A blue wave election could carry down ballot to state utility commission elections, while expected Democratic gains in gubernatorial elections affect other states that appoint commissioners, election analysts said. A Democratic surge might be tempered by commission elections happening mostly in strongly red states with many incumbents running, said David Beaudoin, Ballotpedia project lead-marquee team. Government transparency is an election issue in nearly half of the 10 states electing utility commissioners in November, and Democratic candidates in three states' races supported net neutrality, found our survey of commissioners’ campaign websites.

Entertainment lawyer Robert Schwartz, ex-Irell & Manella, joins Quinn Emanuel as partner ... O’Melveny announces Hassen Sayeed, ex-Paul Hastings, as partner-intellectual property and technology ... Jeffer Mangels names Rex Hwang, ex-Glaser Weil, as partner-patent, trademark and copyright ... Wilkinson Barker taps from Comcast Michael Nelson as senior adviser.

Entertainment lawyer Robert Schwartz, ex-Irell & Manella, joins Quinn Emanuel as partner ... O’Melveny announces Hassen Sayeed, ex-Paul Hastings, as partner-intellectual property and technology ... Jeffer Mangels names Rex Hwang, ex-Glaser Weil, as partner-patent, trademark and copyright ... Wilkinson Barker taps from Comcast Michael Nelson as senior adviser.

Senate Indian Affairs Committee members focused on what they see as deficiencies in FCC practices for determining broadband coverage on tribal lands, during a Wednesday hearing. The hearing examined a September GAO report that said the FCC overstates broadband availability on tribal lands because it considers service available in a census block if a provider can serve at least one location (see 1809100041). A Thursday Senate Commerce Committee hearing on progress in rural broadband deployments is likely to also touch on tribal governments' concerns. But the panel will largely be an overview of the chamber's work in this Congress on encouraging broadband projects in rural areas and is likely to frame Senate Commerce's approach to that issue in 2019, lawmakers and lobbyists told us.

Senate Indian Affairs Committee members focused on what they see as deficiencies in FCC practices for determining broadband coverage on tribal lands, during a Wednesday hearing. The hearing examined a September GAO report that said the FCC overstates broadband availability on tribal lands because it considers service available in a census block if a provider can serve at least one location (see 1809100041). A Thursday Senate Commerce Committee hearing on progress in rural broadband deployments is likely to also touch on tribal governments' concerns. But the panel will largely be an overview of the chamber's work in this Congress on encouraging broadband projects in rural areas and is likely to frame Senate Commerce's approach to that issue in 2019, lawmakers and lobbyists told us.

A 3.5 GHz draft spearheaded by Commissioner Mike O'Rielly would mandate the FCC auction priority access licenses (PALs) on a countywide rather than census-tract basis. The agency would increase license terms of the citizens broadband radio service PALs to 10 years with an expectation of renewal and take other steps designed to make an eventual PAL auction a success. The FCC Tuesday posted draft items for the Oct. 23 commissioners’ meeting (see 1810010027) to address two other wireless proceedings, revise rural telco and some price-cap business data service (BDS) regulation and "modernize" cable rate regulations and broadcast filing requirements.

Chairman Ajit Pai said Monday the FCC will consider rules at the Oct. 23 commissioners' meeting allowing Wi-Fi in the 6 GHz band and revising rules for the 3.5 GHz citizens broadband radio service band. Those were expected (see 1808310026). The FCC would post the draft items Tuesday, three weeks before the meeting. Also on tap is a draft order to update model-based support for rural telcos, media modernization on cable rate regulation and broadcast filing requirements and items on private land mobile radio (PLMR) services and enforcement.

