The Internet Association warned the FCC it's destined for a court fight if the agency reverses 2015 net neutrality rules, as a related hearing may be delayed. With replies due Wednesday in docket 17-108, the FCC reached the final stage on its NPRM, before approval of rules most observers believe will be ready by year-end. The agency offered extra time to write comments, but industry lawyers told us they don’t expect many surprises, though staff still face a big job processing everything that was filed.

Disagreements grew over potential FCC broadband regulation in apartment buildings and other multiple tenant environments (MTEs) as more parties weighed in on all sides of a commission inquiry in replies posted Tuesday and Wednesday. Property owners are opposed to rules regulating them; localities are concerned about federal pre-emption of their competitive efforts; and industry parties are split over whether the FCC should move ahead with a rulemaking on MTE broadband or take certain actions. They were reacting to a notice of inquiry and initial comments in docket 17-142 (see 1706220036, 1707250050 and 1707260034).

Last week’s federal court ruling upholding a Kentucky city’s right to make one-touch, make-ready policy may strengthen the legal case for more local OTMR policies across the U.S., said attorneys and others who support the practice. But a state industry association head said the U.S. District Court in Louisville opinion has no impact for similar litigation in Tennessee and West Virginia, states that -- unlike Kentucky -- are subject to FCC pole-attachment authority. Meanwhile, one-touch advocates said the court ruling supports making state and national policies.

A federal court ruling upholding a Kentucky city’s right to require one-touch, make-ready on utility poles “affirms that the citizens of Louisville still have control over the roads and rights of way that they own,” said Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell, representing Louisville. U.S. District Court in Louisville rejected AT&T’s challenge to a Louisville ordinance requiring one touch, saying in a Wednesday opinion the ordinance isn’t pre-empted by any law (see 1708160052). “We believe the decision is well-reasoned and trust it will survive any potential scrutiny,” O'Connell said. Incompas CEO Chip Pickering called the ruling “a win for competition, consumers and local communities who have been leading the fight against broadband monopolies who are blocking faster speeds, better service and lower prices.” The FCC should adopt one-touch policy nationally, he said.

Business data service litigants proposed a consensus briefing schedule and format to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reviewing four petitions challenging the FCC April BDS order (see 1704200020). Opening briefs of two sets of petitioners that basically believe the order was overly regulatory or overly deregulatory would be due Sept. 26, with the brief of respondents FCC and DOJ due Nov. 10, briefs of different intervenors supporting different parts of the order due Nov. 17, and reply briefs of petitioners due Dec. 11 (final briefs incorporating an appendix would be Jan. 2), said a motion (in Pacer) filed Thursday by CenturyLink on behalf of "all other Petitioners, Respondents, and Intervenors" in Citizens Telecommunications v. FCC, No. 17-2296, and consolidated cases. The motion, which proposed word limits for briefs, said it tried to streamline the arguments and briefs. It said telco petitioners CenturyLink and Citizens expect to argue the order reduces price-cap ILEC rates more quickly than justified in areas that remain regulated. It said petitioners Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee, BT Americas, Granite Telecommunications, Incompas, Sprint and Windstream joined by Access Point, Alpheus Communications, New Horizon Communications and Xchange Telecom expect to argue the order deregulated price-cap ILEC rates in areas without adequate competition and without adequate notice, justification and factual support. Telco intervenors AT&T, CenturyLink and USTelecom, and cable intervenors NCTA and Comcast expect to defend different aspects of deregulation, while intervenors Ad Hoc and others expect to defend rate reductions, the motion said.

A federal court ruling upholding a Kentucky city’s right to require one-touch, make-ready on utility poles “affirms that the citizens of Louisville still have control over the roads and rights of way that they own,” said Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell, representing Louisville. U.S. District Court in Louisville rejected AT&T’s challenge to a Louisville ordinance requiring one touch, saying in a Wednesday opinion the ordinance isn’t pre-empted by any law (see 1708160052). “We believe the decision is well-reasoned and trust it will survive any potential scrutiny,” O'Connell said. Incompas CEO Chip Pickering called the ruling “a win for competition, consumers and local communities who have been leading the fight against broadband monopolies who are blocking faster speeds, better service and lower prices.” The FCC should adopt one-touch policy nationally, he said.

