Correction: What an FCC spokesman said -- about small, rural ISPs choosing to become regulated under new Communications Act Title II FCC rules rather than the old ones they are now subject to -- is that the Feb. 26 net neutrality order would not count broadband costs in rate-of-return calculations (see 1503050054).
Clarification: The focus of ex-White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer Nicole Wong’s op-ed was the White House's Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. The multistakeholder meeting she mentions on Do-Not-Track discussions was facilitated by the World Wide Web Consortium (see 1503040035).
Dish Network is unlikely to build its own wireless network despite a rash of spectrum buys, said T-Mobile Chief Financial Officer Braxton Carter Thursday at a Morgan Stanley financial conference. Dish Chairman Charlie Ergen “has done a masterful job” of creating a mid-band spectrum portfolio important to carrying data traffic, he said. “What Charlie ends up doing, gosh, I wish I could answer that.” Ergen has said recently that Dish would be in no hurry to monetize its spectrum holdings (see 1502230038). T-Mobile would be a “very interesting” party to work with Dish on deploying its spectrum, Carter said. Carter also said T-Mobile followed a “very disciplined” strategy in the AWS-3 auction since it's already well positioned in the mid-band spectrum offered in that auction. “We went into the AWS-3 auction with the best mid-band portfolio in the U.S. and we came out of it with the best mid-band portfolio,” he said. Carter hinted T-Mobile may go much bigger in the TV incentive auction and the 600 MHz spectrum that will be for sale. “Our priority is to perfect our low-band footprint” and put T-Mobile on a level playing field with the other three national carriers, he said. T-Mobile has “years of runway” to expand its network with its current spectrum holding, he said.
Prominent communications and tech companies were among the dozens of firms in a diversity of industries signing off on an amicus brief in favor of “marriage equality” as the Supreme Court prepares to hear Obergefell v. Hodges. Among those adding their names to thee brief were Amazon, Apple, AT&T, Broadcom, Cablevision, Cisco, Comcast, DirecTV, Disney, eBay, Facebook, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Twitter and Verizon. The companies said they do business in states that both allow and prohibit same-sex marriage. “It creates legal uncertainty and imposes unnecessary costs and administrative complexities on employers, and requires differential employer treatment of employees who are similarly situated save for the state where they reside,” the brief said. The case examines whether the 14th Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex or recognize such a marriage that is lawfully licensed and performed in another state. Justices will hear the case April 28.
The FCC asked the three largest U.S. telcos for updated information about their interconnection deals linking systems, networks and equipment, in letters from Media Bureau Chief Bill Lake dated Tuesday and released Wednesday in docket 14-57. He asked AT&T, CenturyLink and Verizon (see here, here and here) to provide copies of all deals between them and other companies about on-net-only interconnection service from Jan. 1, 2012, through Tuesday. Lake also sought copies of CenturyLink's and Verizon's paid peering deals. From them, he sought updated data through Dec. 31, 2014, on interconnection after data was submitted in response to a previous request to the telcos. Last week, Lake asked programmers including CBS, Discovery Communications, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, 21st Century Fox and Univision about their dealings with online video distributors (OVD), as part of the Comcast/TWC review (see 1502260022). Those letters suggest "FCC staff does not believe it has finished the fact-gathering phase," wrote New Street Research analysts including Jonathan Chaplin to investors Wednesday. "The primary focus of the government" appears to be on "the potential harm the transaction could cause the OVD market," they said. In Tuesday's inquiries, AT&T also was asked to report information on all national and regional sports channels the telco-TV provider distributes. Lake sought details including the number of AT&T subscribers to those networks and the per-subscriber fee the company pays, plus what it pays in retransmission consent fees to TV stations. AT&T, CenturyLink and Verizon were asked to respond by March 20. “The FCC is taking this merger very seriously," emailed a spokeswoman for CenturyLink, which has "serious concerns" with how the deal may affect video competition. "It’s not unusual for the commission to ask for more information when they’re considering a merger of this significance. This is second data request we’ve received from FCC." The other two telcos and Comcast had no comment.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler reassured Wall Street Tuesday that Title II Communications Act reclassification of broadband won’t mean “utility” regulation for ISPs. Wheeler appeared on CNBC's Squawk Box, live from the show floor at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. The order (see 1502260043) assures that those building networks still “have the capital, have the revenue base, on which to build,” Wheeler said. The FCC doesn't regulate rates or impose tariffs or unbundling requirements, he said. “The reality is that the day after our order goes into effect, the revenues from consumer services for Internet service providers will be exactly the same as they were the day before,” he said. “We want those revenues to be there. We want those revenues to generate a good return.” Wheeler denied he changed direction on net neutrality only because of pressure from President Barack Obama. “I’ve always been for a strong and open Internet,” he said. “Over the summer,” it became clear that only Title II would protect consumers and the Internet, he said. Title II was always “one of the myriad of things we were looking at,” he said.
