The U.S. Supreme Court granted Bell Wisconsin’s April 15 cert petition challenging the 7th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court ruling that E-rate reimbursement requests to the Universal Service Administrative Co. are actionable under the False Claims Act (FCA) (see 2405220039), said SCOTUS' order list Monday (docket 23-1127). In holding that the FCA’s treble damages and civil penalties apply to submissions made to USAC -- a private corporation paying private funds -- the 7th Circuit “explicitly acknowledged” that it was taking a “contrary view” from the 5th Circuit “about the identical program,” the petitioner said. The circuit split “directly affects billions of dollars distributed each year under the E-rate and three other universal service programs," it added.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted Bell Wisconsin’s April 15 cert petition challenging the 7th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court ruling that E-rate reimbursement requests to the Universal Service Administrative Co. are actionable under the False Claims Act (FCA) (see 2405220039), said SCOTUS' order list Monday (docket 23-1127). In holding that the FCA’s treble damages and civil penalties apply to submissions made to USAC -- a private corporation paying private funds -- the 7th Circuit “explicitly acknowledged” that it was taking a “contrary view” from the 5th Circuit “about the identical program,” the petitioner said. The circuit split “directly affects billions of dollars distributed each year under the E-rate and three other universal service programs," it added.

The House Appropriations Committee continued debating Thursday afternoon the Financial Services Subcommittee’s FY 2025 funding bill, which increases the FCC’s annual allocation to $416 million and decreases the FTC’s annual funding to $388.7 million (see 2406050067). Communications policy lobbyists said panel Democrats might attempt removing riders from the measure that bar the FCC from using funding for implementing its net neutrality and digital discrimination orders, but they hadn’t sought votes on such amendments at our deadline.

The connections-based Utah Universal Service Fund surcharge will increase 27 cents to 98 cents monthly per access line, a 38% rise, on July 1, a Tuesday notice in docket 24-R008-01 said. The Utah Public Service Commission said it didn't receive comments on the proposed change. Previously it said the increase was needed because of an AT&T error (see 2404160023 and 2405280028).

Education in 2024 “bears very little resemblance to education in previous decades,” and advances in technology have “transformed the pattern of classwork and homework,” said the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition in a 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court amicus brief Tuesday (docket 23-60641). The brief backs the FCC’s Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi on school buses (see 2312200040).

Education in 2024 “bears very little resemblance to education in previous decades,” and advances in technology have “transformed the pattern of classwork and homework,” said the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition in a 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court amicus brief Tuesday (docket 23-60641). The brief backs the FCC’s Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi on school buses (see 2312200040).

The FCC’s Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi on school buses (see 2312200040) “is both appropriate and lawful,” the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers and eight other educational groups said in a 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court amicus brief Monday (docket 23-60641) in support of the commission's ruling.

The FCC’s Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi on school buses (see 2312200040) “is both appropriate and lawful,” the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers and eight other educational groups said in a 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court amicus brief Monday (docket 23-60641) in support of the commission's ruling.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit granted the FCC’s motion to dismiss the petition of Essential Network Technologies and MetComm.Net that challenged the authority of the agency and the Universal Service Administrative Co. to withhold reimbursement of discounts for IT and broadband services that the two companies provided to schools under Section 254 of the Communications Act (see 2404250028). Circuit Judges Robert Wilkins, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan issued a per curiam order Friday (docket 24-1027). The petitioners didn’t challenge the FCC's “final reviewable order,” the order said. The D.C. Circuit also denied the petitioners’ request for mandamus relief to order USAC to release the reimbursements, said the order. USAC’s investigations of the two petitioners and their eligibility to receive universal service fund reimbursements are complete, the FCC told the D.C. Circuit last week (see 2406050001). USAC’s delay in completing the investigations wasn’t so egregious as to warrant mandamus, the order said. The petitioners haven’t otherwise demonstrated a “clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief,” it added.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit granted the FCC’s motion to dismiss the petition of Essential Network Technologies and MetComm.Net that challenged the authority of the agency and the Universal Service Administrative Co. to withhold reimbursement of discounts for IT and broadband services that the two companies provided to schools under Section 254 of the Communications Act (see 2404250028). Circuit Judges Robert Wilkins, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan issued a per curiam order Friday (docket 24-1027). The petitioners didn’t challenge the FCC's “final reviewable order,” the order said. The D.C. Circuit also denied the petitioners’ request for mandamus relief to order USAC to release the reimbursements, said the order. USAC’s investigations of the two petitioners and their eligibility to receive universal service fund reimbursements are complete, the FCC told the D.C. Circuit last week (see 2406050001). USAC’s delay in completing the investigations wasn’t so egregious as to warrant mandamus, the order said. The petitioners haven’t otherwise demonstrated a “clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief,” it added.