Stakeholders are debating how Lifeline is regulated after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded to the FCC rules on its authority to make broadband eligible for the program. That ruling came in partly upholding the agency's 2018 net neutrality order reclassifying broadband as a Communications Act Title I information service. The 2-1 court decision points up uncertainty with Lifeline, stakeholders agreed in interviews this month. Lifeline provider TruConnect believes Oct. 1's Mozilla v. FCC ruling eliminated FCC authority to establish and enforce broadband minimum service standards under the 2016 Lifeline order, said counsel Judson Hill in filings to docket 11-42 on meetings with FCC officials. Hill, a former GOP Georgia legislator, also spoke with us. USTelecom Senior Vice President Patrick Halley said the FCC doesn't lack authority to regulate broadband in Lifeline, but the court found it didn't sufficiently address the matter (see 1910100059). Because it wasn't vacated, "the FCC will be in no rush to do this," predicted Harold Feld, Public Knowledge senior vice president. So resolving the issue may take time, Feld said. An FCC spokesperson Tuesday said the court hadn't yet issued its mandate on the remand. Chairman Ajit Pai acknowledged industry's awaiting an answer on a petition to delay increasing broadband minimum service standards, and agency staff's is aware of the Dec. 1 deadline for the threshold to increase, answering our question Friday after the commissioners' meeting. Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel noted the remand was partly because "the agency disregarded how reclassification impacts" Lifeline users. "The FCC is guilty of more than indifference" as it "cut access to Lifeline on tribal lands," she said in a statement. "Thankfully, the court sent this effort back to the agency, too. But in the meantime, the FCC still has open a proposal to cut as much as 70% of the remaining Lifeline program" through a 2017 NPRM and an item circulated in August. "Instead of using our policymaking power to threaten their access to communications, the agency should throw out this proposal and start over." PK's Feld suggested the agency seek comment. Technology Policy Institute Research Fellow Sarah Oh is interested to see comments if the FCC issues another NPRM on the remanded Lifeline broadband matter. "They'll need very good reasons for changing Lifeline," Oh told us. She predicted the agency will issue a broader Lifeline order next year.

More should be done to promote broadband competition, reported Jonathan Sallet, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society senior fellow, on broadband for the 2020s. He said Wednesday states should repeal laws that restrict localities from broadband deployment or Congress should pre-empt them. Federal funding designed to avoid overbuilding ISP networks confuse well-being of competitors with consumers, he said: Those most likely having limited broadband competition are rural, or with median household incomes below $60,000. Sallet cited the National Digital Inclusion Alliance showing pockets of high-poverty neighborhoods in Cleveland, Detroit, Toledo, Dallas and Dayton where incumbent telecoms hadn't deployed fiber. Proposed Lifeline changes to eliminate mobile resellers would effectively end Lifeline broadband access for millions, the report said. Sallet instead recommends schools and libraries be allowed to provide Lifeline, too. Such competition could increase once the national verifier is fully implemented, Sallet suggested. "An even more efficient mechanism would make Lifeline enrollment automatic when people are enrolled in a qualifying federal program." The 150-page footnoted document acknowledged a persistent problem of areas unserved by broadband, saying the executive branch should establish an Office of Broadband Coordination for Tribal Lands.

Stakeholders are debating how Lifeline is regulated after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded to the FCC rules on its authority to make broadband eligible for the program. That ruling came in partly upholding the agency's 2018 net neutrality order reclassifying broadband as a Title I information service (see 1910010018). The 2-1 court decision points up uncertainty with Lifeline, stakeholders agreed in interviews this month.

FCC members voted unanimously Friday to confirm a declaratory ruling clarifying that state, local and tribal governments may not impose higher 911 fees for VoIP than traditional telecom voice services that have the same outbound 911 calling capacity. The ruling in docket 19-44 answers a referral from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on litigation between AT&T's BellSouth and some Alabama 911 districts (see 1910210080). Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said her vote was a close call because the interpretation superseded "language from a 2005 FCC decision that invited 911 authorities 'to explore other means of collecting' 911 fee assessments when it comes to IP-enabled voice services, just as state authorities in Alabama had done." Those "who use VoIP shouldn't pay more for 911 services," said Commissioner Brendan Carr. The 2008 New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act doesn't allow such disparate treatment, Chairman Ajit Pai said. "The 'same class of subscribers' cannot be forced to pay more in total 911 charges for VoIP services than for comparable non-VoIP services. This is the only plausible reading of the law." Pai said the order will provide examples of discriminatory 911 fee structures to assist the referring court "and other courts overseeing similar litigation around the country." Rosenworcel also wants next-generation 911, noting it could cost $9.5 billion-$12.7 billion to deploy nationwide, "worth every penny." She wants NG-911 funding as a "core feature of any infrastructure Washington takes up in the future." AT&T Executive Vice President-Regulatory and State External Affairs Joan Marsh said the company supports the FCC's action to protect VoIP services "from discriminatory treatment." NCTA appreciates the commission's decision clarifying that "VoIP customers should not be required to pay more in 911 fees than customers of legacy voice services."

Democratic FCC members joined the majority Friday, begrudgingly approving Charter Communications’ effective competition petition based on the existence of vMVPD AT&T TV Now (formerly DirecTV Now). Both they and the Republican majority said the Cable Act clearly justifies grant of Charter’s petition. Democrats concurred in their votes, citing the near-certitude customers in parts of Massachusetts and Hawaii will face big jumps in the cost of basic cable.

A notice of inquiry for the FCC's annual broadband deployment report was adopted 3-2 Oct. 4 and posted Wednesday afternoon. Comments are due Nov. 22, replies Dec. 9, in docket 19-285. The NOI circulated in July (see 1908090012) and concerns were raised about incorrect data. Now, Democratic commissioners' concerns focused on lack of better data collection methods. The FCC proposed to maintain 25/3 Mbps as the metric for fixed broadband and will take comment on whether another approach is justified.

A notice of inquiry for the FCC's annual broadband deployment report was adopted 3-2 Oct. 4 and posted Wednesday afternoon. Comments are due Nov. 22, replies Dec. 9, in docket 19-285. The NOI circulated in July (see 1908090012) and concerns were raised about incorrect data. Now, Democratic commissioners' concerns focused on lack of better data collection methods. The FCC proposed to maintain 25/3 Mbps as the metric for fixed broadband and will take comment on whether another approach is justified.

The FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau wants comment by Dec. 5, replies Jan. 6, on how best to facilitate and improve dialogue and coordination between tribes and eligible telecom carriers to ensure successful broadband deployment and adoption on tribal lands, said a public notice on docket 10-90 and in Tuesday's Daily Digest.

The FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau wants comment by Dec. 5, replies Jan. 6, on how best to facilitate and improve dialogue and coordination between tribes and eligible telecom carriers to ensure successful broadband deployment and adoption on tribal lands, said a public notice on docket 10-90 and in Tuesday's Daily Digest.

The Department of Homeland Security should “broaden its existing efforts assisting state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) governments' responses” to ransomware attacks, the Massachusetts congressional delegation wrote Friday. They asked the agency to brief their offices on efforts to limit such attacks and “detail existing agency grants and programs available for SLTT governments to obtain help protecting themselves.” DHS didn’t comment.