset of conditions to provide an economic analysis. The Free State Foundation said just because the D.C. Circuit didn't touch the FCC's usage-based pricing condition on Charter doesn't mean the court backed those data caps, just that it and other plaintiffs didn't have legal standing to challenge the data caps.

A 30-day comment period, not a 14-day one, is needed to get input on ramifications of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's ruling on conditions on Charter Communications (see 2008140040) and what it means for other conditions from the Time Warner Cable/Bright House Networks deal. That's per Incompas in a docket 16-197 post Wednesday, as it also said there needs to be comment on Charter waiting until the reply round on the proceeding asking for a sunset of conditions to provide an economic analysis. The Free State Foundation said just because the D.C. Circuit didn't touch the FCC's usage-based pricing condition on Charter doesn't mean the court backed those data caps, just that it and other plaintiffs didn't have legal standing to challenge the data caps.

Adopt NTIA’s petition for rulemaking on Communications Decency Act Section 230, Republican state attorneys general commented to the FCC posted Thursday in RM-11862 (see 2009020064). Tech, telecom and consumer groups again largely said the FCC shouldn't consider the petition, saying the FCC and NTIA are exceeding their jurisdiction and expertise. The AG group was formed by Texas’ Ken Paxton, Indiana’s Curtis Hill, Louisiana’s Jeff Landy and Missouri’s Eric Schmitt. The petition clarifies 230's scope and empowers states without undermining protections for moderation of “traditionally regulated content,” they wrote: It promotes freedom of speech by “ensuring competition through transparency.”

Adopt NTIA’s petition for rulemaking on Communications Decency Act Section 230, Republican state attorneys general commented to the FCC posted Thursday in RM-11862 (see 2009020064). Tech, telecom and consumer groups again largely said the FCC shouldn't consider the petition, saying the FCC and NTIA are exceeding their jurisdiction and expertise. The AG group was formed by Texas’ Ken Paxton, Indiana’s Curtis Hill, Louisiana’s Jeff Landy and Missouri’s Eric Schmitt. The petition clarifies 230's scope and empowers states without undermining protections for moderation of “traditionally regulated content,” they wrote: It promotes freedom of speech by “ensuring competition through transparency.”

USTelecom countered an Incompas grandfathering proposal on dark fiber (see 2002060006). Incompas proposed that even if the FCC decides CLECs aren’t impaired without access to dark fiber, “it should nevertheless require incumbent local exchange to indefinitely continue to offer unbundled access to any dark fiber arrangements ordered before January 6, 2020,” USTelecom said in a filing posted Wednesday in docket 19-308: “This outcome would be contrary to the Communications Act, Commission and judicial precedent, and Congressional intent.” USTelecom spoke with Office of General Counsel and Wireline Bureau staff. “USTelecom’s claim of a concession is completely and utterly false,” emailed Incompas CEO Chip Pickering: The Telecom Act “serves as the government’s contract with the people to guarantee they have access to broadband competition. Dark fiber is the bridge to broadband for both urban and rural communities. Cutting it off will leave millions of Americans in the dark.”

USTelecom countered an Incompas grandfathering proposal on dark fiber (see 2002060006). Incompas proposed that even if the FCC decides CLECs aren’t impaired without access to dark fiber, “it should nevertheless require incumbent local exchange to indefinitely continue to offer unbundled access to any dark fiber arrangements ordered before January 6, 2020,” USTelecom said in a filing posted Wednesday in docket 19-308: “This outcome would be contrary to the Communications Act, Commission and judicial precedent, and Congressional intent.” USTelecom spoke with Office of General Counsel and Wireline Bureau staff. “USTelecom’s claim of a concession is completely and utterly false,” emailed Incompas CEO Chip Pickering: The Telecom Act “serves as the government’s contract with the people to guarantee they have access to broadband competition. Dark fiber is the bridge to broadband for both urban and rural communities. Cutting it off will leave millions of Americans in the dark.”

Industry and callers urged caution, in FCC comments on a July Further NPRM on robocalls (see 2007160045) in docket 17-59. The rules offer companies two safe harbors from liability for the unintended or inadvertent blocking of wanted calls, and the FCC sought comment on other ways to protect consumers from robocalls and inform them about blocking efforts. Comments were due Monday on the NPRM, aimed at implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (Traced Act).

USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter and Incompas CEO Chip Pickering had video calls with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai on their agreement on whether and how much access LECs need to provide to DS0, DS1, DS3 and operation support systems (see 2008060044). They also spoke with Commissioners Mike O’Rielly, Brendan Carr and Jessica Rosenworcel, said a filing posted Friday in docket 19-308. “The Compromise Proposal was negotiated in direct response to the issues raised in this proceeding and with the intention of bringing an end to the debate over whether and to what extent certain unbundled network elements will continue to be available,” they said: “The proposal recognizes the significant changes in a modern communications market that has seen increased competition for voice and broadband service. It also recognizes that some providers, primarily in less populated areas generally subject to less competition, may still be impaired" without access to incumbent LEC facilities" to offer competitive alternatives.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's 2-1 ruling Friday knocking down two FCC conditions on Charter Communications' buying Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks didn’t get to the merits (see 2008140018). It nonetheless could have implications for future consumer challenges of regulations, said cable attorneys and appellant the Competitive Enterprise Institute in interviews. Industry and public interest lawyers disagree how the ruling will affect a parallel FCC proceeding on sunsetting Charter/TWC/BHN conditions (see 2007230015).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's 2-1 ruling Friday knocking down two FCC conditions on Charter Communications' buying Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks didn’t get to the merits (see 2008140018). It nonetheless could have implications for future consumer challenges of regulations, said cable attorneys and appellant the Competitive Enterprise Institute in interviews. Industry and public interest lawyers disagree how the ruling will affect a parallel FCC proceeding on sunsetting Charter/TWC/BHN conditions (see 2007230015).