Incompas and Sprint asked a court to deny an FCC motion to stay the mandate of the court's partial reversal of a commission order largely deregulating price-cap incumbent telco business data services (see 1810100054). Intervenors USTelecom, AT&T and CenturyLink supported the motion. The commission "fails to articulate any standard for the stay that it seeks," said Incompas/Sprint opposition Monday to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Citizens Telecommunications v. FCC, No. 17-2296. "It likewise fails to identify any timeframe for the stay requested, stating only that the Commission 'proposes to file status updates every 90 days to apprise the Court of developments in the agency’s rulemaking.'" The FCC said an indefinite stay is justified because "the agency is diligently working to address this Court's remand, and there is every reason to believe [it will] proceed efficiently to adopt a new TDM transport rule," the opposition noted. But that isn't the Supreme Court's standard, which requires "extraordinary circumstances" or, when a cert petition is pending, "good cause," Incompas and Sprint said. The ILECs, noting the new rules took effect in August 2017, said a "stay is necessary to prevent pointless and costly industry disruption as the FCC moves forward expeditiously ... to re-adopt on remand the same transport rule in effect." If the court issues the mandate "vacating the 2017 transport rule before the remand proceedings are complete," carriers must "file thousands of pages of new federal tariffs," the intervenors said. "Carriers would also have to puzzle through how to apply the resulting regime, a bizarre regulatory hybrid with conflicting geographic units and jumbled service baskets, in which transport is subject to legacy pre-2017 regulations while interrelated, non-transport data services are subject to the new, lighter-touch regime that this Court has upheld."

U.S. broadband capital expenditures rose 2 percent in 2017 to $76.3 billion, said USTelecom's annual report Thursday. The group credited the FCC's recent "internet freedom" and tech transition orders and congressional "tax reform" with helping to reverse a two-year capex decline that "began" when the FCC "moved to impose common carrier" regulation on broadband providers in 2015. The report confirms FCC "policies to promote broadband deployment are working," said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. "Investment is pouring back into this space," said Commissioner Brendan Carr at a USTelecom event.

U.S. broadband capital expenditures rose 2 percent in 2017 to $76.3 billion, said USTelecom's annual report Thursday. The group credited the FCC's recent "internet freedom" and tech transition orders and congressional "tax reform" with helping to reverse a two-year capex decline that "began" when the FCC "moved to impose common carrier" regulation on broadband providers in 2015. The report confirms FCC "policies to promote broadband deployment are working," said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. "Investment is pouring back into this space," said Commissioner Brendan Carr at a USTelecom event.

Industry groups are renewing their fight against an FCC policy statement that triples damages for amounts owed to USF and other funds. In a docket 16-330 ex parte posting Thursday, CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom and Incompas recapped a meeting with FCC Chief of Staff Matthew Berry at which they said the agency's way of defining a continuing violation in recent years runs contrary to the one-year statute of limitations for nonbroadcast notices of apparent liability contained in the Communications Act. The groups argued that four particular categories shouldn't be considering continuing violations, repeating an argument made to the Enforcement Bureau (see 1802010021). The groups petitioned in 2015, challenging the policy statement (see 1503060066).

