ACA Connects, saying it might sue, asked the FCC to change staff's lump sum C-band payment determination. The commission’s C-band order requires the payout to include the estimated expense of “necessary changes that will allow the earth stations to receive C-Band services on new frequencies or from new satellites” after relocation, ACA noted. The Wireless Bureau determination "violated that directive by excluding the cost of integrated receivers/decoders" that earth stations "undisputedly" require to continue getting such service, said an application for review of staff's July 30 public notice (see 2007300053). "The Bureau’s lump-sum determination was also arbitrary and capricious and involved prejudicial procedural error," said the AFR posted in docket 18-122 Friday. ACA wants the agency to stay the Aug. 31 lump-sum election deadline. That would "give earth station owners adequate time to demonstrate -- in court, if necessary -- that the" bureau finding was inconsistent with the order, "was developed in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act’s public-notice and disclosure requirements," and had other shortcomings, said an ACA release Friday. Commission spokespeople didn't comment.

Deny Intelsat's request to change C-band rules, Verizon asked the FCC: "Instead of focusing on the complex and crucial task at hand, Intelsat and others are re-litigating issues already thoroughly considered and decided." The telco said Intelsat, "despite being in line to collect relocation payments for agreeing to move operations on an accelerated timeline," now "requests changes that would slow the transition process and could ultimately affect 5G deployment." The wireless carrier wants telemetry, tracking and command/gateway sites consolidated to the four locations selected by satellite operators "in the manner and timeframe set out by" the regulator. "Intelsat’s requests regarding TT&C/Gateway operations are unnecessary," Verizon said in a filing posted Friday to docket 18-122. Also that day, ACA Connects' request was posted seeking separate C-band changes (see 2008140033). And Intelsat filed its final transition plan. The company didn't comment further.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai declared “massive victory” Wednesday as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals mostly upheld the agency’s 2018 wireless infrastructure orders on small cells and local moratoria. Industry also applauded the court for rejecting local government claims that the FCC inappropriately preempted their authority in the federal agency’s effort to streamline 5G deployment. The 9th Circuit fully upheld the agency’s one-touch, make-ready (OTMR) order.

ACA Connects said Vermont is waiting to enforce its net neutrality law limiting state contracts with ISPs. Enforcement could have started Wednesday under terms of a previous hold (see 2008030043). Vermont, ACA Connects and other ISP association plaintiffs Tuesday “entered into a stipulation agreeing to stay enforcement ... pending further discussions between the associations and the State,” an ACA Connects spokesperson emailed Thursday. ACA Connects didn't share the agreement, which also hadn’t appeared in the U.S. District Court of Vermont docket for case No. 2:18-cv-167 (in Pacer) by Thursday afternoon. DOJ and ISPs renewed their lawsuits against California’s open-internet law Wednesday by filing motions for preliminary injunction (see 2008050060). ISP groups hope Vermont Attorney General TJ Donovan (D) will agree to continue to stay enforcement “until the California preliminary injunction motion is decided,” the ACA representative emailed. The AG office didn’t comment.

DOJ urged a federal court to stop California from enforcing its net neutrality law to “avoid ongoing, irreparable harm to the United States and its interests.” DOJ filed an amended complaint and motion (both in Pacer) for preliminary injunction Wednesday in resumed litigation at the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of California (see 2008030043). The department argued the state law is preempted under the Constitution’s supremacy clause and fails a conflict preemption test. “California has imposed stringent regulation on interstate broadband communications in a way that directly contradicts" the FCC's "validly adopted regulatory scheme" and the Communications Act principle “that the Federal Government -- not individual States -- has exclusive regulatory authority over interstate communications," it said in case 2:18-cv-02660. California is trying to overwrite FCC policy for the nation, the department argued. ISPs “cannot apply two separate and conflicting legal frameworks to Internet communications -- one for California and one for everywhere else. This impossibility means that California’s rules effectively are the only ones that matter.” ISP associations that sued California over the same law filed their own motion and amended complaint (in Pacer) Wednesday. The California law "is preempted under principles of field, express, and conflict preemption," said ACA Connects, CTIA, NCTA and USTelecom, saying their members "would be irreparably harmed if subjected to that unconstitutional law during the pendency of this litigation." A California Justice Department spokesperson said, "We are reviewing the complaint and look forward to defending California’s state net neutrality protections."

