Comments are due Aug. 31, replies Sept. 14 on a Further NPRM approved by FCC commissioners 5-0 in July (see 2007160051) on implementing the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, says Monday's Federal Register.
Officials from DOD, the Transportation and Commerce departments and Office of the Director of National Intelligence met with FCC Wireless Bureau Associate Chief Charles Mathias and other commission staff “for a technical discussion of classified materials” about Ligado’s L-band plan, said NTIA Chief Counsel Kathy Smith in a filing posted Friday in docket 11-109. The FCC is considering petitions for reconsideration of its approval of the Ligado proposal and NTIA's request for a stay of the commission’s order (see 2005220055). Ligado opponents are continuing to lobby the FCC on the matter (see 2008060024). Other FCC participants in the Tuesday meeting included Office of Engineering and Technology Policy and Rules Division Chief Michael Ha, International Bureau Chief Engineer Robert Nelson, OET Senior Engineer Robert Pavlik and Deputy Associate General Counsel William Richardson. DOD officials included Deputy Chief Information Officer-Command Control and Communications Frederick Moorefield and Office of the Chief Information Officer Deputy Director-Spectrum Policy and Program Kenneth Turner. NTIA Office of Spectrum Management Associate Administrator Charles Cooper and OSM Spectrum Engineering and Analysis Division Chief Edward Crocella were among Commerce attendees. DOT participants included Director-Positioning, Navigation and Timing and Spectrum Management Karen Van Dyke. From ODNI: Strategic Capabilities Team Chief James Diffell.
FCC rules for the C-band auction had no substantial changes from the draft public notice, based on our side-by-side comparison. Commissioners approved the notice Thursday, with partial dissents by Democrats (see 2008060069). It was posted Friday. The auction starts Dec. 8. Officials also say it had remained unchanged.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed Friday a lower court’s dismissal of Lukas LaFuria lawyer Russell Lukas’ lawsuit against the FCC over a Freedom of Information Act request (see 2004030027). Lukas sued in 2019 after a FOIA request netted most of a Windstream filing with Universal Service Administrative Co., not a redacted exhibit. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled (in Pacer) in March in favor of FCC motions to dismiss. “The district court granted the FCC summary judgment on this claim, concluding that Lukas failed to overcome the presumption of good faith that attached to the FCC’s declaration concerning its invocation of” FOIA Exemption 4, the D.C. Circuit said in a summary ruling the FCC posted. “Lukas does not challenge this conclusion. He instead contends that the district court was required first to answer questions he posed: whether USAC is an agency for FOIA purposes and whether the records he sought were agency records. If they are, that leaves us with the district court’s unchallenged conclusion that Lukas failed to overcome the presumption of good faith. And if they are not, Lukas has pleaded himself out of court -- he would then not be entitled to seek these documents at all under FOIA.” The FCC and Lukas didn’t comment.
A lower court "got it just right" in its interpretation of federal statute allowing the federal judiciary to charge reasonable Pacer fees, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel ordered Thursday, rejecting interlocutory cross-appeals by plaintiff-appellants National Veterans Legal Services Program, National Consumer Law Center and Alliance for Justice and by DOJ. The ruling (docket 19-1081) by Judges Todd Hughes, Alan Lourie and Raymond Clevenger, penned by Hughes, rejected the government's argument for vacating the lower court's summary judgment order because of a lack of jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act. And it rejected both sides' read of statutory limits on Pacer fees and concurred with the lower court interpretation that the Pacer fees are limited to the amount needed to cover expenses incurred in services providing public access to federal court electronic docketing information. It remanded the case to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants didn't comment. Oral argument was in February (see 2002030021).
Oral argument in the consolidated challenges to the FCC's C-band order (see 2005050047) will be Oct. 28 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, according to a clerk's order Thursday (docket 20-1142, in Pacer).
FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks sent letters to AT&T and Verizon asking how they collect and make money off sensitive consumer data “generated for advertising placement purposes,” said a Wednesday news release. Starks asked about the two companies’ “participation in real-time bidding exchanges for mobile advertising, including through the advertising technology companies they have acquired in recent years,” the release said: “The letters also request details on each provider’s policies and procedures to prohibit or minimize tracking of Americans to protests, including the Black Lives Matter protests, and other sensitive locations, including places of worship and medical providers.” AT&T is "reviewing the letter and will respond appropriately," a spokesperson emailed. Verizon didn’t comment.
The FCC’s citizens broadband radio service auction (see 2008030064) hit $1.8 billion Wednesday after 25 rounds. That translates to 9 cents MHz/POP nationwide.
The FCC unanimously approved orders eliminating dated rules for telephone relay services and broadcast antenna siting, before Thursday's commission meeting, said orders and a deletion notice Wednesday. Early approval for the items -- considered noncontroversial -- was expected (see 2008040063). The TRS order eliminates requirements on separate long-distance plans -- no longer commonly used by the phone industry -- and ends a requirement that state TRS certifications be published in the Federal Register. The broadcast antenna siting order eliminated decades-old, little-used rules requiring stations share unique antenna locations.
DOJ urged a federal court to stop California from enforcing its net neutrality law to “avoid ongoing, irreparable harm to the United States and its interests.” DOJ filed an amended complaint and motion (both in Pacer) for preliminary injunction Wednesday in resumed litigation at the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of California (see 2008030043). The department argued the state law is preempted under the Constitution’s supremacy clause and fails a conflict preemption test. “California has imposed stringent regulation on interstate broadband communications in a way that directly contradicts" the FCC's "validly adopted regulatory scheme" and the Communications Act principle “that the Federal Government -- not individual States -- has exclusive regulatory authority over interstate communications," it said in case 2:18-cv-02660. California is trying to overwrite FCC policy for the nation, the department argued. ISPs “cannot apply two separate and conflicting legal frameworks to Internet communications -- one for California and one for everywhere else. This impossibility means that California’s rules effectively are the only ones that matter.” ISP associations that sued California over the same law filed their own motion and amended complaint (in Pacer) Wednesday. The California law "is preempted under principles of field, express, and conflict preemption," said ACA Connects, CTIA, NCTA and USTelecom, saying their members "would be irreparably harmed if subjected to that unconstitutional law during the pendency of this litigation." A California Justice Department spokesperson said, "We are reviewing the complaint and look forward to defending California’s state net neutrality protections."