State attorneys general urged new FCC efforts to combat illegal robocalls, including giving telecom providers expanded call-blocking authority. Others said too many legal calls already are blocked. Replies were posted Tuesday to initial comments in which carriers sought expanded authority (see 1809250031). Adopt "new rules authorizing voice service providers to block illegally spoofed calls beyond what is currently authorized in the 2017 Call Blocking Order," replied 35 state AGs in docket 17-59. They said their efforts to target bad actors are often "frustrated" because "calls travel through a maze of smaller providers" or come from overseas. They encouraged providers "to use all available tools to accurately identify illegal calls," and said providers should give consumers, "especially seniors," adequate information about blocking and labeling. Consumers Union and others urged the FCC to require phone companies to implement caller ID authentication technology soon, act to counter legal calls unwanted by consumers, maintain an inclusive robocall definition and not require voice providers send "intercept" messages for blocked calls. "Focus on the tiny fraction of carriers and their customers that originate the vast majority of illegal calls, rather than imposing widespread burdens on carriers, legal call originators" and consumers, said Sprint. It urged more providers to participate in USTelecom's "traceback" initiative "identifying illegal callers for referral to the FTC and FCC for enforcement," and said call blocking should be done "judiciously." Consumers "are being channeled to block calls without measures in place requiring proper disclosures or provision of sufficient information to allow consumers to make informed decisions," said ACA International: "Carriers must not be able to block calls until the FCC issues rules for callers to challenge erroneously blocked or mislabeled calls." NTCA urged the FCC "to proceed with caution and an eye toward protecting consumers from dangers of 'false positives.'" Welcoming attention on false positives, Incompas said efforts "must be carefully considered to protect legitimate traffic."

State attorneys general urged new FCC efforts to combat illegal robocalls, including giving telecom providers expanded call-blocking authority. Others said too many legal calls already are blocked. Replies were posted Tuesday to initial comments in which carriers sought expanded authority (see 1809250031). Adopt "new rules authorizing voice service providers to block illegally spoofed calls beyond what is currently authorized in the 2017 Call Blocking Order," replied 35 state AGs in docket 17-59. They said their efforts to target bad actors are often "frustrated" because "calls travel through a maze of smaller providers" or come from overseas. They encouraged providers "to use all available tools to accurately identify illegal calls," and said providers should give consumers, "especially seniors," adequate information about blocking and labeling. Consumers Union and others urged the FCC to require phone companies to implement caller ID authentication technology soon, act to counter legal calls unwanted by consumers, maintain an inclusive robocall definition and not require voice providers send "intercept" messages for blocked calls. "Focus on the tiny fraction of carriers and their customers that originate the vast majority of illegal calls, rather than imposing widespread burdens on carriers, legal call originators" and consumers, said Sprint. It urged more providers to participate in USTelecom's "traceback" initiative "identifying illegal callers for referral to the FTC and FCC for enforcement," and said call blocking should be done "judiciously." Consumers "are being channeled to block calls without measures in place requiring proper disclosures or provision of sufficient information to allow consumers to make informed decisions," said ACA International: "Carriers must not be able to block calls until the FCC issues rules for callers to challenge erroneously blocked or mislabeled calls." NTCA urged the FCC "to proceed with caution and an eye toward protecting consumers from dangers of 'false positives.'" Welcoming attention on false positives, Incompas said efforts "must be carefully considered to protect legitimate traffic."

DOJ likely will convince the courts to throw out California's new net neutrality law, analysts told us Monday. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other supporters of the FCC's recent broadband regulation rollback voiced confidence in DOJ's lawsuit, filed in federal court as SB-822 was signed by California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) Sunday. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Commissioner Mike O'Rielly and their supporters welcomed the suit, while Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel and net neutrality advocates criticized it, and industry rivals called for congressional legislation.

DOJ likely will convince the courts to throw out California's new net neutrality law, analysts told us Monday. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other supporters of the FCC's recent broadband regulation rollback voiced confidence in DOJ's lawsuit, filed in federal court as SB-822 was signed by California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) Sunday. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Commissioner Mike O'Rielly and their supporters welcomed the suit, while Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel and net neutrality advocates criticized it, and industry rivals called for congressional legislation.

California net neutrality bill watchers continued to wait for Gov. Jerry Brown (D) to sign or veto SB-822 ahead of a midnight Sunday deadline. With anticipation running high for a lawsuit if California enacts the measure, FCC Republicans continue to signal they view it as pre-empted by their net neutrality deregulation.

California net neutrality bill watchers continued to wait for Gov. Jerry Brown (D) to sign or veto SB-822 ahead of a midnight Sunday deadline. With anticipation running high for a lawsuit if California enacts the measure, FCC Republicans continue to signal they view it as pre-empted by their net neutrality deregulation.