State attorneys general, business interests and antitrust scholars and experts are supporting AT&T in DOJ's challenge of the AT&T/Time Warner deal. DOJ's approach to vertical mergers, if accepted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, would run against longstanding antitrust principles, according to an amicus brief (in Pacer, docket 18-5214) filed Thursday with appellate court by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, the U.S. Black Chambers and the Latino Coalition. They said the vague standard proposed by Justice and some of its amici supporters "would cloud the business community's ability to ascertain whether vertical mergers are lawful." And they said the appellate court should give clear guidance for other courts and businesses by affirming vertical combinations are lawful unless the government can at least show the deal would let the combined company deny rivals access to essential inputs or a substantial share of potential customers. That no state joined DOJ in challenging AT&T/TW is significant, and validated by the lower court decision letting the deal go through, the states of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin said in an amicus brief (in Pacer) Wednesday. That U.S. District Court decision "is entitled to substantial deference," the states said. They said states didn't back Justice because of "notable features" in AT&T/TW, including it generating millions of dollars of consumer benefits and AT&T's arbitration procedure being similar to the one Comcast agreed to in its NBCUniversal deal. In a separate brief (in Pacer), 37 economists, antitrust scholars and former government antitrust officials said vertical mergers inherently contain efficiencies and those were properly considered when the lower court evaluated effects of AT&T/TW. They also said the lower court gave proper weight to the DOJ's bargaining model, and the court's skepticism of it "was appropriate in light of the facts." They said the District Court ruling should stand since there's no proof it erred in finding the government hadn't shown the transaction was likely to hurt competition or consumers. Signatories to the antitrust scholar brief include George Mason University Law & Economics Center Director Henry Butler, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Economists Chairman Barry Harris, University of Chicago law and economics Professor Emeritus William Landes and University of Pennsylvania law professor Christopher Yoo. DOJ didn't comment Thursday.

State attorneys general, business interests and antitrust scholars and experts are supporting AT&T in DOJ's challenge of the AT&T/Time Warner deal. DOJ's approach to vertical mergers, if accepted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, would run against longstanding antitrust principles, according to an amicus brief (in Pacer, docket 18-5214) filed Thursday with appellate court by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, the U.S. Black Chambers and the Latino Coalition. They said the vague standard proposed by Justice and some of its amici supporters "would cloud the business community's ability to ascertain whether vertical mergers are lawful." And they said the appellate court should give clear guidance for other courts and businesses by affirming vertical combinations are lawful unless the government can at least show the deal would let the combined company deny rivals access to essential inputs or a substantial share of potential customers. That no state joined DOJ in challenging AT&T/TW is significant, and validated by the lower court decision letting the deal go through, the states of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin said in an amicus brief (in Pacer) Wednesday. That U.S. District Court decision "is entitled to substantial deference," the states said. They said states didn't back Justice because of "notable features" in AT&T/TW, including it generating millions of dollars of consumer benefits and AT&T's arbitration procedure being similar to the one Comcast agreed to in its NBCUniversal deal. In a separate brief (in Pacer), 37 economists, antitrust scholars and former government antitrust officials said vertical mergers inherently contain efficiencies and those were properly considered when the lower court evaluated effects of AT&T/TW. They also said the lower court gave proper weight to the DOJ's bargaining model, and the court's skepticism of it "was appropriate in light of the facts." They said the District Court ruling should stand since there's no proof it erred in finding the government hadn't shown the transaction was likely to hurt competition or consumers. Signatories to the antitrust scholar brief include George Mason University Law & Economics Center Director Henry Butler, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Economists Chairman Barry Harris, University of Chicago law and economics Professor Emeritus William Landes and University of Pennsylvania law professor Christopher Yoo. DOJ didn't comment Thursday.

Several more Colorado communities plan ballot questions in November on broadband projects. Many counties and municipalities cleared such ballot votes in recent elections to opt out of a 2005 state restriction on municipal broadband known as Senate Bill 152. Reversing that law may no longer be necessary given success of opt-out votes, and such votes combined with new state funding for broadband could lead to public-private partnerships in the state, local officials said in interviews. CenturyLink said citizens should support partnerships.