The FCC should relax its rules restricting foreign investments in radio licenses, whether in the wireless or broadcast arena, FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said Tuesday in a blog post. “The case to remove the shackles on foreign investment in U.S. companies is exceptionally strong,” he wrote. Current law prohibits more than a 25 percent foreign investment in a U.S. company that controls, directly or indirectly, a U.S. radio licensee, unless there is a waiver. “U.S. companies, especially smaller ones, stand to benefit from new sources of capital necessary in the super-challenging, ever-changing, consumer-centric, competitive environment that is the U.S. marketplace,” O’Rielly said. Also, as U.S. companies have tried to invest internationally, “they have run into legal and procedural roadblocks by foreign governments” partly as a result of the U.S. cap, he said. “In some instances, the responding countries have used the differences between how the U.S. considers foreign ownership and other nations.” Other nations allow bigger foreign investment in communications, he noted. The U.K. allows 100 percent foreign ownership; South Korea, 49 percent; Mexico, 49 percent; and India, 74 percent, he said.
Corrections: Statements from a blog post on FTC regulatory authority should have been attributed to the agency, not the blog’s author, Covington & Burling privacy lawyer Morgan Kennedy (see 1502240070) ... The group holding the May 6 meeting of its Network Reliability Steering Committee corrected its name on a news release about the event to the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions.
The Rainbow PUSH Coalition and Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council issued separate statements raising concerns about FCC net neutrality rules. Rainbow PUSH “is concerned about potential unintended consequences,” the group said in a news release. “We are particularly uneasy about the potential imposition of new telecom-related taxes and fees, and the under-capitalization of broadband infrastructure in vulnerable communities that may result from this regulatory course.” MMTC President Kim Keenan also expressed concerns. “While MMTC needs to thoroughly review the extensive Order to evaluate its potential impact on our constituents, we have clearly gone backward in how we regulate a tool as dynamic as high-speed broadband,” she said.
FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly released a statement late Thursday saying Republicans are not to blame for any delay in release of the FCC’s net neutrality order, approved by commissioners on a 3-2 vote earlier in the day. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler had mentioned in the press conference after Thursday's meeting the FCC's need to respond to dissents as one of the factors that could slow release of an order. “To be clear, I filed a version of my dissenting statement … with a longer one to follow in the next few days,” O'Rielly said. “To say that this is somehow holding up the Commission’s release of the document and extending the process is ludicrous. After refusing to share this document for three weeks, it takes a lot of nerve for Commission leadership to blame me for its lack of transparency.” FCC General Counsel Jon Sallet said Thursday that waiting for the dissents to be filed is mandated by language in a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which requires federal agencies to provide a response in the final order. The FCC will work “as quickly as possible,” Sallet said. “Our goal is to get the process moving forward.” The opinion Sallet cited is Electric Power Supply Association v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a May 2014 decision on which the administration is seeking Supreme Court review.