California’s net neutrality law could remain unenforced for months despite litigation resuming this week. A federal court set a schedule Thursday that would delay the state law at least until Q4, and it could be much longer if DOJ and industry win preliminary injunction against the state (see 2007300041). Timing remains hazy for enforcing Vermont’s frozen law. Net neutrality advocates say the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Mozilla v. FCC allowed state laws; others disagreed.

Paul Weiss adds from Boies Schiller Meredith Dearborn and Jessica Phillips as partners, Litigation Department; the trial lawyers have represented technology businesses ... Mechanical Licensing Collective hires Monique Benjamin , ex-Warner Music Nashville, as head-finance; Natalie Kilgore, ex-BBR Music Group, as head-public relations; and Maurice Russell, ex-Media Rights Management, as head-rights management ... House Commerce Committee Deputy Press Secretary Evan Gilbert leaving panel for law school.

Litigation over California’s net neutrality law will resume in early August. Judge John Mendez approved (in Pacer) a proposed schedule submitted by the parties Thursday in U.S. District Court for Eastern California. The state agreed in October 2018 not to enforce SB-822 while the Mozilla appeal of the FCC’s order rescinding the 2015 national rules was pending (see 1810260045). The lawsuits by DOJ and ISPs may move forward now that Mozilla and others let pass a July 6 deadline to appeal to the Supreme Court (see 2007070012). The government and the ISP group would file amended complaints and renewed motions for preliminary injunction by Aug. 5, under the stipulation (in Pacer) jointly agreed to by plaintiffs DOJ and CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom and ACA Connects. The parties know "a number of non-parties" plan to join as amici.

The clock started ticking Thursday for incumbent C-band fixed satellite service earth station operators to decide whether to take the lump sum for spectrum clearing transition costs. Some expect relatively few to take that option after the agency made only some cost estimate changes sought by many MVPDs (see 2007060051). The Wireless Bureau public notice set Aug. 31 for the lump sum election and laid out the cost category schedule and dollar amounts. The FCC seems unlikely to budge on the deadline or inclined to hand out waivers, said broadcast lawyer Anne Crump of Fletcher Heald.

The FCC Wireline Bureau clarified pole attachment rules Wednesday in light of a 2018 infrastructure order, in response to a September CTIA petition (see 1909090051). “The imposition of a ‘blanket ban’ by a utility on attachments to any portion of a utility pole is inconsistent with the federal requirement that a ‘denial of access ... be specific’ to a particular request,” the bureau ruled. “While utilities and attachers have the flexibility to negotiate terms in their pole attachment agreements that differ from the requirements in the Commission’s rules, a utility cannot use its significant negotiating leverage to require an attacher to give up rights to which the attacher is entitled under the rules without the attacher obtaining a corresponding benefit.” The FCC addressed other parts of the petition in June, clarifying 3-2 rules for collocation of wireless infrastructure on existing cell towers (see 2006090060). “The clarity that this ruling provides will help ensure that the legal rights of providers seeking pole access to build out and upgrade their networks cannot be denied by pole owners” and will be “particularly beneficial for smaller providers,” said ACA Connects President Matt Polka. The Utilities Technology Council was disappointed by the ruling. “While the FCC has done tremendous work funding broadband projects across the country, it continues to focus on the myth that pole attachments are some kind of barrier to broadband deployment,” the group said: “Numerous studies have proven that pole-attachment costs and regulations have little to no impact on broadband or wireless deployment.”