Business data service litigants proposed a consensus briefing schedule and format to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reviewing four petitions challenging the FCC April BDS order (see 1704200020). Opening briefs of two sets of petitioners that basically believe the order was overly regulatory or overly deregulatory would be due Sept. 26, with the brief of respondents FCC and DOJ due Nov. 10, briefs of different intervenors supporting different parts of the order due Nov. 17, and reply briefs of petitioners due Dec. 11 (final briefs incorporating an appendix would be Jan. 2), said a motion (in Pacer) filed Thursday by CenturyLink on behalf of "all other Petitioners, Respondents, and Intervenors" in Citizens Telecommunications v. FCC, No. 17-2296, and consolidated cases. The motion, which proposed word limits for briefs, said it tried to streamline the arguments and briefs. It said telco petitioners CenturyLink and Citizens expect to argue the order reduces price-cap ILEC rates more quickly than justified in areas that remain regulated. It said petitioners Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee, BT Americas, Granite Telecommunications, Incompas, Sprint and Windstream joined by Access Point, Alpheus Communications, New Horizon Communications and Xchange Telecom expect to argue the order deregulated price-cap ILEC rates in areas without adequate competition and without adequate notice, justification and factual support. Telco intervenors AT&T, CenturyLink and USTelecom, and cable intervenors NCTA and Comcast expect to defend different aspects of deregulation, while intervenors Ad Hoc and others expect to defend rate reductions, the motion said.

Verizon opposed an Incompas motion to modify FCC protective orders for reviews of past transactions. Noting it agreed with previous objections filed by AT&T, Charter Communications and Comcast (see 1707280026), Verizon said the motion "could make public the highly sensitive business information of third parties like Verizon who, in response to Commission requests, submitted highly confidential and confidential information." There's "no legal justification or sound policy basis to justify making this highly sensitive business information available in the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding," said the telco's opposition Tuesday in docket 17-108. It said Incompas "improperly filed this Motion only in the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding and not in the respective transaction dockets in which the protective orders were issued." Incompas formally responded last week to the previous oppositions (see 1708040058). Incompas referred us Wednesday to a statement by CEO Chip Pickering regarding the previous oppositions: "We must have a full and complete net neutrality record. Cable and AT&T’s apocalyptic overreaction to our request for merger information, already available at the FCC, clearly shows they have something to hide. The courts are destined to review any FCC order, and it doesn’t take Matlock to see cable and AT&T want to hide evidence that will show both the means and the motive to do harm to consumers and competition in the event net neutrality protections are off the books. A closed process threatens to close the internet."

Verizon opposed an Incompas motion to modify FCC protective orders for reviews of past transactions. Noting it agreed with previous objections filed by AT&T, Charter Communications and Comcast (see 1707280026), Verizon said the motion "could make public the highly sensitive business information of third parties like Verizon who, in response to Commission requests, submitted highly confidential and confidential information." There's "no legal justification or sound policy basis to justify making this highly sensitive business information available in the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding," said the telco's opposition Tuesday in docket 17-108. It said Incompas "improperly filed this Motion only in the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding and not in the respective transaction dockets in which the protective orders were issued." Incompas formally responded last week to the previous oppositions (see 1708040058). Incompas referred us Wednesday to a statement by CEO Chip Pickering regarding the previous oppositions: "We must have a full and complete net neutrality record. Cable and AT&T’s apocalyptic overreaction to our request for merger information, already available at the FCC, clearly shows they have something to hide. The courts are destined to review any FCC order, and it doesn’t take Matlock to see cable and AT&T want to hide evidence that will show both the means and the motive to do harm to consumers and competition in the event net neutrality protections are off the books. A closed process threatens to close the internet."

Court refusal to stay an FCC business data service order and to transfer litigation drew praise from BDS order supporters and mixed views on its import, with some seeing a chance the court still could undo regulatory decisions. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday denied (in Pacer) motions to stay the deregulation and transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit, in ruling on various procedural motions in Citizens Telecommunications v. FCC, No. 17-2296. Letting BDS "modernization" take effect "is an important -- though unsurprising -- affirmation that the Commission thoroughly analyzed our massive data collection to establish a robust, forward-looking competitive framework. These reforms will encourage vigorous investment in next-generation networks," said Chairman Ajit Pai. Windstream, BT Americas, Incompas and the Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee sought the stay, joined by Sprint and Granite Communications in requesting transfer (see 1707050032).