The FCC’s April 24 opposition to Essential Network Technologies and MetComm.Net's petition challenging the authority of the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Co. to withhold reimbursement of discounts for IT and broadband services that the companies provided to schools confirms that the petition should be granted, the petitioners’ reply said. It was filed Wednesday (docket 24-1027) at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Discounts on IT and broadband services come under Section 254 of the Communications Act (see 2404250028). The FCC calls the mandamus relief that the petitioners seek to force the reimbursements a drastic remedy that should be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances. In cases such as this, involving claims of unreasonable agency delay, mandamus is warranted only when delays are egregious, the agency said. But under “the first mandamus factor,” for a remedy in this case to be adequate, “it must enable the numerous schools in this case to complete their IT projects before the next school year,” said the petitioners’ reply. If the FCC doesn’t render a decision and provide funding before the summer, “many schools will be unable to move forward with vital IT projects and hundreds of students will be deprived next school year of the IT infrastructure necessary for a modern education,” it said. Compensatory relief after years of litigation, as the FCC suggested, doesn’t provide an adequate remedy that would prevent this harm to the public, “which after next year would become irreversible in the absence of immediate mandamus relief,” it said. The agency contends that in light of evidence showing that the petitioners may have had an improper relationship with the schools they were servicing, USAC investigated that possible misconduct, but expects those probes will be finished by the end of May. But that expectation “provides little solace when USAC lacks any authority to address the legal issues in this case and there is no time limit for an FCC decision,” said the petitioners’ reply. The agency’s opposition doesn’t indicate when the FCC will render a decision or whether the schools will receive funds before next school year, it said. Under the second mandamus factor, there’s a clear and indisputable right under Section 254 to the particular relief sought, it said. The Fifth Amendment also establishes a clear and indisputable right to due process, which required a “timely deprivation hearing” either before or after Essential and MetComm were deprived of their “statutory entitlement to reimbursement,” it said. The FCC has a “clear duty” to report its deprivation decision in writing, it said.

Top Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act (HR-6929/S-3565) backers Sens. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, and Peter Welch, D-Vt., said Thursday they plan to press forward with an amendment to the bipartisan 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act that would appropriate $7 billion in stopgap funding for the ailing FCC broadband program (see 2405010055) despite opposition from Senate leaders. ACP stopgap funding advocates used a Senate Communications Subcommittee hearing that day to implore that Congress act while critics raised objections about what they said was a lack of clear information about the program's efficacy.

Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, a lead GOP co-sponsor of the Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act (HR-6929/S-3565), confirmed Wednesday he will push hard for an amendment to the bipartisan 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act that would appropriate $7 billion in stopgap funding to keep the ailing FCC broadband program running through the end of the fiscal year. The Senate voted 89-10 to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the FAA bill as a substitute for Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act (HR-3935).

Policymakers, industry officials and broadband experts emphasized the demand for additional rural broadband deployment and affordability programs during an NTCA policy conference Wednesday in Washington. With uncertainty looming around the FCC's affordable connectivity program, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks urged Congress to replenish the program and keep rural communities connected (see 2405010055).

Pennsylvania lawmakers should reject a plan deregulating incumbent local exchange carriers, the state’s Consumer Advocate Patrick Cicero said Tuesday. Yet with two 7-4 party-line votes, majority Republicans on the Senate Communications Committee advanced a deregulation bill (SB-85) with an amendment that says the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission lacks VoIP and broadband authority. The Democratic minority -- which controls the governor’s office and has a slim House majority -- raised concerns that the bill would harm consumers.

