Benton Institute for Broadband & Society asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hold in abeyance scheduled briefings on the pending challenge of the FCC's net neutrality rules following the court's decision to stay the rules and schedule oral argument for the fall (see 2408010065). In a motion Tuesday the FCC did not oppose (docket 24-7000), Benton cited a pending petition before the commission that "makes it possible that other further action of this could likely render moot or alter the issue" presented before the court. "Courts of Appeal commonly hold proceedings in abeyance when overlapping petitions for administrative reconsideration have been filed," Benton said: "That is the most prudent course here." A coalition of industry groups conditionally opposed the motion, saying the court “plainly should not hold industry petitioners’ cases in abeyance, nor should it pause the briefing of industry petitioners’ cases while it considers the abeyance motion.” CTIA, USTelecom, NCTA, ACA Connects, the Wireless ISP Association and several state telecom associations said they didn’t oppose the motion only if Benton sought “for only their own petitions to be held in abeyance.”
Telecom and banking groups urged that the FCC adopt proposed modifications to its letter of credit (LOC) rules for Universal Service Fund support recipients. Comments were posted Tuesday in docket 10-90 (see 2407030062). The commission proposed modifying LOC rules for its high-cost programs and Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) support recipients.
FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel vowed she will continue fighting for the commission's net neutrality order following the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that stayed the rules Thursday (see 2408010065). "The American public wants an internet that is fast, open and fair," and Thursday's decision "is a setback, but we will not give up the fight for net neutrality," Rosenworcel said.
Consumer advocates and industry officials disagreed Wednesday about the need for addressing junk fees in the broadband and communications marketplace. After noting that increased competition results in consumers getting faster speeds and better service, ACA Connects Chief Regulatory Counsel Brian Hurley said, "In this competitive marketplace, our members and providers have every incentive to avoid bill shock and other negative experiences that could compel their customers to take their business elsewhere." Addressing a Broadband Breakfast webinar, Hurley added there's "no finding that junk fees are prevalent" in the marketplace.
The FCC "offers no plausible reason why Congress would have used classic disparate-treatment language to create a disparate-impact regime," a coalition of industry groups said in a reply brief to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday. The brief explained the Minnesota Telecom Alliance's challenge of the FCC's digital discrimination rules (docket 24-1179). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, NCTA, Wireless Infrastructure Association National Multifamily Housing Council, ACA Connects, Wireless ISP Association and several state telecom associations also noted that the major questions doctrine "confirms" the commission lacks "the authority to regulate non-ISPs" (see 2407080012). In a separate brief, the Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, Communications Workers of America and the United Church of Christ Office of Communication said that the FCC would "fail to achieve Congress's mandate" of facilitating equal access without establishing a disparate-impact liability. Section 1754 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act "also furthers the FCC’s ability to ferret out intentional discrimination," the groups said.
Nearly $1 billion in Digital Equity Act funding is now available, NTIA announced Wednesday. The agency's notice of funding opportunity kicked off the competitive grant program (see 2403290039). Meanwhile, in a Tuesday letter, numerous state and national broadband industry associations alerted Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo that low-cost requirements in the broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program could discourage participation in it.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Brand X decision "remains binding" on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "under established principles of stare decisis as to all issues the Supreme Court decided in that case," the FCC said in a supplemental brief Friday (docket 24-7000). The court temporarily stayed the FCC's net neutrality order until Aug. 5 (see 2407120052). Brand X held that the Communications Act "gives the FCC authority to classify and regulate broadband service," the agency said. The FCC said the court "remains bound by Brand X" regardless of whether petitioners disagree with the ruling. "Insofar as petitioners now seek to forever freeze in time the former Title I approach, they are not asking the court to respect the Brand X decision under principles of stare decisis, but instead to countermand it," the FCC said. CTIA, USTelecom, NCTA, ACA Connects, the Wireless ISP Association and several state telecom associations said in a joint supplemental brief that Brand X's holding "now dooms the commission's rule." They said that the court "may not accept the commission's new, contrary conclusion that broadband is solely" a telecom service. "Even if Brand Xdid not require this court to reject the commission's argument as a matter of statutory stare decisis , it still supports petitioners' arguments that the best reading of the 1996 Act is that broadband is an information service," the coalition said.
The FCC should proceed with caution or reconsider entirely a proposal that imposes on the nine largest ISPs specific reporting requirements on their border gateway protocol (BGP) security practices, ISPs and industry groups said in comments posted through Thursday in docket 24-146 (see 2406060028). The Biden administration "supports properly implemented and narrowly constructed" BGP reporting requirements, NTIA said. "The FCC's action should be appropriately tailored to preserve the highly successful multistakeholder model of internet governance."
ISPs told the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in two cases overturning the Chevron doctrine means the FCC’s net neutrality order must be stayed pending judicial review (see 2407010036). The FCC said Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the other case had no implications for its order, which reclassified broadband as a Title II service under the Communications Act.
House Commerce Committee Republicans launched a probe Tuesday of NTIA’s communications with state-level broadband offices related to the $42.5 billion broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program. Long-standing Republican criticisms of BEAD, meanwhile, became a major issue during a House Communications Subcommittee hearing that morning on the FCC’s FY 2025 budget request (see 2407090049). Lawmakers sparred over the propriety of GOP Commissioner Brendan Carr publicly slamming the program.