Building and real-estate groups backed a bid for FCC pre-emption of a San Francisco code that requires multi-tenant buildings to allow occupants to request access to competing communications service providers (see 1612150006). Initial comments "overwhelmingly support" the petition of the Multifamily Broadband Council to pre-empt Article 52 of the San Francisco Police Code, which "conflicts with federal law, will impede broadband deployment and infrastructure investment in multiple dwelling units ('MDUs') and will increase prices and reduce service quality for MDU residents," replied the National Multifamily Housing Council. Most replies were posted Friday and Monday in docket 17-91. Initial comments (see 1705190040) showed Article 52 "will harm competition, MDU residents, and building owners in San Francisco" by stripping "providers of the ability to secure financing for broadband deployment," replied MBC. Others filing replies backing the petition were: Alliance Residential; Camden Property Trust, Essex Property Trust; InfoSmart Partners and Converged Service Partners; Mill Creek Residential Trust; Sares Regis Group, Sequoia Equities and RealtyCom Partners; and a group of 24 apartment owners. San Francisco replied that the advocates of the petition largely ignored that it concerns whether federal law and FCC regulations pre-empt Article 52: "While many of the proponents ask the Commission to find that Article 52 'conflicts' with federal law and Commission policy, they provide scant legal analysis and nothing supporting such a finding. Rather, they urge the Commission to find that the policy reasons for adopting Article 52 are misguided and that San Francisco’s law, while intended to foster competition, 'discourages competition' and 'infrastructure investment' in [MDUs]. ... What is clear from the proponents’ comments is that they like the status quo." Industry providers and property owners backing the petition want the FCC "to allow them to continue to operate under the exclusive access agreements they have enjoyed," San Francisco said. Also filing replies in opposition to the petition were Boston, Fiber Broadband Association and Incompas. Article 52 is a "pro-competitive, barrier-removing local ordinance, with a now-proven track record for helping providers gain access" to MDUs, Incompas replied. FCC members tentatively plan to vote June 22 on a notice of inquiry that would seek comment on ways to improve competitive broadband access in multi-tenant buildings (see 1706010049).

The FCC listed counties deemed “competitive” in the lower-speed business data services market and subject to price deregulation under the commission’s April BDS order. The agency released the list Monday. Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Incompas called for its release before commissioners' vote last month (see 1704100068); the FCC proposed releasing it in an April 28 notice (see 1705010019). Incompas is "shocked by the number of counties, including several rural counties, targeted by the FCC for broadband price hikes," emailed the CLEC association's General Counsel Angie Kronenberg. Incompas is still studying the list, "but it is apparent now why the FCC wanted to withhold this information from the public and Congress until after the BDS vote," she said.

The FCC listed counties deemed “competitive” in the lower-speed business data services market and subject to price deregulation under the commission’s April BDS order. The agency released the list Monday. Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Incompas called for its release before commissioners' vote last month (see 1704100068); the FCC proposed releasing it in an April 28 notice (see 1705010019). Incompas is "shocked by the number of counties, including several rural counties, targeted by the FCC for broadband price hikes," emailed the CLEC association's General Counsel Angie Kronenberg. Incompas is still studying the list, "but it is apparent now why the FCC wanted to withhold this information from the public and Congress until after the BDS vote," she said.

FARMINGTON, Pa. -- Critics of an FCC plan to roll back Title II net neutrality regulation believe the agency will struggle to justify reversing its 2015 broadband reclassification so soon after it was upheld in court. They believe little has changed since 2015 to explain a reversal other than pure politics.

FARMINGTON, Pa. -- Critics of an FCC plan to roll back Title II net neutrality regulation believe the agency will struggle to justify reversing its 2015 broadband reclassification so soon after it was upheld in court. They believe little has changed since 2015 to explain a reversal other than pure politics.

FARMINGTON, Pa. -- Cable and telco officials and critics disputed privacy and net neutrality at an FCBA seminar Saturday. There were sharp differences over the FCC 2015 open internet and Title II broadband reclassification order and its 2016 broadband privacy order, and over recent Republican moves and proposals to roll them back. There was some agreement that common ground could be found on open internet rules, that much of the fight is over FCC authority under the Communications Act, and that a legislative fix is needed but difficult.

FARMINGTON, Pa. -- Cable and telco officials and critics disputed privacy and net neutrality at an FCBA seminar Saturday. There were sharp differences over the FCC 2015 open internet and Title II broadband reclassification order and its 2016 broadband privacy order, and over recent Republican moves and proposals to roll them back. There was some agreement that common ground could be found on open internet rules, that much of the fight is over FCC authority under the Communications Act, and that a legislative fix is needed but difficult.

A court denial of further challenges to the FCC 2015 net neutrality order was decided 6-2 by the active judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 1705010013). The six judges voted Monday to deny petitions for en banc rehearing of a June ruling by a three-judge panel that upheld the FCC order, which also reclassified broadband to be under Title II of the Communications Act. Two judges dissented and three others didn't participate in the ruling in USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063.

A court denial of further challenges to the FCC 2015 net neutrality order was decided 6-2 by the active judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 1705010013). The six judges voted Monday to deny petitions for en banc rehearing of a June ruling by a three-judge panel that upheld the FCC order, which also reclassified broadband to be under Title II of the Communications Act. Two judges dissented and three others didn't participate in the ruling in USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063.

A torrent of statements on FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposed net neutrality rulemaking notice started even before Pai spoke Wednesday at the Newseum (see 1704260054). Both those for and against the proposal have had years to practice for what's widely expected to be a repeat of the massive fight that led to the FCC approving its last net neutrality rules 3-2 in 2015 under former Chairman Tom Wheeler.