The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that denied preliminary injunction against the California Public Utilities Commission shifting to a per line surcharge for the state Universal Service Fund. T-Mobile’s Assurance Wireless had argued that the state must align with the FCC’s revenue-based method for federal USF. But on March 31 last year, the U.S. District Court for Northern California decided not to block the CPUC’s April 1 change. The 9th Circuit heard arguments on an appeal in October (see 2310170042). "The carriers have failed to show a likelihood of success on their claim that the access line rule is 'inconsistent with' the FCC rule,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote in Friday’s opinion, which Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Eugene Siler joined (case 23-15490). The court referred to the Communications Act's Section 254(f), which prohibits USF rules that are "inconsistent" with FCC rules. Inconsistent doesn’t mean different, Nelson wrote. "The access line rule differs from the FCC’s rule funding interstate universal service programs. But the carriers have not shown that it burdens those programs, and they have thus failed to show that they are likely to succeed on their claim that it is inconsistent with those rules." Also, the court rejected T-Mobile’s claim that the surcharge rule is preempted because it's inequitable and discriminatory. "The carriers argue that they are harmed more than local exchange carriers,” but the CPUC rule treats all telecom technologies “the same and, if anything, is more equitable than the prior rule, under which most of the surcharges came only from ever-dwindling landline services,” Nelson said. The CPUC’s "course correction" is "a fair response to a real problem,” he added. “In a world of ever-evolving telecommunications technologies, competitive neutrality must allow some play in the joints. To hold otherwise would hamstring California’s ability to satisfy its statutory mandate of providing universal service." T-Mobile also argued the change was discriminatory because the CPUC rule treats providers who get federal affordable connectivity program (ACP) support differently from those in the state LifeLine program. But the court found differences between the programs and noted that companies in ACP have the option of joining LifeLine. The decision "affirms that the CPUC's surcharge rule is consistent with federal law," said a commission spokesperson. "The CPUC will continue to utilize the surcharge to ensure consumers have safe, reliable, affordable, and universal access to telecommunications services." T-Mobile didn’t immediately comment.

The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that denied preliminary injunction against the California Public Utilities Commission shifting to a per line surcharge for the state Universal Service Fund. T-Mobile’s Assurance Wireless had argued that the state must align with the FCC’s revenue-based method for federal USF. But on March 31 last year, the U.S. District Court for Northern California decided not to block the CPUC’s April 1 change. The 9th Circuit heard arguments on an appeal in October (see 2310170042). "The carriers have failed to show a likelihood of success on their claim that the access line rule is 'inconsistent with' the FCC rule,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote in Friday’s opinion, which Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Eugene Siler joined (case 23-15490). The court referred to the Communications Act's Section 254(f), which prohibits USF rules that are "inconsistent" with FCC rules. Inconsistent doesn’t mean different, Nelson wrote. "The access line rule differs from the FCC’s rule funding interstate universal service programs. But the carriers have not shown that it burdens those programs, and they have thus failed to show that they are likely to succeed on their claim that it is inconsistent with those rules." Also, the court rejected T-Mobile’s claim that the surcharge rule is preempted because it's inequitable and discriminatory. "The carriers argue that they are harmed more than local exchange carriers,” but the CPUC rule treats all telecom technologies “the same and, if anything, is more equitable than the prior rule, under which most of the surcharges came only from ever-dwindling landline services,” Nelson said. The CPUC’s "course correction" is "a fair response to a real problem,” he added. “In a world of ever-evolving telecommunications technologies, competitive neutrality must allow some play in the joints. To hold otherwise would hamstring California’s ability to satisfy its statutory mandate of providing universal service." T-Mobile also argued the change was discriminatory because the CPUC rule treats providers who get federal affordable connectivity program (ACP) support differently from those in the state LifeLine program. But the court found differences between the programs and noted that companies in ACP have the option of joining LifeLine. The decision "affirms that the CPUC's surcharge rule is consistent with federal law," said a commission spokesperson. "The CPUC will continue to utilize the surcharge to ensure consumers have safe, reliable, affordable, and universal access to telecommunications services." T-Mobile didn’t immediately comment.

Federal law doesn't preempt New York state’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Friday. In a 2-1 opinion, the court reversed the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, which had barred the state from enforcing the 2021 Affordable Broadband Act (ABA). The ABA required $15 monthly plans providing 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households.

Federal law doesn't preempt New York state’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Friday. In a 2-1 opinion, the court reversed the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, which had barred the state from enforcing the 2021 Affordable Broadband Act (ABA). The ABA required $15 monthly plans providing 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households.

Some California lawmakers want to take broadband responsibilities from the California Public Utilities Commission and create a broadband office, similar to many other states. At a webcast hearing Wednesday, the Assembly Communications Committee advanced Democratic Chair Tasha Boerner’s AB-2575, which would establish a department and commission on broadband and digital equity. The committee also cleared bills concerning the 211 helpline, video franchising and shot clocks for utilities to review broadband applications.