FCC Eyes Partial MVPD Fee Ban, Ignores Objections for Proposed Robotext Rules

The MVPD fees draft NRPM asks if it would be the one enforcing a ban because DBS providers don't need state or local franchises. The item also seeks comment on whether local authorities have adequate resources to enforce the rules themselves.

The item spends roughly five pages arguing that the agency has legal authority to ban early-termination fees and require prorated refunds for service cancelations. Those fees and lack of prorated refunds are exactly the type of customer service concerns Congress wanted to address when it enacted the Cable Act's Section 632, which covers customer service requirement standards, the FCC concludes. It said neither counts as rate regulation, citing First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, California Court of Appeals for the First District and New Jersey Supreme Court precedent. The Media Bureau on Wednesday launched a docket, 23-405, in the proceeding.

The robotext draft order would require terminating mobile wireless carriers to block all texts from a particular number when the FCC notifies it of illegal texts from that number. The draft order would “codify” that the national do not call registry’s protections also apply to text messages, “encourage providers to make email-to-text, a major source of illegal texts, a service that consumers proactively opt into” and “close the lead generator loophole by making unequivocally clear that comparison shopping websites must get consumer consent one seller at a time, and thus prohibit abuse of consumer consent by such websites.”

A Further NPRM looks at additional options for blocking texts, “including requiring originating mobile wireless providers to block texts from a particular number when notified by the Commission of illegal texts from that number or risk all of their texts being blocked” and seeks comment “on the current state of text authentication.” Moreover, it asks about traceback rules for texts and seeks comment on “any other rules we could adopt to effectively protect consumers.”

“The rise of junk texts jeopardizes consumer trust in text messaging,” the draft robotext item says: “The increase of unwanted and illegal texts also frustrate[s] consumers, and scam texts can cause serious harm. Scam texts can contain links to phishing campaigns and load malware onto unsuspecting consumers’ phones, leading to fraud and other harms.” The FTC reports that text messaging scams cost consumers $86 million in 2020 and $326 million in 2022, the FCC notes.

The item appears to run counter to recent lobbying at the FCC, including by CTIA, which argues that rules targeting robocalls won’t work against robotexts (see 2309200067). Most recently, Responsible Enterprises Against Consumer Harassment warned against banning lead generation (see 2311200067).

Proposed data breach reporting requirements would expand the scope of breach notification rules to cover all personally identifiable information carriers and telecommunications relay services providers hold with respect to customers. The draft order proposes to “expand the definition of ‘breach’ to include inadvertent access, use, or disclosure of customer information, except in those cases where such information is inadvertently acquired … and such information is not used improperly or further disclosed.”

Carriers and TRS providers would be required to notify the FCC of breaches affecting 500 or more customers, or posing a risk of customer harm, “as soon as practicable, but no later than seven business days after reasonable determination of a breach.” Both would be required to file an annual summary of other breaches.

“The Commission’s breach notification rule provides an important protection against improper use or disclosure of customer data, helping to ensure that carriers are held accountable and providing customers with the tools to protect themselves in the event that their data is compromised,” the draft data breach order says: “However, in the 16 years since the Commission adopted its data breach reporting rule … data breaches have only grown in frequency and severity.” The FCC finds that telecom companies “may be particularly vulnerable to … attacks.” The draft notes that “T-Mobile experienced breaches of its customers’ data every year between 2018 and 2023, including a 2023 breach impacting 37 million customers.” It notes breaches affecting the other major wireless carriers, too.

Commissioners will also vote on an NPRM that tentatively concludes a 100% hearing-aid compatibility requirement is “achievable.” The draft NPRM proposes to require that a certain percentage of handset models be able to meet a Bluetooth requirement and seeks comment on how to implement it. “If the Commission determines to broaden the definition of HAC to include Bluetooth coupling technology, the Notice seeks comment on whether to incorporate a specific non-proprietary Bluetooth standard into the HAC rules or to allow market conditions to decide which Bluetooth technology is used for coupling handsets to hearing aids,” says a background sheet on the draft HAC notice: It “explores ways to reach the 100% compatibility benchmark, including proposing a 24-month transition period for handset manufacturers; a 30-month transition period for nationwide service providers; and a 42-month transition period for non-nationwide service providers.” On Tuesday the Wireless Bureau launched an HAC docket, 23-388, for comments on the proceeding.

The pole attachment dispute resolution process would be sped up, the FCC says in a draft order on the agenda. It says the order and declaratory ruling also would clarify that utilities may not charge a new attacher all the costs associated with a pole replacement if the pole already requires replacement. Also under consideration is a draft Further NPRM that would seek comment on additional action the FCC could take to facilitate pole attachment applications. The rural healthcare program would see updates to its rules regarding program eligibility and rate determinations if adopted. A draft order would conditionally approve eligibility for healthcare providers that expect to be eligible "in the near future," says a fact sheet. It would also eliminate the "standard urban distance" when determining urban rates, align the service provider identification number change deadline with the program's invoice deadline, and establish a deadline to submit invoices for "any undisbursed funding commitments that do not currently have an applicable invoice deadline."

A draft report and order on implementing the 2023 Low Power Protection Act (LPPA) would create a one-year window when certain low-power TV stations could apply to become primary status Class A stations. The window would open on the order’s effective date, according to the draft item. As the statute requires, the window would be limited to stations that broadcast a minimum of 18 hours a day, carry three hours per week of local programming and are located in markets of 95,000 households or fewer. If the population of a station’s market rises above 95,000 households, it would retain its Class A status; however, stations that relocate to markets above the threshold would lose the designation.

The draft order also rejects calls in the docket to divide markets using systems other than Nielsen’s designated market areas. There are no viable alternatives to Nielsen, the agency said, reiterating a point from previous proceedings (see 2211150062). “The lack of a compelling reason to select a different classification system instead of Nielsen weighs in favor of our decision to use Nielsen Local TV Report for purposes of implementing the LPPA,” the draft order says. There aren’t any plans to allow further LPTV stations to convert to Class A outside this window, the item says. The intent of Congress “was to establish the rights of a specific, already-existing group of LPTV stations, and that the public interest would not be served by the ongoing conversion of LPTV stations to Class A status,” the draft order says.